The Project Gutenberg eBook of North American Stone Implements

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: North American Stone Implements

Author: Charles Rau

Release date: May 13, 2012 [eBook #39686]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by K Nordquist, JoAnn Greenwood, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NORTH AMERICAN STONE IMPLEMENTS ***

NORTH AMERICAN STONE IMPLEMENTS.

BY

CHARLES RAU.

REPRINTED FROM THE REPORT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FOR 1872.

WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1873.

NORTH AMERICAN STONE IMPLEMENTS.

By Charles Rau.

The division of the European stone age into a period of chipped stone, and a succeeding one of ground or polished stone, or, into the palaeolithic and neolithic periods, seems to be fully borne out by facts, and is likely to remain an uncontroverted basis for future investigation in Europe. In North America chipped as well as ground implements are abundant; yet they occur promiscuously, and thus far cannot be referred respectively to certain epochs in the development of the aborigines of the country. Archæological investigation in North America, however, is but of recent date, and a careful examination of our caves and drift-beds possibly may lead to results similar to those obtained in Europe. When in the latter part of the world man lived contemporaneously with the now extinct large pachydermatous and carnivorous animals, he used unground flint tools of rude workmanship, which were superseded in the later stages of the European stone age, comprising the neolithic period, by more finished articles of flint and other stone, many of which were brought into final shape by the processes of grinding and polishing. In North America stone implements likewise have been found associated with the osseous remains of extinct animals; yet these implements, it appears, differed in no wise from those in use among the aborigines at the period of their first intercourse with the whites.

In the year 1839, the late Dr. Albert C. Koch discovered in the bottom of the Bourbeuse River, in Gasconade County, Missouri, the remains of a Mastodon giganteus under very peculiar circumstances. The greater portion of the bones appeared more or less burned, and there was sufficient evidence that the fire had been kindled by human agency, and with the design of killing the huge creature, which had been found mired in the mud, and in an entirely helpless condition. The animal's fore and hind legs, untouched by the fire, were in a perpendicular position, with the toes attached to the feet, showing that the ground in which the animal had sunk, now a grayish-colored clay, was in a plastic condition when the occurrence took place. Those portions of the skeleton, however, which had been exposed above the surface of the clay, were partially consumed by the fire, and a layer of wood-ashes and charred bones, varying in thickness from two to six inches, indicated that the burning had been continued for some length of time. The fire appeared to have been most destructive around the head of the animal. Mingled with the ashes and bones was a large number of broken pieces of rock, which evidently had been carried to the spot from the bank of the Bourbeuse River to be hurled at the animal. But the burning and hurling of stones, it seems, did not satisfy the assailants of the mastodon; for Dr. Koch found among the ashes, bones, and rocks several stone arrow-heads, a spear-head, and some stone axes, which were taken out in the presence of a number of witnesses, consisting of the people of the neighborhood, who had been attracted by the novelty of the excavation. The layer of ashes and bones was covered by strata of alluvial deposits, consisting of clay, sand, and soil, from eight to nine feet thick, which form the bottom of the Bourbeuse River in general.

About one year after this excavation, Dr. Koch found at another place, in Benton County, Missouri, in the bottom of the Pomme de Terre River, about ten miles above its junction with the Osage, several stone arrow-heads mingled with the bones of a nearly entire skeleton of the Missourium. The two arrow-heads found with the bones "were in such a position as to furnish evidence still more conclusive, perhaps, than in the other case, of their being of equal, if not older date, than the bones themselves; for, besides that they were found in a layer of vegetable mold which was covered by twenty feet in thickness of alternate layers of sand, clay, and gravel, one of the arrow-heads lay underneath the thigh-bone of the skeleton, the bone actually resting in contact upon it, so that it could not have been brought thither after the deposit of the bone; a fact which I was careful thoroughly to investigate."[1]

Fig. 1. Fig. 1.

