The more one studies these objects the firmer becomes the conviction that the term gorget, as applied to some of them as a class, is misleading or even more than misleading. That most of them are gorgets one may not deny. That a lesser number are not gorgets we are free to affirm; that the bulk of them one cannot positively assign to this purpose or that purpose is quite probable.
The study indicated in the description of these various specimens is based on the collections in the Peabody Museum, the Phillips Academy Museum, and previous studies on the same types in the joint museums of the State University and Historical Society of Columbus, together with extensive reading. As to the examination of the individual specimens, a number show wearing in such a manner as to preclude the idea of suspension as gorgets, as this term is understood. Now the term gorget indicates an ornament of one type or another suspended about the neck or upon the chest. The wearing in such place as has been noted could only have resulted from the tying of these specimens, or the fastening of them with two, three, or even four strings, each stretched to a tension so as to hold the object firmly. The wearing would naturally occur at points very different from those which would be in evidence if the object was simply suspended by means of one string. Again, the form, in instances, precludes the idea of the gorget.
Certain forms, from their positions on skeletons in burial-places or by means of reliable evidence on the part of travelers, one can safely call ornamental gorgets.
I found more of them on prehistoric sites than on Shawano or Delaware sites in the Ohio Valley. From the surface of South Fort at Fort Ancient, Warren County, Ohio, I collected one rectangular gorget with straight sides and two perforations; one oval, with two perforations, one concave—two perforations; one rectangular pendant, straight sides, one perforation.
In graves within the South Fort, I found two pendant-shaped gorgets among decayed human bones. There was one perforation near the end of each gorget.
In the Coiner mound, three miles east of Frankfort, Ohio, a diamond-shaped gorget was found under the head of a skeleton.
Three miles down the Scioto River from Chillicothe, in the Redman mound, were found two gorgets. One with expanded centre, two perforations, with skeleton. One broad, with concave sides, two perforations, and under head of skeleton. Both these were of slate.
With skeleton no. 278, in the Hopewell group (explored, 1891), lay a gorget of cannel coal.
The Storey mound, west of Chillicothe, sheds some light upon the gorget class. On the right wrist of a skeleton was found a fine expanded centre gorget of ribbon slate, with two perforations. On the left wrist, one of the same kind, but not perforated. Also at the left wrist, a concave one with unusually sharp edges.
In the Roberts mound, Perry County, Ohio, was found a gorget injured by fire. It was thick, expanded centre, with two perforations, and lay amid the remains of a cremated skeleton.