« AnteriorContinuar »
quired by the arts” (p. 18). The four specimens at the bottom are leaf-shaped blades of quartzite found on the surface at Bennings, D. C., and might or might not have been the product of the quarry at Piney Branch. They form part of the 330 in Table II from that locality. Those in the middle are also leaf-shaped, found on the surface in the District or adjoining it in Maryland or Virginia, but are of quartz, argillite, shale, porphyritic felsite, all of them other material than quartzite, and so they could not have been the product of the quarry at Piney Branch. They form part of 541 in Table II and of the 1948 in Table V.
a. This omits the 500 from Piscataway because it is so far distant from Piney Branch and be cause we have no report of other implements from that locality. This cache was reported by Mr. Reynolds, who had but a single implement, given him by the finder, as a specimen.
In considering these tables and their bearing on the Piney Branch Quarry, we are to keep continually in mind that the sole and only material in that quarry was quartzite. There was no quartz pophyritic felsite, rhyolite, shale, ferruginous sandstone, flint, jasper or chert found in any of its deposits, and all implements made from any of these materials are to be excluded from consideration because impossible to have come from that quarry.
Keeping this in view, these tables show
the following state of facts : Among all those in plements from the District of Columbia, but two caches of quartzite were found containing together only 12 leaf-shaped blades of 1.948 leaf-shaped blades not cached, only 883 were of quartzite; of 2,534 common implements, such as arrow- and spear-heads etc., which from their form might have been made from leafshaped blades, only 694 were of quartzite, making a total of 1.589 quartzite implements which, according to Mr. Holmes' theory, might have come from the Piney Branch Quarry, out of a total of 25,815 implements examined.
Out of all the “1,000 turtle-backs” (p. 14) gathered by Mr. Holmes, their “500,000 brothers and sisters' (p. 12) left, and the “millions of worked stone and unshaped fragments” (p. 7), all “refuse ” (p. 12), “waste, failures” (p. 14), of which “these quarries on Rock Creek are the main source,” all being done to produce these leaf-shaped blades to be carried away and buried (cached) in the damp earth “that they might be preserved to be made into the final forms required by the arts” (p. 18).—Out of all this toil, the result found up to date is but 2 caches with 12 blades. “The mountain was in labor,” etc., etc. Out of a total of 26,812 implements reported in the collections mentioned, but 1,589 were of quartzite leaf-shaped blades that could have come from the Piney Branch quarry. Yet the leaf-shaped blades were, according to Mr. Holmes, the “entire product of the quarry (pp. 13 and 15). What a deal of sack for a pennyworth of bread.
Mr. Holmes' theory that the leaf-shaped blade was the sole product of the quarry workshop, to be afterwards “flaked into the final form ” of the common implements of the region, be correct, then the problem may be stated according to the arithmetical law of proportion, as follows: If 1,589 leaf-shaped quartzite blades, cached and not cached, finished and unfinished, have been produced from Indian toil and exertion in making the “500,000 turtle-backs," and the “million of worked stones which now occupy the site” (p. 7), all of which are wastes and failures; then how much toil and exertion, and how many millions of worked stones, wastes and failures, would be required to produce the 26,812 specimens reported in the collections mentioned ? I have inveighed against the speculation by which we sometimes attempt to determine, what a great amount of labor the Indian would do for the accomplishment of so little, sometimes the reverse ; but we may fairly assume that the aborigine was not such a consummate idiot as to open a quarry as large as this at Piney Branch, and do as much hard work as must have been done there, with the paltry outcome of the insignificant number of quartzite implements shown in the aggregate collections form the District of Columbia. To complete the information on this branch, I have introduced the consolidated tables VI and VII showing the subdivisions according to material and locality.
Mr. Holmes' theory is that the sole implement sought to be obtained by the workman from this quarry, was the thin, leafshaped blade, the result of what he calls the third process. His processes Nos. 1 and 2 for making turtle-backs were according to his theory, only designed to lead up to process No. 3, which should produce the thin, leaf-shaped implement. I think this conclusion does not accord with the facts. Whatever may have been the intention of the workman in making the single or the double turtle-back by processes 1 and 2, (figs. 1, 2, p. 878,) I feel constrained to believe that these were not stages in the production of leaf-shaped implements. I see no evidence of it. I know of no reason why the aboriginal man might not as well have been making the turtle-back for its own sake. It is found all over the United States, it corresponds in a remarkable degree with prehistoric implements from all parts of the world, and no reason is given why it should not have been as much an implement as were the leaf-shaped blades. I do not believe it possible, by any process suggested by Mr. Holmes, nor by the methods apparent from the examination of the leaf-shaped implements themselves, that they were made from the double turtle-back. Mr. Holmes himself is hazy and uncertain about his third process. It consisted, he says, p. 12,“ in going over both sides a second and, perhaps, a third time, securing, by the use of small hammers and by deft and careful blows upon the edges, a rude and symmetrical blade.” This might mean chipping, or it might mean pecking, hammering or battering. But the process of pecking, hammering or battering is an abrasion by which the substance is worn away grain by grain, passing off in dust; and we know that the leaf-shaped implements were all made by chipping or flaking, and not by pecking, hammering or battering.
I think I may defy Mr. Holmes to make the double turtle. back into a leaf-shaped implement by the process of chipping without treating it as an natural unworked stone and splitting it down through its center regardless of the edge which had been before made, thus destroying its edge and with it the implement. In this operation, the double turtle-back has no advantage over a natural pebble, and it must be treated as such. The operation of striking the turtle-back on the edge to split it and thereby reduce its thickness, has the effect of reducing its size correspondingly. It will have to be reduced considerably when made from the natural pebble, but it will be subjected to a double reduction in size when made from the turtle-back. The turtle-back and the leaf-shaped implement are practically the same size, except the latter is only for } inches in thickness. This reduction in thickness cannot be done without striking the turtle-back on its edge (Plate XXVI) thus working its total destruction and treating it as if it were an original pebble. The plate will make this apparent.
This argument demonstrates that the pretended evolutionary series of Mr. Holmes set forth in his Plate IV, (My Plate XIX) is incorrect. While all the implements are there truly represented, yet they do not form a continuous series. The leaf-shaped implements in the bottom row,“ 3rd stage, both sides re-worked," could not be made from the “ turtle backs" in the two upper rows. Therefore, I deny Mr. Holmes' fundamental proposition. I am fully persuaded that the maker of these implements, whatever else he intended to do, did not intend or attempt to make the leaf-shaped blades out of the turtle-back, or at least that turtle-backs were not a stage in the process of making leaf-shaped implements. If my proposition in this regard be true it breaks Mr. Holmes' theory in the middle.
Mr. Holmes Says, p. 17, “that to a limited extent, the rude forms—the turtle-back and its near relation—are also found widely scattered over the Potomac Valley outside of the shops on the hills.” The suggestion is that these came from this quarry or from similar quarries, and he charges flat-footed that they were the “ rejects,” “refuse," " debris," "failures."
In January, 1888, the Smithsonian Institution issued a circular, No. 36, asking of its correspondents throughout the United States and Canada, for information as to the number of these implements in their respective localities. This was accompanied with elaborate description and many illustrations, so there should be no mistake in their identity. Answers were then received, from every state in the United States and some from Canada. A consolidation of these answers, with briefs, was published in the Annual Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1888, pp. 766–702, wherein the number reported up to that time is stated at 8,502. This has been largely in