It affords me particular satisfaction to present in Fig. 1 a full-size drawing of the last-named arrow-head, which is still in the possession of Mrs. Elizabeth Koch, of Saint Louis, the widow of the discoverer. The drawing was made after a photograph, for which I am indebted to Mrs. Koch. It will be noticed that the point, one of the barbs, and a corner of the stem of this arrow-head—if it really was an arrow-head, and not the armature of a javelin or spear—are broken off; but there remains enough of it to make out its original shape, which is exactly that of similar weapons used by the aborigines in historical times. The specimen in question, which, as I presume, was found by Dr. Koch in its present mutilated shape, consists of a light-brown, somewhat mottled flint.[2]

In referring to these discoveries of Dr. Koch, and some other indications of the high antiquity of man in America, Sir John Lubbock concludes that "there does not as yet appear to be any satisfactory proof that man co-existed in America with the Mammoth and Mastodon."[3] Yet, it may be expected, almost with certainty, that the results of future investigations in North America will fully corroborate Dr. Koch's discoveries, and vindicate the truthfulness of his statements. Indeed, some facts have come to light during the late geological survey of Illinois, which confirm, in a general way, the conclusions arrived at by the above-named explorer. According to this survey, the blue clays at the base of the drift contain fragments of wood and trunks of trees, but no fossil remains of animals; but the brown clays above, underlying the Loess, contain remains of the Mammoth, the Mastodon, and the Peccary; and bones of the Mastodon were found in a bed of "local drift," near Alton, underlying the Loess in situ above, and also in the same horizon, stone axes and flint spear-heads, indicating the co-existence of the human race with the extinct mammalia of the Quaternary period.[4]

It must not be overlooked that both Dr. Koch and the Illinois survey mention flint arrow and spear-heads as well as stone axes as being associated, directly or indirectly, with the remains of extinct animals. These stone axes undoubtedly were ground implements; for, had they differed in any way from the ordinary Indian manufactures of the same class, the fact certainly would have been noticed by the observers. Thus far, then, we are not entitled to speak of a North American palaeolithic and neolithic period. In the new world, therefore, the human contemporary of the Mastodon and the Mammoth, it would seem, was more advanced in the manufacture of stone weapons than his savage brother of the European drift period, a circumstance which favors the view that the extinct large mammalia ceased to exist at a later epoch in America than in Europe. The remarks of Lieutenant-Colonel C. H. Smith on this point are of interest. "Over a considerable part of the eastern side of the great (American) mountain ridge," he says, "more particularly where ancient lakes have been converted into morasses, or have been filled by alluvials, organic remains of above thirty species of mammals, of the same orders and genera, in some cases of the same species, (as in Europe,) have been discovered, demonstrating their existence in a contemporary era with those of the old continent, and under similar circumstances. But their period of duration in the new world may have been prolonged to dates of a subsequent time, since the Pachyderms of the United States, as well as those of the Pampas of Brazil, are much more perfect; and, in many cases, possess characters ascribed to bones in a recent state. Alligators and crocodiles, moreover, continue to exist in latitudes where they endure a winter state of torpidity beneath ice, as an evidence that the great Saurians in that region have not yet entirely worked out their mission; whereas, on the old continent they had ceased to exist in high latitudes long before the extinction of the great Ungulata."[5]

Flint implements of the European "drift type," however, are by no means scarce in North America, although they cannot (thus far) be referred to any particular period, but must be classed with the other chipped and ground implements in use among the North American aborigines during historical times.

Fig. 2. Fig. 2.

In the first place I will mention certain leaf-shaped flint implements which have been found in mounds and on the surface, as well as in deposits below it. They are comparatively thin, of regular outline, and exhibit well-chipped edges all around the circumferences. On the whole, they are among the best North American flint articles which have fallen under my notice. The specimens found by Messrs. Squier and Davis in a mound of the inclosure called Mound City, on the Scioto River, some miles north of Chillicothe, Ohio, belong to this class. Most of them were broken, but a few were found entire, one of which is represented in half-size by Fig. 100 on page 211 of the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley." This specimen measures four inches in length and about three inches across the broad rounded end. I have a still larger one, consisting of a reddish mottled flint, which was found on the surface in Jefferson County, Missouri. The annexed full-size drawing, Fig. 2, shows its outline. The edge on the right side is a little damaged by subsequent fractures, but for the sake of greater distinctness I have represented it as perfect. The finest leaf-shaped implements which I have had occasion to examine, are in the possession of Mr. M. Cowing, of Seneca Falls, New York. The owner told me he had more than a hundred of them, which were all derived from a locality in the State of New York, where they were accidentally discovered, forming a deposit under the surface. Mr. Cowing, who is constantly engaged in collecting and buying up Indian relics, refused to give me any information concerning the place and precise character of the deposit, basing his refusal on the ground that a few of these implements were still in the hands of individuals in the neighborhood, and that he would reveal nothing in relation to the deposit until he had obtained every specimen originally belonging to it. I am, therefore, unable to give any particulars, and must confine myself to the statement that the specimens shown to me present in general the outline of the original of Fig. 2, though they are a little smaller; and that they are thin, sharp-edged, and exquisitely wrought, and consist of a beautiful, variously-colored flint, which bears some resemblance to chalcedony.

