In 1907 the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable work entitled “Handbook of American Indians.”[1] This volume was the result of years of labor on the part of about forty-five contributors. Had the “Handbook of American Indians” treated of Stone-Age man as extensively as it has dealt with modern tribes, historical occurrences, and arts and customs, there would be no occasion for “The Stone Age.” Indeed it would be presumptuous for one to offer the public “The Stone Age,” did the “Handbook of American Indians” take up prehistoric cultures in complete detail.
It is no more than right that this word of explanation be presented, in order that my purpose in writing “The Stone Age” may be made clear, as well as that the difference between the two works should be emphasized. There is room for both publications, and I particularly recommend the “Handbook of American Indians” to students and librarians, for it serves an admirable purpose in bringing into reasonable compass everything relating to Indian tribes, languages, arts, and customs. But it must also be known that “The Stone Age” is a very different work from the “Handbook of American Indians.”
Fig. 1. A ledge in which are flint nodules. Johnson’s farm, near Herndon, Tennessee.
In the “Handbook” the writers have concentrated their attention upon the life of the American Indian as seen through the eyes and conceived by the brains of those familiar with Indian history of the past two centuries. Under various citations are axes, arrows, copper objects, and other artifacts treated. But these must be necessarily brief, excellent though they are. And I speak in no hostile criticism whatsoever in stating that the “Handbook of American Indians” could not take up these subjects in detail. While I highly recommend the “Handbook of American Indians,” I am persuaded that the life of the Indian of to-day is influenced by his contact with the white people; that he has drifted far away from Stone-Age times; that while there were examples of real aboriginal culture to be found in America during the past century, yet the great bulk of the natives of this country passed out of the Stone Age with the advent of the French into Canada, the Spaniards into the South, and the Puritans into New England. It seems to me that the study of all these learned individuals, the results of which are set forth in the Indian “Handbook,” has led many of them to consider prehistoric life in America as nearly the same as the life of our Indians for the past one or two centuries. I cannot believe that the arts of the past are the same to any appreciable extent as those which obtained at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and I am convinced that the tribes living at the time of Lewis and Clark practiced arts which are to-day, if not extinct, at least greatly inferior to those of ancient times. Furthermore, I do not believe that the ceremonies practiced by the tribes of to-day are of special value in measuring or understanding prehistoric life.
Fig. 2. A block of flint from a quarry in Indian Territory. (S. 1–2.) Phillips Academy collection. See Figs. 3, 7, 11, etc., for further reduction of this form.
Explanation. S. 1–1 means full size; S. 1–3 means one third size; etc.
All of this does not mean that such studies have no value. On the contrary, they are of the greatest value in ethnology. What I mean is that they are of little value to the archæologist. The archæologist must live in the past, and must deal with stone, shell, bone, and clay objects, the like of which are not in use to-day. He must, through long and painstaking labors both in the field and in the museum, form his deductions. In these he is aided by numerous reports, papers, books, and other published records of explorers, travelers, archæologists, and ethnologists. But he must remember that he is studying the past and not the present—an unwritten past, in fact.
It is well to emphasize the fact that “The Stone Age” is a classification of man’s handiwork. It is not a work relating to cultures, although remarks as to the culture and relation of tribes are suggested frequently by certain types of specimens. And the cultures I describe are ancient cultures, not modern. The linguistic map compiled by Major Powell, and the “Handbook of American Indians” present the habitations of existing tribes and their customs, far better and more comprehensively than could I. The Sioux, the Cherokees, the Iroquois (or any one of a score of tribes), may occupy the same region to-day that other and extinct bands of red men claimed for their own centuries ago, and the artifacts found therein may or may not be comparable with those made and used by the present inhabitants of the section. It is these older things and cultures to which I would confine “The Stone Age.”
In some respects the points of view of the ethnologist and of the student of folk-lore and linguistics on the one hand, and of the archæologist on the other, are quite divergent. And touching upon this variance of opinion there is something to be said.
It has occurred to me that those museum men who collect and study modern material more than the prehistoric have not a clear perspective of the past in this country. As against this statement these gentlemen might properly reply that those of us who study olden times fall into grievous errors because we do not explain ancient cultures through a study of cultures among living tribes.
Fig. 3. (S. 2–3.) Block of flint; partly worked. W. A. Jacobs collection. Similar to Fig. 5.
If any man will read carefully the “Jesuit Relations” and the narrations of our earliest explorers among the Indians, he will see at once that there is a great gulf between the aborigines of long ago and the Indians of the present. The Sun Dance as witnessed by Catlin among the Mandans and the Sun Dance as seen by Dr. George A. Dorsey on the Kiowa Reservation are quite different affairs. The latter showed white man’s influence, the former was more aboriginal. Much of the ancient or prehistoric life we cannot reconstruct, but the day is coming when by minute and unceasing study of these peculiar objects, and by the process of elimination, we shall arrive at certain definite conclusions as to the life of man in the past.
