There are something like three hundred museums or institutions in the United States that contain archæological collections. These exhibits range from more than a million objects, as in the case of the Smithsonian Institution, or Field Museum of Chicago, or the American Museum of Natural History, to private collections of one to ten thousand specimens each. I have roughly estimated the number of prehistoric artifacts available for study, or those of aboriginal manufacture that show little influence of European culture, at about eight million objects.
Mr. Paul M. Rea, curator of the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum and secretary of the American Museums Association, reports to me by letter that seventy-eight museums have 991,974 specimens by count. This total does not include the larger museums, and forty-seven smaller ones have not reported. Mr. Rea states: “The following museums of importance have either not returned information or have failed to give the extent of their collections in figures: American Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Peabody Museum (Cambridge), Peabody Museum (New Haven), University of Toronto, Canada.”
I suppose that these six institutions contain a total of at least four million prehistoric, or early historic Indian objects. Most of these exhibits are of objects in use long before Columbus discovered America, although many are in ethnological collections comprised of things fifty or a hundred years old. How many specimens are in the hands of private collectors of the United States no man may know.
Reference to the Bibliography, presented in the second volume (just before the Index) of this publication, will convince the reader that much of our archæological material has been described by various writers. But there is difference between description and classification. Save Professor W. H. Holmes’s papers upon pottery, Dr. Thomas Wilson’s work on the classification of knives, spear-points, and arrow-heads, Mr. Gerard Fowke’s published papers along the same lines, Mr. Charles E. Brown’s papers upon the so-called “spud,” and copper, Mr. J. D. McGuire’s “Pipes and Smoking Customs,” and Cushing’s contributions (see Bibliography), everything is description and not classification. Or, if classifications are attempted, they relate to certain types, and are brief. The “Handbook of American Indians” describes and illustrates artifacts, but does not classify.
Fig. 6. See Fig. 7 for description.
Sixteen years ago, in the Archæologist (May, 1894, page 156), I called attention to the need in this country of an archæological nomenclature and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but am of the opinion that the matter had been suggested in one of my articles previous to the date mentioned. However, be that as it may, no one paid attention to the suggestion, which was afterwards repeated in two or three articles over my signature. About five years ago, after several attempts at such a classification, I had a long conference with Dr. Charles Peabody, and presently he took up the matter with the American Anthropological Association, and a committee was formed consisting of Professor John H. Wright, Mr. J. D. McGuire, Dr. F. W. Hodge, Dr. C. Peabody, and myself, with Dr. Peabody as chairman. We worked long and assiduously upon this classification. Dr. Peabody and myself grouped and regrouped most of the available specimens in the Andover collection before we were satisfied with the results of our labors. Then we submitted our scheme to the other members of the Committee. After more than a year of labor the Committee presented a preliminary classification which was accepted by the members of the Anthropological Association at the Baltimore meeting, December, 1908. This classification in its complete form will be found on pages 23 to 30.
Fig. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6, and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development.
But before explaining and expanding the accepted classification, it is well to state that we have confined our plan to the arts, industries, and so forth, of man, as expressed in his handiwork. If one realizes this, he will at once understand that we have not included the vocations, or cultures, or divisions of labor, or anything of that sort. Such would be, manifestly, out of place in a classification of the products of man’s handiwork.
