Fig. 306. (S. 1–2.) The straight bar-pendant; then one with slightly concave sides. At the top, a broken rectangular form with concave sides. Andover collection.
Fig. 307. The upper ones, full size. The two to the left, 1–3 size. The two to the right, 3–5 size. Andover collection. These broken and re-worked forms are described elsewhere in this chapter.
Fig. 308. (S. 4–5.) Found in a mound at Moundville, Alabama, on the Black Warrior River, by Clarence B. Moore. Material: dark mica schist. There are tablets found in the South and Southwest which are different from the forms occurring in the Ohio Valley. This tablet lay near a skeleton. Mr. Moore states that it was covered with decayed wood and that there were traces of pigment. Tablets somewhat similar to this are found in the Pueblo ruins in southern Arizona. But in these the centre is depressed, and it appears as if they were used as palettes on which was placed paint, according to the theory of Frank Hamilton Gushing. Such tablets do not properly belong in a class of objects for suspension, but I have included two or three of them here.
In presenting deductions in this volume on problematical forms I shall not be so presumptuous as to claim to have arrived at a solution of the origin and uses of this class of objects. It is quite certain that a great deal that I have to say will be improved upon by archæologists of a generation hence. But I want to offer some suggestions as to this strange class of implements. Since nobody appears fully to understand them, there can be no harm in pointing out certain features common to this or that type of problematical forms. The deductions are based on a study of these objects and the conditions under which they are found, and I beg the critical archæologist, who may not concur in my deductions, to offer suggestions and determinations of his own as to their classification and use.
Fig. 309. (S. 1–1.) Material: dark, hard slate. A typical perforated ornament on which some marks or lines have been cut. Collection of Dauphin County Historical Society, Pennsylvania.
Before placing these objects into their various classes, we should consider the essential points at issue. These objects are called problematical forms, or ceremonials, or charms, or banner-stones, or any one of fifty other names. Such names both indicate ignorance of the purpose prehistoric man had in mind, and also emphasize the need of a complete archæological nomenclature which will enable us to do away with such unscientific and amateurish terms. The difficulty in the way of superseding these is, that after thirty or more years of use some of these terms have become fixed. The general designation—problematical forms—was first applied to them by Professor W. H. Holmes.