The aboriginal man was influenced by what he saw and heard in the world of nature surrounding him. His religion, folk-lore, daily life, and his entire being, were affected, modified, or directed by the primitive world,—that world of the forest, the plain, the air, and the waters. To study him aright we must cast aside our modern civilization, and if possible—and that is very difficult—place ourselves in his world. The Indian of to-day is not in that world. He hears his grandparents speak of the “buffalo days,” and that conveys some meaning to his mind. But he cannot go beyond the buffalo days; he knows nothing of the more interesting times preceding. He can tell you about the folk-lore of his tribe, yet he has no tradition of the first Spaniards, whether De Soto or Coronado, or others. Notwithstanding that these Spaniards traversed many Indian lands, and bore in their hands unheard-of weapons which made smoke and noise, and killed at a distance; that they were clad in iron suits, and were riding horses,—one hears little or nothing about it. Such scenes must have impressed Indians who had never beheld the like before, and one would imagine that there would be traditions handed down regarding these miraculous strangers, yet one reads in vain for any folk-lore relating to the coming of the Spaniards. This has always appeared to me as one of the arguments against the trustworthiness of folk-lore in matters of evidence as compared with that of archæology.
When one considers the subject in its broad aspect, one must admit that our knowledge of prehistoric times has not advanced in the same ratio as has our knowledge of the Indians of the historic period. The tribes themselves show marked contrasts to-day, and in the past the differences in culture may have been even more striking. It is, therefore, quite likely that an implement used for a certain purpose by one tribe may have been made use of by another tribe for a totally different purpose.
Fig. 4. (S. unknown.) Probable manner of hafting the single-pointed and the two-pointed chisels or picks, used in quarrying flint—in digging the pits. Figs. 4 to 12, and Figs. 36 to 40, are from the 15th Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology.
The tendency to explain much of prehistoric times through knowledge of tribes whose customs are more or less saturated with white man’s influence seems to me to be unfortunate. To make this clear, let me present as an illustration the Sun Dance described by George Catlin, and the Sun Dance described by Dr. Dorsey. More than sixty years intervened between the two ceremonies. Catlin had no training in science, and therefore some things must be overlooked in his favor. Yet the dance he describes is purely aboriginal, or nearly so. Dr. Dorsey, on the other hand, had all the advantages of scientific training covering many years, and was able to take advantage of everything that he saw and heard concerning the ceremony, to compare it with other observances and to draw learned conclusions. Yet the Sun Dance as seen by Dorsey is totally different, and is far less interesting and heroic than the same dance observed by Catlin.
Going back further, we find among the “Jesuit Relations” and narratives of other explorers, descriptions of certain ceremonies which appear to retain their aboriginal character. In other words, they were less European than similar affairs of later dates. Particularly is this true among the Hurons, Iroquois, Ojibwa, etc. The customs seen among the Sioux by Hennepin do not exist to-day.
It seems to me that in our haste to make records of tribes that are passing away, we have published much material that the future ethnologist will consider less important than similar observations of a century ago. No matter how much tribes are affected by contact with civilization, it is well to preserve their records even although the more able scholars of the future will question some of our observations. But while admitting the above, I wish to go on record as against the present tendency, so general, to explain the arts, customs, daily life, etc., of prehistoric man through our knowledge of a degenerate culture among modern Indians.
Much of the material presented in this work cannot be explained through such agencies; for there are hundreds of objects found in graves and tombs, village-sites and cliff-houses, the like of which have been seen in use among Indians by no white man whatsoever.
Fig. 5. (S. 1–1.) First stage of work, after blocking-out. See Fig. 7 for description.
Therefore, it appears to me that a classification based on archæological evidence (as far as possible) is needed, and I have attempted this in “The Stone Age.”
The critical reader will wonder why I have quoted at length from certain ethnologists on such subjects as textiles, bows and arrows, clothing, pottery, and pipes, and omitted extensive quotations in other sections. This is done purposely. In the field of ethnology much work has been done. The “Handbook of American Indians” covers fully such subjects as the bow, arrow, blanket, clothing, etc. Professor Mason was our highest authority on the basket and textiles generally, as is Professor Holmes on ceramic art. No possible improvement could have been made by me on the published studies of these men. And as “The Stone Age” carries out in detail the plan of the “Handbook,” I have embodied their papers in part or in whole, where such papers dealt with titles which I had not made the subject of a special study.
Of problematical forms, the divisions of chipped implements, hematites, agricultural implements, hammers, pestles, mortars, tubes, and other types, there are frequent descriptions. But these are brief, as a rule, and I do not concur in some of the conclusions. Therefore, I have not quoted at any length under such titles. Copper presents an extensive and almost new field, and Mr. Charles E. Brown has, therefore, made it one of the longest sections.
But, while “The Stone Age” does contain many quotations of length, I have made all these a part of one general plan, and this leads up, as readers will observe, to the differentiation of the various culture-groups existing in America in very ancient times. And thus, towards the end of Volume II, one enters an entirely new field. There are opened to archæologists possibilities of future study—very important study, in fact.