Fig. 8. (S. 1–1.) These four figures which follow are from W. H. Holmes’s paper in the 15th Annual Report, pp. 5–150, Bureau of Ethnology. They are selected forms illustrating progressive steps in the shaping of leaf-blade implements from argillite, from village- and shop-sites at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
Were one to consider primitive or prehistoric man from every aspect of his life, a totally different classification would be necessary, one far broader and more comprehensive. Again, we have thought of other classifications which suggested themselves to the investigators. None of these could be accepted entirely, for the simple reason that we do not yet know the purpose of every object made and used by prehistoric man. There are, however, two grand divisions to which no one can object—the Known and the Unknown. All objects naturally fall into these. But they are too sweeping in character and have not been adopted, although—regardless of form or material—all Stone-Age implements are of one or the other of these two grand divisions: those whose purpose is clear to us, and those regarding which we have no positive knowledge. Under these heads one might summarize all the implements or paraphernalia made use of by the man, the woman, the priest, the warrior, the child. Or one might subdivide, and under the heading of woman place objects made use of in the carrying industry, domestic science, agriculture, etc. But in following such a classification one is beset by certain difficulties. We are not certain as to the division of labor between man and woman. The lines are not so sharply drawn among barbarians as with ourselves in some matters; in others they are more sharply drawn. The construction of a wigwam, a cabin, a tepee, or a council-house, might be placed under archæological architecture, primitive though it is. Just where to draw the line between the insignia of the priest and highly ornamental possessions of the wealthy warrior presents a problem not easy of solution.
As has been stated on page 12 the life of prehistoric man is such that while one may classify his implements according to type or form and material and supposed use, it is not possible in every instance to affirm positively that this object was made use of by the man and that by the woman, this by the priest and that by the warrior.
Fig. 9. Described under Fig. 8.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
All described under Fig. 8.
Professor Otis T. Mason, of the United States National Museum, gave much thought to ethnological matters, and particularly his studies have been directed toward the arts, industries, and occupations of living tribes. These studies led him to discourse upon the divisions of labor, beginnings of culture, on the carrying industry, agriculture, traps in use among the Indians, and other subjects.
He grouped the various industries in the “Handbook of American Indians,” page 97; and under the citation of implements, tools, utensils, he gave a sketch-classification of the daily pursuits and implements used therein. His paper upon arts and industries I copy in part (omitting references), as it embodies one of several classifications possible of the life of the Indian:—
“The arts and industries of the North American aborigines, including all artificial methods of making things or of doing work, were numerous and diversified, since they were not limited in purpose to the material conditions of life; a technique was developed to gratify the esthetic sense, and art was ancillary to social and ceremonial institutions and was employed in inscribing speech on hide, bark, or stone, in records of tribal lore, and in the service of religion....
“The arts and industries of the Indians were called forth and developed for utilizing the mineral, vegetal, and animal products of nature, and they were modified by the environmental wants and resources of every place. Gravity, buoyancy, and elasticity were employed mechanically, and the production of fire with the drill and by percussion was also practiced. The preservation of fire and its utilization in many ways were also known. Dogs were made beasts of burden and of traction, but neither beast nor wind nor water turned a wheel north of Mexico in pre-Columbian times. The savages were just on the borders of machinery, having the reciprocating two-hand drill, the bow and strap-drills, and the continuous-motion spindle.
“Industrial activities were of five kinds: (1) Going to nature for her bounty, the primary or exploiting arts and industries; (2) working-up materials for use, the secondary or intermediary arts and industries, called also shaping arts or manufactures; (3) transporting or traveling devices; (4) the mechanism of exchange; (5) the using-up or enjoyment of finished products, the ultimate arts and industries, or consumption. The products of one art or industry were often the material or apparatus of another, and many tools could be employed in more than one; for example, the flint arrow-head or blade could be used for both killing and skinning a buffalo. Some arts or industries were practiced by men, some by women, others by both sexes. They had their seasons and their etiquette, their ceremonies and their tabus.
Fig. 13. (S. about 1–3.) Hammer-stones. Phillips Academy collection. These are from Flint Ridge, Ohio, and were made use of in the manufacture of turtlebacks and discs.
“Stone-craft.—This embraces all the operations, tools, and apparatus employed in gathering and quarrying minerals and working them into paints, tools, implements, and utensils, or into ornaments and sculptures, from the rudest to such as exhibit the best expressions in fine art. Another branch is the gathering of stone for building.
“Water industry.—This includes activities and inventions concerned in finding, carrying, storing, and heating water, and in irrigation; also, far more important than any of these, the making of vessels for plying on the water, which was the mother of many arts. The absence of the larger beasts of burden and the accommodating waterways together stimulated the perfecting of various boats to suit particular regions.
