I closed my part of the Bulletin no. 2, on gorgets, Phillips Academy publication, with the same quotations with which I close this chapter on “Problematical Forms.” I see no reason to change it, although it applied to gorgets exclusively:— “If one were to find Zuñi paraphernalia independent of any association of Zuñi people, and if the discoverer had no knowledge of the Zuñis, he could not conceive of the peculiar, not to say incredible, usages to which Zuñi charms are put. The Zuñis gave up most of their time to ceremonies. Other native tribes may have done the same. “In the earlier Jesuit ‘Relations’ the natives are said to have devoted many days to ceremonies, incantations, etc.,—‘Works of the Devil.’ But there is no clear and tangible reference, in all of the voluminous writings of early explorers, to the more complicated gorgets, to the forms more elaborate than the merely pendant shape. The suggestion forces itself that these objects were made and used before the Discovery by Columbus.” CHAPTER XXII GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS THE SPUD-SHAPED IMPLEMENT Contrary to many of the preceding classes of ancient artifacts, we have two excellent modern authorities on the stone spud-shaped implement. To begin with, permit me to register a protest against the word “spud”—which is suggestive of a heavy iron implement in the hands of a laborer. It is to be supposed that the word “spud” is retained because no one has proposed a good substitute. In the _Wisconsin Archeologist_[41] Mr. Charles E. Brown published a paper describing the spud. This could in no wise be improved upon, and with the omission of some local specimens he has cited, I quote most of his article. His figure numbers have been changed to suit my figures, and a few paragraphs at the end are not included: “The class, or more properly, classes of stone implements of which a consideration is attempted in the following pages, have been variously referred to in our archæological literature as spuds, hoe, spade and paddle-shaped implements and spade ceremonials and by other names equally indefinite and undesirable, and the only explanation which can be offered for the adoption of the present title is, that though not entirely satisfactory, it has nevertheless the advantage of being the one by which these varied, peculiar, and interesting objects are now most familiarly known to the archæologists and collectors of our own state and of the country at large. “It is apparent that the term ‘spud,’ as at present employed, is being used to define and include within its scope at least two classes of stone implements, which, though they resemble each other in a general way, were, if we may judge by the difference in condition, workmanship, and general adaptability, intended for and undoubtedly served quite distinct purposes.