“In the earlier Jesuit ‘Relations’ the natives are said to have devoted many days to ceremonies, incantations, etc.,—‘Works of the Devil.’ But there is no clear and tangible reference, in all of the voluminous writings of early explorers, to the more complicated gorgets, to the forms more elaborate than the merely pendant shape. The suggestion forces itself that these objects were made and used before the Discovery by Columbus.”
CHAPTER XXII
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
THE SPUD-SHAPED IMPLEMENT
Contrary to many of the preceding classes of ancient artifacts, we have two excellent modern authorities on the stone spud-shaped implement. To begin with, permit me to register a protest against the word “spud”—which is suggestive of a heavy iron implement in the hands of a laborer. It is to be supposed that the word “spud” is retained because no one has proposed a good substitute.
In the Wisconsin Archeologist[[41]] Mr. Charles E. Brown published a paper describing the spud. This could in no wise be improved upon, and with the omission of some local specimens he has cited, I quote most of his article. His figure numbers have been changed to suit my figures, and a few paragraphs at the end are not included:
“The class, or more properly, classes of stone implements of which a consideration is attempted in the following pages, have been variously referred to in our archæological literature as spuds, hoe, spade and paddle-shaped implements and spade ceremonials and by other names equally indefinite and undesirable, and the only explanation which can be offered for the adoption of the present title is, that though not entirely satisfactory, it has nevertheless the advantage of being the one by which these varied, peculiar, and interesting objects are now most familiarly known to the archæologists and collectors of our own state and of the country at large.
“It is apparent that the term ‘spud,’ as at present employed, is being used to define and include within its scope at least two classes of stone implements, which, though they resemble each other in a general way, were, if we may judge by the difference in condition, workmanship, and general adaptability, intended for and undoubtedly served quite distinct purposes.
“Save that presented by Fowke, which embraces only such forms as are represented in the United States National Museum and does not include the Western form, no regular classification of these implements appears to have been attempted. In a like manner, nearly all of the published descriptions of various authors relate only to Southern and Southeastern forms and but little or no effort appears to have been made to assemble the data or compare them with others.
“Such being the case, a re-classification or re-consideration of all of the known types, is both timely and necessary.