“Earth-work.—To this belong gathering, carrying, and using the soil for construction purposes, excavating cellars, building sod- and snow-houses, and digging ditches. The Arctic permanent houses were made of earth and sod, the temporary ones of snow cut in blocks, which were laid in spiral courses to form low domes. The Eskimo were especially ingenious in solving the mechanical problems presented by their environment of ice....
Fig. 14. Free-hand, or direct percussion. First step in shaping an implement from a boulder. Figs. 23, 28, and 29 to 33 are from the American Anthropologist, vol. IV, 1891—W. H. Holmes’s paper.
“Ceramic art.—This industry includes all operations in plastic materials. The Arctic tribes in the extreme North, which lack proper stone, kneaded with their fingers lumps of clay mixed with blood and hair into rude lamps and cooking-vessels, but in the zone of intense cold, besides the ruder forms there was no pottery....
“Metal-craft.—This includes mining, grinding of ores and paint, rubbing, cold-hammering, engraving, embossing, and overlaying with plates. The metals were copper, hematite and meteoric iron, lead in the form of galena, and nugget gold and mica. No smelting was done.
Fig. 15. Flaking-tool—being a shaft or stick, thirty inches to four feet. These were pointed with bone or buck-horn.
Fig. 16. Flaking-tool—lower branch utilized to form a crotch in which blow was struck. Upper opposite branch used to secure a heavy stone to give weight and increase the pressure.
(From George Sellars’s article in the
Smithsonian Report, 1885, pt. 1, reprinted
in Chapter IV.)
Fig. 17. A plan view of the outer or high side of an ordinary flake.
“Wood-craft.—Here belongs the felling of trees with stone axes and fire. The softest woods, such as pine, cedar, poplar, and cypress, were chosen for canoes, house-frames, totem-poles, and other large objects. The stems of smaller trees were used also for many purposes. Driftwood was wrought into bows by the Eskimo. As there were no saws, trunks were split and hewn into single planks on the North Pacific Coast. Immense communal dwellings of cedar were there erected, the timbers being moved by rude mechanical appliances and set in place with ropes and skids. The carving on house-posts, totem-poles, and household furniture was often admirable. In the Southwest underground stems were carved into objects of use and ceremony.
“Root-craft.—Practiced for food, basketry, textiles, dyes, fish-poisoning, medicine, etc. Serving the purposes of wood, the roots of plants developed a number of special arts and industries.
“Fibre-craft.—Far more important than for textile purposes, the stems, leaves, and inner and outer bark of plants and the tissues of animals having each its special qualities, engendered a whole series of arts. Some of these materials were used for siding and roofing houses; others yielded shredded fibre, yarn, string, and rope; and some were employed in furniture, clothing, food receptacles and utensils. Cotton was extensively cultivated in the Southwest.
“Seed-craft.—The harvesting of berries, acorns, and other nuts, and grain and other seeds, developed primitive methods of gathering, carrying, milling, storing, cooking, and serving, with innumerable observances of days and seasons, and multifarious ceremony and lore.
“Not content with merely taking from the hand of nature, the Indians were primitive agriculturalists. In gathering roots they first unconsciously stirred the soil and stimulated better growth. They planted gourds in favored places, and returned in autumn to harvest the crops. Maize was regularly planted on ground cleared with the help of fire, and was cultivated with sharpened sticks and hoes of bone, shell, and stone. Tobacco was cultivated by many tribes, some of which planted nothing else.
“Animal industries.—Arts and industries depending on the animal kingdom include primarily hunting, fishing, trapping, and domestication. The secondary arts involve cooking and otherwise preparing food; the butchering and skinning of animals, skin-dressing in all its forms; cutting garments, tents, boats, and hundreds of smaller articles, and sewing them with sinew and other thread; working claws, horn, bone, teeth, and shell into things of use, ornaments, and money; and work in feathers, quills, and hair....
Fig. 18. A device for holding stones in place while pressure was being applied.
