The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2

by Warren K. Moorehead

CHAPTER II
PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

There are something like three hundred museums or institutions in the United States that contain archæological collections. These exhibits range from more than a million objects, as in the case of the Smithsonian Institution, or Field Museum of Chicago, or the American Museum of Natural History, to private collections of one to ten thousand specimens each. I have roughly estimated the number of prehistoric artifacts available for study, or those of aboriginal manufacture that show little influence of European culture, at about eight million objects.

Mr. Paul M. Rea, curator of the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum and secretary of the American Museums Association, reports to me by letter that seventy-eight museums have 991,974 specimens by count. This total does not include the larger museums, and forty-seven smaller ones have not reported. Mr. Rea states: “The following museums of importance have either not returned information or have failed to give the extent of their collections in figures: American Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Peabody Museum (Cambridge), Peabody Museum (New Haven), University of Toronto, Canada.”

I suppose that these six institutions contain a total of at least four million prehistoric, or early historic Indian objects. Most of these exhibits are of objects in use long before Columbus discovered America, although many are in ethnological collections comprised of things fifty or a hundred years old. How many specimens are in the hands of private collectors of the United States no man may know.

Reference to the Bibliography, presented in the second volume (just before the Index) of this publication, will convince the reader that much of our archæological material has been described by various writers. But there is difference between description and classification. Save Professor W. H. Holmes’s papers upon pottery, Dr. Thomas Wilson’s work on the classification of knives, spear-points, and arrow-heads, Mr. Gerard Fowke’s published papers along the same lines, Mr. Charles E. Brown’s papers upon the so-called “spud,” and copper, Mr. J. D. McGuire’s “Pipes and Smoking Customs,” and Cushing’s contributions (see Bibliography), everything is description and not classification. Or, if classifications are attempted, they relate to certain types, and are brief. The “Handbook of American Indians” describes and illustrates artifacts, but does not classify.

Fig. 6. See Fig. 7 for description.

Sixteen years ago, in the Archæologist (May, 1894, page 156), I called attention to the need in this country of an archæological nomenclature and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but am of the opinion that the matter had been suggested in one of my articles previous to the date mentioned. However, be that as it may, no one paid attention to the suggestion, which was afterwards repeated in two or three articles over my signature. About five years ago, after several attempts at such a classification, I had a long conference with Dr. Charles Peabody, and presently he took up the matter with the American Anthropological Association, and a committee was formed consisting of Professor John H. Wright, Mr. J. D. McGuire, Dr. F. W. Hodge, Dr. C. Peabody, and myself, with Dr. Peabody as chairman. We worked long and assiduously upon this classification. Dr. Peabody and myself grouped and regrouped most of the available specimens in the Andover collection before we were satisfied with the results of our labors. Then we submitted our scheme to the other members of the Committee. After more than a year of labor the Committee presented a preliminary classification which was accepted by the members of the Anthropological Association at the Baltimore meeting, December, 1908. This classification in its complete form will be found on pages [23] to 30.

Fig. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6, and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development.