“The third type would appear to be the grooved hammer, of the use and distribution of which less is known. This type was evidently intended for hafting, which would interfere with its use as a rubber.
Fig. 205. (S. 1–2.) University of Vermont collection. This illustrates several hammer-stones and rude pestles, for the hammer is closely related to the pestle.
“All three types vary greatly in dimensions, but as a rule the two first are of a size suitable for hand use, not only for hammering but also for rubbing.
Fig. 206. (S. 1–4.) Hand-hammers. W. A. Holmes’s collection, Chicago, Illinois. It seems that the hardness of the stone was a prominent factor in the time consumed in making an implement. Mr. McGuire once used a jasper hammer-stone during the total of forty hours’ work, and yet the surface of the stone showed slight wear. His opinion is that the hammer of quartzite—hard quartzite, for there are soft varieties of that stone—is hard enough to fashion a number of implements.
“It is intended to discuss here the hammer used in stone pecking as distinguished from the chipping hammer. By the latter a slower and more deliberate blow would be given, and consequently its shape would not be material.
“That nuts and bones could be cracked and paint and grain could be ground with hammers is admitted, but it is contended that no reasonable amount of such work would cause the implements to present the appearance they do if only so used. Moreover, any unshaped stone would have answered these purposes as well as a finished implement; hence, is it reasonable to suppose that savage man would trouble himself to fashion useless objects?
Fig. 207. (S. slightly less than 1–2.) Two hammer-stones. Collection of C. Albee, Red Rock, Montana.