Fig. 19. Making flakes by means of lever pressure. This shows the manner of utilizing a standing tree. (See Sellars’s article in Chapter IV.)
“The artizans of both sexes were instinct with the esthetic impulse; in one region they were devoted to quillwork, those of the next area to carving wood and slate; the ones living across the mountains produced whole costumes adorned with bead-work; the tribes of the central area erected elaborate earthworks; workers on the Pacific Coast made matchless basketry; those of the Southwest modeled and decorated pottery in an endless variety of shapes and colored designs. The Indians north of Mexico were generally well advanced in the simpler handicrafts, but had nowhere attempted massive stone architecture.”
The Committee on Archæological Nomenclature presented its completed report at the Baltimore meeting of the American Anthropological Association, 1908. This was published in the American Anthropologist, January-March, 1909, page 114. Pottery was classified first, but as I begin with chipped implements I present the classification of pottery last.
Fig. 20. Showing strong massive shank for securing to a shaft or handle.
Fig. 21. First two objects beveled—the one to the left showing strength of cutting-edge. The one to the right shows a different mode of attachment. (See Sellars’s article, Chapter IV.)
Fig. 22. Indians quarrying and hammering quartzite boulders. From 15th Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology. Designed by Holmes.
Fig. 23. Direct percussion. Manner of striking where the edge is sharp.
Simple vessels in clay may be presumed to cover all forms except eccentric or conventionalized (i.e., animal-shaped) forms on the one hand, and discs and pipes on the other.
Fig. 24. (S. about 1–3.) A chipped hoe or digging-tool, and four specimens from the ancient quarries near Herndon, Tennessee. Phillips Academy collection. A complete nodule is shown in the lower right-hand corner. The others are broken nodules, showing the concretionary character of the flint.
It is suggested by the Committee that members of the American Anthropological Association having occasion to describe clay vessels, may classify them: first, as to material, as consisting of clay, sand, shell, and their combinations, and as possessing certain general ground-color; second, as to manufacture, as sun-dried or fired, as coiled or modeled—with the variations and steps of each process; third, as to form; fourth, as to decoration, as plain, stamped, incised, or painted. With regard to form, the Committee begs to offer the following definitions and suggestions in classifications.
(Note. In all cases measurements are considered as referring to an upward direction.)
A simple vessel must consist of a body, and may have a rim, neck, foot, handle, or any combination.
1. Body: A formation capable of holding within itself a liquid or a solid substance.
2. Rim: (A) A part of the vessel forming the termination of the body. (B) A part of the vessel recognizable by a change in the thickness of the material in the terminal sections.
3. Neck. A part of the vessel recognizable by a more or less sudden decrease in the rate of increase or decrease of the diameter.
4. Foot. An attachment to the vessel which serves as support to the body when upright.
5. Handle: A part of the vessel consisting of some outside attachment, not serving as support.
Body: It is suggested that in comparing the forms or cross-sections of vessels particular attention be paid to the proportion of the diameter to the height, to the rate of change of this proportion, to the place of change of direction in this proportion, and to refer to the following definitions of the two dimensions:
Height: the distance from the base to a horizontal plane passing through the most distant part of the rim.
Diameter: the distance from any one point on the sides to any opposite point on the sides, measured on a plane at right angles to the height.
Base: the point of contact or a plane of contact of the body with a horizontal surface.
Types. Body: These are so varied, depending on relative height and diameter of the cross-section, that an analysis is too cumbersome to be of service to general reference.
Lip: A part of the neck or body recognizable by a suddenly increasing diameter of neck or body, that continues increasing to the rim.
Fig. 25. (S. about 1–2.) Cores and flake knives from the ancient quarries, Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio. Material: light pink, white and brown chalcedony. Phillips Academy collection.
Here ends the Committee’s Classification, but there should be added, I feel convinced, articles in bone, shell, copper, hematite, mica, and cannel coal. Copper has been classified by Mr. Charles E. Brown, while I have grouped bone, shell, and hematite.