“The theories about their use seem fanciful, as some certainly are. Two writers assert that they were worn by married or pregnant women only, and many have accepted this statement. Others think they were worn by conjurors, or fixed on the prows of canoes. It is enough to say that some of the perforations are not adapted to any of these uses. It seems better to class them with the war and prey or hunting gods of the Zuñis, some of which they resemble. In that case the holes, of whatever kind, would have given a firm hold on the thongs which bound the arrows to the amulet, a matter of importance in an irregular figure. “These perforations form the most important feature. The amulet may be but a simple bar, but to each end of the base is a sloping hole, bored from the end and base and meeting. To this necessary feature may be added a simple head or tail, and there may also be projecting ears. None of these are essential. They are but appropriate or tasteful accessories. “Two notable collections contain a large number of amulets. In the Canadian collection at Toronto there are about fifty bird-amulets.” Dr. Beauchamp mentions Mr. Douglass’s seventy specimens in the American Museum of Natural History collection, and also refers to the rarity of bar-amulets in Western New York:— “They were variable in material as well as form, although most commonly made of striped slate. Perhaps full half have projecting ears, when of the bird-form. In the wider forms, usually of harder materials, there are often cross-bars on the under side, in which the perforations are made. Occasionally these are not entirely enclosed, yet are without signs of breakage. This seems to prove that these were not intended as means of attaching them to any larger object, on which they would rest, but rather for fastening articles upon them, as in the Zuñi amulets already mentioned, and which were illustrated by Mr. Frank H. Cushing, in the Second Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. On comparison a general resemblance to these will be seen, and in a few cases it is quite striking. That they were used in this way, rather than in those suggested by others, is a reasonable conclusion which gains strength with fuller study. As a class they belong to the St. Lawrence basin.” [Illustration: FIG. 411. (S. 1–1.) Side view of Fig. 410. ] Mr. Gerard Fowke and Professor David Boyle should be quoted upon this subject. Mr. Fowke says:[5] [Illustration: FIG. 412. (S. 1–1.) Rev. William Beauchamp’s collection. From Michigan. ] “Stone relics of bird-form are quite common north of the Ohio River, but are exceedingly rare south of that stream. [He illustrates the same specimen figured by Dr. Wilson.]