Concerning the use or uses of North American leaf-shaped articles, I am hardly prepared to give a definite opinion, though I think it probable that they served for purposes of cutting. They were certainly not intended for spear-heads, their shape being ill-adapted for that end; nor do I think that they were used as scrapers, as other more massive implements of a kindred character probably were, of which I shall speak hereafter.

The aborigines were in the habit of burying articles of flint in the ground, and such deposits, sometimes quite large, have been discovered in various parts of the United States. These deposits consist of articles representing various types, among which I will mention the leaf-shaped implements in the possession of Mr. Cowing; the agricultural tools found at East Saint Louis, Illinois, of which I have given an account in the Smithsonian report for 1868; and the rude flint articles of an elongated oval shape, which were found about 1860 on the bank of the Mississippi, between Carondelet and Saint Louis, Missouri, and doubtless belonged to a deposit. I have described them in the above-named Smithsonian report, (p. 405,) and have also given there a drawing of one of the specimens in my possession. This drawing has been reproduced by Mr. E. T. Stevens, on page 441 of his valuable work entitled "Flint Chips," (London, 1870,) with remarks tending to show that the specimen does not represent an unfinished implement, as I am inclined to believe, but a complete one. I must admit that my drawing is not a very good one. It gives the object a more definite character than it really possesses, the chipping appearing in the representation far less superficial than it is in the original, which, indeed, has such a shape that it could easily be reduced to a smaller size by blows aimed at its circumference. I have myself scaled off large flat flakes from similarly-shaped pieces of flint, using a small iron hammer and directing my blows against the edge, and have thus become convinced that the further working of objects like that in question could offer no serious difficulties to a practised flint-chipper. My collection, moreover, contains several smaller flint objects of similar shape, which are undoubtedly the rudiments of arrow and spear-heads, and I may add that I obtained a few from places where the manufacture of such weapons was carried on.

Yet the most important deposit of flint implements resembling certain types of the European drift, is that discovered by Messrs. Squier and Davis during their researches in Ohio. They have described this interesting find in the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," and a résumé of their account was given by me in the Smithsonian report for 1868, (p. 404.) The implements in question, I stated, occurred in one of the so-called sacrificial mounds of Clark's Work, on North Fork of Paint Creek, Ross County, Ohio. This flat, but very broad mound contained, instead of the hearth usually found in this class of earth-structures, an enormous number of flint discs, standing on their edges and arranged in two layers, one above the other, at the bottom of the mound. The whole extent of these layers has not been ascertained, but an excavation six feet long and four broad disclosed upward of six hundred of those discs, rudely blocked out of a superior kind of dark flint. I had occasion to examine the specimens from this mound, which were formerly in the collection of Dr. Davis, and have now in my collection a number that belonged to the same deposit. They are either roundish, oval, or heart-shaped, and of various sizes, but on an average six inches long, four inches wide, and from three-quarters to an inch in thickness. These flint discs are believed to have been buried as a religious offering, and the peculiar structure of the mound which inclosed them rather favors this opinion, while their enormous number, on the other hand, affords some probability to the view that they constituted a depot or magazine. Many of them are clumsy, and roughly chipped around their edges; and hence it has been suggested that they are no finished implements, but merely rudimentary forms, destined to receive more symmetry of outline by subsequent labor. Many of the discs under notice bear a striking resemblance to the flint "hatchets" discovered by Boucher de Perthes and Dr. Rigollot in the diluvial gravels of the valley of the Somme, in Northern France. The similarity in form, however, is the only analogy that can be claimed for the rude flint articles of both continents, considering that they occurred under totally different circumstances. The drift implements of Europe represent the most primitive attempts of man in the art of working stone, while the Ohio discs, if finished at all, are certainly very rough samples of the handicraft of a race that constructed earthworks of astonishing regularity and magnitude, and was already highly skilled in the art of chipping flint into various shapes.

