“Some years ago, a colored man, ploughing near one of the larger mounds at Moundville, found a superb hatchet and handle carved from a solid mass, probably amphibolite, and highly polished. This hatchet was procured by Mr. C. S. Prince, from whom it was obtained by the Academy of Natural Sciences. “The hatchet, 11.6 inches in length, with a neatly made ring at the end of the handle (not clearly shown in the reproduction), resembles, to a certain extent, the one found by Dr. Joseph Jones, near Nashville, Tennessee, and described and figured by him. C. C. Jones describes and figures this same hatchet, and speaks of the finding of another exactly similar in South Carolina. “Thruston also describes and illustrates the Jones hatchet, and refers to the South Carolina specimen, and to still another, somewhat ruder in form, as coming from Arkansas. “It is interesting in this connection to note the presence of ‘celts’ with stone handles in Santo Domingo, though these hatchets are much inferior to the specimen from Moundville. “The Monolithic hatchet from Moundville seems to be much more beautiful than the one discovered by Doctor Jones, for it leaves nothing to be desired as to finish, and the graceful backward curve of the part of the handle above the blade seems more artistic than the form of the corresponding portion of the Jones hatchet, which is straight.” CHAPTER XVIII GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS THE GORGET AND ORNAMENTS AS SEEN BY EARLY EXPLORERS On pages 24–26 will be found the Nomenclature Committee’s classification of these, which it is not necessary to repeat here. While I follow that grouping, yet I expand it somewhat. I do not begin with the spade-shaped form, but with the oval, whether pendant or ornament. [Illustration: FIG. 289. (S. 1–1.) Perforated pebbles from near Menard mound, Arkansas County, Arkansas. The simplest form of ornament. Collection of C. B. Moore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ] [Illustration: FIG. 290. (S. 1–1.) An object of jade, which was found on a village-site, on the banks of the Miami River, Miami County, Ohio. It is in the collection of J. A. Rayner. ] Fig. 292, showing two hundred and twenty-one forms in this class, is followed by a list of figures illustrating each type. It was not required, therefore, that figures be appended to the Committee’s list—these outlines being sufficiently close to that arrangement to stand in its stead.