The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2Moorehead, Warren K. (Warren King)
History
The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2
Moorehead, Warren K. (Warren King)
Indians of North America -- Antiquities; Stone age -- North America
FIG. 306. (S. 1–2.) The straight bar-pendant; then one with slightly
concave sides. At the top, a broken rectangular form with concave
sides. Andover collection.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 307. The upper ones, full size. The two to the left, 1–3 size.
The two to the right, 3–5 size. Andover collection. These broken and
re-worked forms are described elsewhere in this chapter.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 308. (S. 4–5.) Found in a mound at Moundville, Alabama, on the
Black Warrior River, by Clarence B. Moore. Material: dark mica
schist. There are tablets found in the South and Southwest which are
different from the forms occurring in the Ohio Valley. This tablet
lay near a skeleton. Mr. Moore states that it was covered with
decayed wood and that there were traces of pigment. Tablets somewhat
similar to this are found in the Pueblo ruins in southern Arizona.
But in these the centre is depressed, and it appears as if they were
used as palettes on which was placed paint, according to the theory
of Frank Hamilton Gushing. Such tablets do not properly belong in a
class of objects for suspension, but I have included two or three of
them here.
]
In presenting deductions in this volume on problematical forms I shall
not be so presumptuous as to claim to have arrived at a solution of the
origin and uses of this class of objects. It is quite certain that a
great deal that I have to say will be improved upon by archæologists of
a generation hence. But I want to offer some suggestions as to this
strange class of implements. Since nobody appears fully to understand
them, there can be no harm in pointing out certain features common to
this or that type of problematical forms. The deductions are based on a
study of these objects and the conditions under which they are found,
and I beg the critical archæologist, who may not concur in my
deductions, to offer suggestions and determinations of his own as to
their classification and use.
[Illustration:
FIG. 309. (S. 1–1.) Material: dark, hard slate. A typical perforated
ornament on which some marks or lines have been cut. Collection of
Dauphin County Historical Society, Pennsylvania.
]
Before placing these objects into their various classes, we should
consider the essential points at issue. These objects are called
problematical forms, or ceremonials, or charms, or banner-stones, or any
one of fifty other names. Such names both indicate ignorance of the
purpose prehistoric man had in mind, and also emphasize the need of a
complete archæological nomenclature which will enable us to do away with
such unscientific and amateurish terms. The difficulty in the way of
superseding these is, that after thirty or more years of use some of
these terms have become fixed. The general designation—problematical
forms—was first applied to them by Professor W. H. Holmes.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account