On page 214 of the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," a group of the flint articles from Clark's Work is represented. The drawing exhibits pretty correctly the irregular outline and general rudeness of these specimens; yet Mr. Stevens states (Flint Chips, p. 440) that "the representations are not at all satisfactory." The only fault, I think, that can be found with these drawings is their small scale, a fault which is very excusable, considering that at the period when Messrs. Squier and Davis published their work, (1848,) flint articles of such shape were no objects of particular attention; for just then the results of the researches of Boucher de Perthes were first laid before the scientific world, which, it is well known, ignored for a long time the significance of the rude flint tools discovered by the indefatigable and enthusiastic French savant in the diluvial gravel-beds of the Somme. It is true, however, that some of the flint discs of Clark's Work are wrought with more care than those represented in the "Ancient Monuments." This fact may be ascribed to a whim of the worker or workers, who gave some of the articles a greater degree of regularity by some additional blows. Mr. Stevens has only seen specimens of this better class, for such were those which Dr. Davis sold to the Blackmore Museum among his collection of Indian relics, and hence the author of "Flint Chips" seems to attribute to them a better general character than they really possess. I learn, however, that Mr. Blackmore, during a recent visit to Ohio, has succeeded in recovering a considerable number of the implements of Clark's Work, and thus an opportunity will be afforded again to investigate the true nature of these relics of a bygone people.

The objects in question consist of the compact silicious stone of "Flint Ridge," in Ohio, a locality described on page 214 of the "Ancient Monuments."[6] A careful comparison has established this fact beyond any doubt. The flint or hornstone which occurs in that region, is a beautiful material of a dark color, resembling somewhat the real flint found in nodules in the cretaceous formations of Europe. It is occasionally marked with darker or lighter concentric stripes or bands, the centre of which is formed by a small nucleus of blue chalcedony; and this internal structure appears particularly distinct in specimens which, by exposure, have undergone a superficial change of color. The stone, in general, possesses peculiarities by which it can be recognized at once, even when met in a wrought state far from its original site. According to Mr. Squier, arrow-heads made of this hornstone have been found in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. That they occur in Illinois, I can attest from personal experience.

Fig 3. Fig. 3.

A few years ago, when treating of the flint implements of Clark's Work, I was not prepared to express a definite opinion concerning the manner in which they were used. In the mean time, however, I have obtained additional information in relation to the class of implements under notice, which enables me, as I think, to point out the purposes for which those of Clark's Work, as well as similar ones from other localities, were designed. In the summer of 1869, some children, who were amusing themselves near the barn on the farm of Oliver H. Mullen, in the neighborhood of Fayetteville, Saint Clair County, Illinois, dug into the ground and discovered a deposit of fifty-two disc-shaped flint implements, which lay closely heaped together. Several of them came into my possession through the assistance of Dr. Patrick, of Belleville, in the same county. They consist, like those of Clark's Work, of the peculiar stone of Flint Ridge. This I noticed at first sight, and so did Messrs. Squier and Davis, to whom I showed them. They resemble, in general shape, the objects of Clark's Work, but are somewhat smaller and of perfectly symmetrical outline, having a well-chipped, though strong edge; in one word, they are highly finished implements, far superior to those of Clark's Work. In Fig. 3 I give a full-size drawing of one of my specimens from Fayetteville, which is twenty millimeters thick in the middle. The slight irregularities observable in the circumference are owing to later accidental fractures. In this specimen, as in the others from the same find, the edge is produced by small, carefully-measured blows. The edges of my specimens from Fayetteville, moreover, exhibit traces of wear, being rubbed off to a small degree, and this circumstance, in connection with their shape, induces me to believe that they were used as scraping or smoothing implements. The aborigines, it is well known, hollowed their canoes and wooden mortars with the assistance of fire, and the implements just described, were, as I presume, employed for removing the charred portions of the wood. They are well adapted to the grasp of the hand, and, indeed, of the most convenient form and size to serve in that operation. Probably they were likewise used in cleaning hides, and for other purposes. The tools of Fayetteville, however, are much more handy than those of Clark's Work.

