The above is a truism that every student of prehistoric times should realize, and at the risk of wearying my readers I repeat—and I trust these are not vain repetitions—that we must realize what the term stone age conveys. Nothing that we have in use to-day was known to stone-age man—even so common a thing as fire is confined and changed to suit our will.
Various effigies, polished problematical forms, bright copper, shell or mica, pottery, textile fabrics, and forms in wood—these were the extent of his art. He knew no horizon beyond the stone effigy, the ornamented gorget, etc. A colored stone, piece of copper, or anything in stone unusual attracted his eye. I believe that these appeared to him different from ordinary stones. For the same reason he must have considered hematite as more or less of a mystery. It is very hard to work, and because of its heaviness and the difficulty of reduction to desired shape, one may surmise it appealed to him as a “mystery stone.”
It is clear, from the amount of hematite and copper in public and private collections, that both were highly prized. That hematite was far harder to work than common stone did not deter the ancient man from digging, grinding, cutting, and polishing the steel gray hematites (as hard as any stone) to the desired size. Truly he worked “at his task with a resolute will, over and over again.” I should like to propose to any person who has lightly waved aside the skill or patience of the ancient worker, that that person select a chunk of the hard gray iron ore (not the soft kind) and set to work with a stone hammer and some flint flakes and a block of sandstone to make a hematite plummet. A week’s labor on the specimen will increase the respect of the sceptic for the stone-age artist.
We are just beginning to appreciate the point of view of the stone-age man. At present our knowledge is imperfect. Particularly, do I feel this personally and realize the responsibility resting on one’s shoulders when one attempts to describe and classify, in a large sense, the stone implements, etc., of ancient times. Even if one does one’s best, such a work must, for the present at least, remain a pioneer undertaking, and those who come afterwards will make of the faintly marked pioneer trail a broad and substantial highway along which others may travel and find, I trust, guide-posts unnecessary.
When we realize the point of view, the mind, and the concept of the stone-age man fully, we shall, quite likely, understand the true import of the strange problematical polished stones so common in the Mississippi Valley. These stand for more than mere ornaments. The very name “ceremonial,” which was afterwards changed by that able archæologist Professor Holmes to problematical, is a confession of ignorance. These problematical forms are found in Wisconsin, West Virginia, New England, Louisiana, Ohio, and Arkansas, and although varying through a multitude of shapes, yet apparently convey substantially the same idea. To the people who lived entirely in the stone-age times, these must have represented certain “sacred mysteries,” to white men and later Indians entirely unknown. The same is true of the abnormally large axes in copper or in stone, of the large chipped implements in Tennessee and on the Pacific Coast. None of these things could have served a real purpose. One cannot strike or cut with the “ceremonial swords” shown in Fig. 161, neither can the axe illustrated in Fig. 263 A be made use of for cutting. Such things as these illustrate the height or perfection of stone-age art, and we must seek their explanation and purposes along other lines than those suggested by common every-day usage, to which the smaller and more easily made objects were put.
FIELD STUDY NEEDED
Before concluding my remarks on the stone age in North America, I would call attention to the necessity of more and careful field work, and an understanding of the difference between various sites rather than continued museum work, or the reading of reports and publications. That man who considers arts and crafts of tribes to have been pretty much the same in America is very ignorant concerning real archæology. It has been the purpose of this volume to emphasize differences in the arts and crafts among prehistoric tribes. Archæology is like any other comprehensive subject; it requires study, discriminating care, and enthusiasm. One should further add, it requires inspiration. A man who does not love to hunt specimens for the sake of hunting them has not his heart in the work.
We have had many mounds examined, plans have been drawn, the skeletons carefully set down as so many feet from each other. A report is published in regard to that mound, and instead of intelligent observations on the meaning of the evidence ascertained, there is usually nothing but a dry and statistical statement of the distances of the skeletons from a given point. Of course it is necessary to make a survey of mounds and other remains. And it is equally important to have reports, but I do not think that it is necessary to publish field notes—which are no more than survey notes—and call them a report. Many of the reports published in recent years have missed the essential thing in American archæology. They have emphasized the mathematical features of our explorations. They are as if one published tabulated census reports, but offered no explanations as to what the number and assembling of the people in the United States meant. If no conclusions of value are to be drawn from the exploration of a given site, then it seems to me that wealthy people who send out expeditions are wasting their money, and the scientists their time. We are training young men in our universities and museums to measure mounds and village-sites very carefully. All this is eminent and proper, but we are losing sight of the meaning of those same village-sites and mounds and their relation to others and to prehistoric culture in general.
The explorer Stanley made a statement in his work “Darkest Africa,” which I have never forgotten. The scientist Emin Bey was much interested in examining a human skull and measuring it very carefully and setting down the measurements. Stanley was not interested in the skull. He wished to know something regarding the life of the man to whom it once belonged. If some of our students would, for a few years, lay aside cameras, ground-plans, tape-lines, and get down to real field work, much more progress would ensue. The study of sites, collections, types, and local conditions should be placed first, it seems to me.
In Science, April 15, 1910, there appeared an open letter written by Professor B. C. Gruenberg of De Witt Clinton School, New York, along the very lines I have indicated. I quote a paragraph:—