The fact that implements made of the hornstone of Flint Ridge are found in Illinois—a distance of about four hundred miles intervening—is of particular interest, as it shows that the material was quarried for exportation to remote parts of the country. It doubtless formed an article of traffic among the natives, like copper, sea-shells, and other natural productions which they applied to the exigencies of common life or used for personal adornment.

Concerning North American flint implements of the European drift type in general, Mr. Stevens expresses himself thus: "The legitimate conclusion at which we may at present arrive, is that implements, in form resembling some of the European palaeolithic types, were made by the aborigines of America at a comparatively late period, and that the people usually termed the 'mound-builders,' were, probably, the makers of these implements." (p. 443.)

There is no sufficient ground, I think, for attributing these implements exclusively to the mound-builders, considering that they occur on the surface, and in deposits below it, in regions where the people designated as the mound-builders are not supposed to have left their traces. In the States of New York and New Jersey, for instance, such articles repeatedly have been met. I will only refer to the leaf-shaped implements in possession of Mr. Cowing, which were found in New York, and are the finest specimens of that kind ever brought to my notice. That the people who erected the mounds made and used tools resembling the palaeolithic types of Europe, is proved by the occurrence of those tools in the mounds; but it follows by no means that they are to be considered as the sole makers of that class of implements. Supposing that the mound-builders really were a people superior in their attainments to the aborigines found in possession of the country by the whites, it is certainly very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the manufactures of the ancient and those of the more recent indigenous inhabitants of North America. The mound-builders—to preserve the adopted term—certainly did not stow away all their articles of use and ornament in the mounds, but necessarily left a great many of them scattered over the surface, which became mingled with those of the succeeding occupants of the soil. Both the mound-builders and the later Indians lived in an age of stone, and as their wants were the same, they resorted to the same means to satisfy them. Their manufactures, therefore, must exhibit a considerable degree of similarity, and hence the great difficulty of separating them.

Yet Mr. Stevens goes in this respect farther than any one before him. He is particularly orthodox in the matter of pipes. Those who have paid some attention to the antiquities of North America, are aware of the fact that Messrs. Squier and Davis found in the mounds of Ohio, especially in one mound near Chillicothe, a number of stone pipes of peculiar shape, which they have described in the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley." In these pipes the bowl rises from the middle of a flat and somewhat curved base, one side of which communicates by means of a narrow perforation, usually one-sixth of an inch (about four millimeters) in diameter, with the hollow of the bowl, and represents the tube, or rather the mouth-piece of the pipe, while the other unperforated end forms the handle by which the smoker held the implement and approached it to his mouth. In the more elaborate specimens the bowl is formed, in some instances, in imitation of the human head, but generally of the body of an animal—mammal, bird, or reptile. These pipes, then, were smoked either without any stem, which seems probable, or by means of a very diminutive tube of some kind, the narrow bore of the base not allowing the insertion of anything like a massive stem. The authors of the "Ancient Monuments" called these pipes "mound-pipes," merely to designate that particular class of smoking utensils; it was not their intention to convey the idea that the mound-builders had been unacquainted with pipes into which stems were inserted. On the contrary, they distinctly assign a beautiful pipe of the latter kind, representing the body of a bird with a human head,[7] to the mound-builders, though this specimen was not found in a mound, but within an ancient inclosure twelve miles below the city of Chillicothe. Referring to this pipe, Mr. Stevens says: "Squier and Davis consider that this object is a relic of the mound-builders; but it does not appear that any pipe of similar form, or indeed any pipe intended to be smoked by means of an inserted stem, has been found in any of the Ohio mounds." Upon inquiry I learned from Dr. Davis that mounds had been leveled by the plough within the inclosure where the pipe in question was found, which, he is convinced, belonged to the original contents of one of those obliterated mounds. In the Smithsonian report for 1868, I published (on page 399) the drawing of a pipe then in possession of Dr. Davis. Its shape is that of a barrel somewhat narrowing at the bottom, and its material an almost transparent rock-crystal. The two hollows, one for the reception of the smoking material, and the other for inserting a stem, meet under an obtuse angle. This pipe was taken from a mound near Bainbridge, Ross County, Ohio. Mr. Stevens suggests it had been associated with a secondary interment, (p. 524.) Dr. Davis, however, who is acquainted with the circumstances of its discovery, told me that it belonged, with various other objects, to the primary deposit of the mound. Thus it would seem that the mound-builders confined themselves by no means to the use of one particular class of pipes.

Those who advocate a strict classification of North American relics according to earlier or later periods, should bear in mind that mound-building was still in use—if not in Ohio, at least in other parts of the present United States—when the first Europeans arrived, though the practice seems to have been abandoned soon after the colonization of the country by the whites. Yet, even in comparatively modern times, isolated cases of mound-building have been recorded,[8] which fact would indicate, perhaps, a lingering inclination to perpetuate an ancient, almost forgotten custom. Many of the earthworks in the Southern States doubtless were built by the race of Indians inhabiting the country when the Spaniards under De Soto made a vain attempt to take possession of that vast territory, then comprised under the name of Florida. For this we have Garcilasso de la Vega's often-quoted statement relating to the earth-structures of the Indians. The Floridians, we also know, erected at the same period mounds to mark the resting-places of their defunct chieftains. Le Moyne de Morgues has left in the "Brevis Narratio" a representation and description of a funeral of this kind. When the mound was heaped up, the mourners stuck arrows in the ground around its base, and placed the drinking vessel of the deceased, made of a large sea-shell, on the apex of the pile.[9] But even without such historical testimony, the continuance of mound-building might be deduced from the fact that articles of European origin are met, though rarely, among the primary deposits of mounds. The following interesting communication, for which I am indebted to Colonel Charles C. Jones, will serve to illustrate one case of mound-burial that can be referred with certainty to a period posterior to the European occupation of the country:

Fig. 4. Fig. 4.

"I have found in several mounds," says my informant, "glass beads and silver ornaments, and, in one instance, a part of a rifle-barrel, which were evidently buried with the dead. These, however, were secondary interments, the graves being upon the top, or sides, or near the base of the mound, and only a few feet deep. Never but in one case have I discovered any article of European manufacture interred with the dead in whose honor the mound was clearly erected. Upon opening a small earth-mound on the Georgia coast, a few miles below Savannah, I found a clay vessel, several flint arrow-heads, a hand-axe of stone, and a portion of an old-fashioned sword deposited with the decayed bones of the skeleton. This tumulus was conical in shape, about seven feet high, and possessed a base diameter of some twenty feet. It contained only one skeleton, and that lay, with the articles I have enumerated, at the bottom of the mound, and on a level with the plain. The oaken hilt, most of the guard, and about seven inches of the blade of the sword still remained. The rest of the blade had perished from rust. Strange to say, the oak had best resisted the 'gnawing tooth of time.' This mound had never been opened or in any way disturbed, except by the winds and rains of the changing seasons. I have no doubt but that the interment was primary, and that all the articles enumerated were deposited with the dead before this mound-tomb was heaped above him. This, within the range of my observation, is an interesting and exceptional case. I am persuaded that mound-building, at least upon the Georgia coast, was abandoned by the natives very shortly after their primal contact with the whites."

Fig. 5 Fig. 5.

From mound-building I turn again to North American flint implements. Mr. Stevens refers in his work to the absence of flint scrapers in the series from the United States exhibited in the Blackmore Museum. Scrapers of the European spoon-shaped type, however, are not as scarce in the United States as Mr. Stevens seems to suppose. The collection of the Smithsonian Institution contains a number of them; and I found myself two characteristic specimens in the Kjökkenmödding at Keyport, New Jersey, described by me in the Smithsonian report for 1864. They lay upon the shell-covered ground, a short distance from each other, and were perhaps made by the same hand. In Fig. 4 I give a full-size drawing of one of my specimens, both of which consist of a brown kind of flint, such as probably would be called jasper by mineralogists. The figured specimen, it will be seen, possesses all the characteristics of a European scraper. Its lower surface is formed by a single curved fracture. The rounded head is somewhat turned toward the right, a feature likewise exhibited in the other specimen, which is a little larger, but not quite as typical as the original of Fig. 4. As the peculiar curve of the broad part is observable in both specimens, it must be considered as having been produced intentionally. Indeed, I have among my flint scrapers from the pilework at Robenhausen one which is curved in the same direction. In fashioning their implements in this particular manner, the Indian and the ancient lake-man possibly had the same object in view.

Fig. 6. Fig. 6.

There is, however, another somewhat different class of North American flint articles, which, as I believe, were employed by the aborigines for scraping and smoothing wood, horn, and other materials in which they worked, or perhaps, also, in the preparation of skins. They resemble stemmed arrow-heads, which, instead of being pointed, terminate in a semi-lunar, regularly chipped edge. It is probable that they were partly made from arrow-heads which had lost their points. Schoolcraft gives in Fig. 3, of Plate 18, in the first volume of his large work, the drawing of an object of this class, calling it "the blunt arrow or Beekwuk, (Algonkin,) which was fired at a mark." It is likely enough that these articles served in part the purpose assigned to them by Mr. Schoolcraft. Yet, I have in my collection several in which the rounded edge is worn and polished, while the remaining part retains its original sharpness of fracture, a circumstance that can only be ascribed to continued use, and therefore leads me to believe that they were employed in the manner already indicated. These implements hardly could be used without handles. Fig. 5 represents, in natural size, one of my specimens, which was found on the surface near West Belleville, Saint Clair County, Illinois. The material is a yellowish-brown flint. The edge, it will be seen, is perfectly scraper-like. Inserted into a stout handle, this object would make an excellent scraper. The edge of this specimen is not polished, but it seems as if small particles of the edge had been scaled off by the pressure exerted in the use of the implement. In the original of the above full-size representation, Fig. 6, on the contrary, the curved edge is rubbed off to a considerable extent and perfectly polished, while the portion opposite the edge bears not the slightest trace of friction. This specimen, which consists of a whitish flint, was found in Saint Clair County, Illinois. In Fig. 7, lastly, I represent, in natural size, a fine large specimen, which I class among the implements under notice. I formerly supposed it to be a tool destined for cutting purposes, but the condition of the edge, which is rather blunt and hardly fit for cutting, afterward induced me to change my opinion. Originally, perhaps, one of those unusually large spear-heads, which are occasionally found, it may have been reduced subsequently, after having lost the point, to its present shape. Yet, it may never have possessed a form different from that which it now exhibits. This specimen is chipped from a fine reddish flint which contains encrinites. I obtained it from quarrymen near West Belleville, who found it in the earth while they were engaged in baring the rock for extending the quarry. In conclusion, I will state that, since writing the preceding pages, I received a number of stone implements from Muncy, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, among which there are some large scrapers of the European type. Their material, however, is not flint, but either graywacke or a kind of tough slate.

Fig. 7. Fig. 7.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Koch, in Transactions of the Academy of Science of Saint Louis, vol. i, (1860,) p. 61, &c.

[2] I am well aware that the reality of Dr. Koch's discovery has been doubted by some, although it is difficult to perceive why he should have made those statements, if not true, at a time when the antiquity of man was not yet discussed, either in Europe or here, and he, therefore, could expect nothing but contradiction, public opinion being totally unprepared for such revelations. Not being a scientific palaeontologist, he certainly made some mistakes in putting together the bones of the animals exhumed by him; but these failings, in my opinion, have no bearing on his observations relative to the co-existence of man with extinct animals in North America. Only a short time ago some remarks tending to depreciate Dr. Koch's account were made by Dr. Schmidt, in an article on the antiquity of man in America, published in vol. v, of the Archiv für Anthropologie. I may state here that I was personally acquainted with Dr. Koch, whom I saw repeatedly at the meetings of the Academy of Science of Saint Louis.

[3] Prehistoric Times, 1st ed., p. 236.

[4] Geological Survey of Illinois, by A. H. Worthen, vol. i, (1866,) p. 38; quoted in Transactions of the Academy of Science of Saint Louis, vol. ii, (1868,) p. 567.

[5] The Natural History of the Human Species, London, 1852, p. 89. The comparative freshness of the bones of extinct North American animals was noticed by Cuvier.

[6] More particularly in Squier's "Aboriginal Monuments of New York," Buffalo, 1851, p. 126.

[7] Fig. 147 on p. 247 of the "Ancient Monuments;" Fig. 106 on p. 509 of "Flint Chips."

[8] Squier, Aboriginal Monuments of New York, p. 112, &c.

[9] Le Moyne, in De Bry, vol. ii, Francoforti ad Moenum, 1591, pl. XL.

Transcriber's Note

Obvious typographical errors repaired.

Illustrations have been moved to paragraph breaks.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NORTH AMERICAN STONE IMPLEMENTS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.