“the ancient arrow-makerMade his arrow-heads of sandstone,Arrow-heads of chalcedony,Arrow-heads of flint and jasper,Smooth and sharpened at the edges,Hard and polished, keen and costly.”
“the ancient arrow-makerMade his arrow-heads of sandstone,Arrow-heads of chalcedony,Arrow-heads of flint and jasper,Smooth and sharpened at the edges,Hard and polished, keen and costly.”
“the ancient arrow-maker
Made his arrow-heads of sandstone,
Arrow-heads of chalcedony,
Arrow-heads of flint and jasper,
Smooth and sharpened at the edges,
Hard and polished, keen and costly.”
And yet the process of making such arrow-heads is carried on at the present day by various half-civilized peoples, and has been witnessed by many Europeans, though but few have accurately recorded their observations. Sir Edward Belcher[117]who had seen obsidian arrow-heads made by the Indians of California, and those of chert or flint by the Eskimos of Cape Lisburne, states that the mode pursued in each case was exactly similar. The instrument employed among the Eskimos, which may be termed an “arrow-flaker,” usually consists of a handle formed of fossil ivory, curved at one end for the purpose of being firmly held, and having at the other end a slit, like that for the lead in our pencils, in which is placed a slip of the point of the horn of a reindeer, which is found to be harder and more stubborn than ivory. This is secured in its place by a strong thong of leather or plaited sinew, put on wet, which on drying becomes very rigid. A representation of one of these instruments, in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury, is given in Fig. 8. Another in the Christy Collection[118]is shown in Fig. 9. Another form of{38}instrument of this kind, but in which the piece of horn is mounted in a wooden handle, is shown in Fig. 10, from an original in the same collection from Kotzebue Gulf. The bench on which the arrow-heads are made is said to consist of a log of wood, in which a spoon-shaped cavity is cut; over this the flake of chert is placed, and then, by pressing the “arrow-flaker” gently along the margin vertically, first on one side and then on the other, as one would set a saw, alternate fragments are splintered off until the object thus properly outlined presents the spear or arrow-head form, with two cutting serrated sides.{39}
Fig. 8.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Fig. 8.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Fig. 9.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Fig. 9.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Fig. 10.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Fig. 10.—Eskimo Arrow-flaker.1⁄2
Sir Edward Belcher some years ago kindly explained the process to me, and showed me both the implements used, and the objects manufactured. It appears that the flake from which the arrow-head is to be made is sometimes fixed by means of a cord in a split piece of wood so as to hold it firmly, and that all the large surface flaking is produced either by blows direct from the hammer, or through an intermediate punch or set formed of reindeer horn. The arrow-or harpoon-head thus roughly chipped out is afterwards finished by means of the “arrow-flaker.”
The process in use at the present day among the Indians of Mexico in making their arrows is described in a somewhat different manner by Signor Craveri, who lived sixteen years in Mexico, and who gave the account to Mr. C. H. Chambers.[119]He relates that when the Indians wish to make an arrow-head or other instrument of a piece of obsidian, they take the piece in the left hand, and hold grasped in the other a small goat’s horn; they set the piece of stone upon the horn, and dexterously pressing it against the point of it, while they give the horn a gentle movement from right to left, and up and down, they disengage from it frequent chips, and in this way obtain the desired form. M. F. de Pourtalès[120]speaks of a small notch in the end of the bone into which the edge of the flake is inserted, and a chip broken off from it by a sideways blow. Mr. T. R. Peale[121]describes the manufacture of arrow-heads among the Shasta and North California Indians, as being effected by means of a notched horn, as a glazier chips glass. This has also been fully described and illustrated by Mr. Paul Schumacher[122]of San Francisco. Major Powell confirms this account.
The Cloud River Indians[123]and the Fuegians,[124]also fashion their arrow-heads by pressure. Mr. Cushing[125]has described the process and claims to be the first civilized man who flaked an arrow-head with horn tools. This was in 1875. I had already done so and had described the method at the Norwich Congress in 1868.
The late Mr. Christy,[126]in a paper on the Cave-dwellers of{40}Southern France, gave an account, furnished to him by Sir Charles Lyell, of the process of making stone arrow-heads by the Shasta Indians of California who still commonly use them, which slightly differs from that of Mr. Peale. This account by Mr. Caleb Lyon runs as follows:—“The Indian seated himself upon the floor, and, laying the stone anvil upon his knee, with one blow of his agate chisel he separated the obsidian pebble into two parts, then giving a blow to the fractured side he split off a slab a quarter of an inch in thickness. Holding the piece against his anvil with the thumb and finger of his left hand, he commenced a series of continuous blows, every one of which chipped off fragments of the brittle substance. It gradually seemed to acquire shape. After finishing the base of the arrow-head (the whole being little over an inch in length), he began striking gentle blows, every one of which I expected would break it in pieces. Yet such was his adroit application, his skill and dexterity, that in little over an hour he produced a perfect obsidian arrow-head. . . . . No sculptor ever handled a chisel with greater precision, or more carefully measured the weight and effect of every blow than did this ingenious Indian; for even among them, arrow-making is a distinct profession, in which few attain excellence.” Dr. Rau[127]has, however, pointed out that this account of the manufacture requires confirmation; but Mr. Wyeth[128]states that the Indians on the Snake River form their arrow-heads of obsidian by laying one edge of the flake on a hard stone, and striking the other edge with another hard stone; and that many are broken when nearly finished and are thrown away.
Captain John Smith,[129]writing in 1606 of the Indians of Virginia, says, “His arrow-head he maketh quickly with a little bone, which he ever weareth at his bracert,[130]of any splint of stone or glasse in the form of a heart, and these they glew to the end of their arrowes. With the sinewes of deer and the tops of deers’ horns boiled to a jelly, they make a glue which will not dissolve in cold water.”
Beyond the pin of bone already mentioned, as having been found in one of the pits at Grime’s Graves, I am not aware of any bone or horn implements of precisely this character, having{41}been as yet discovered in Europe; but hammers of stag’s horn and detached tines have frequently been found in connection with worked flints, and may have served in their manufacture. I have, moreover, remarked among the worked flints discovered in this country, and especially in Yorkshire, a number of small tools, the ends of which present a blunted, worn, and rounded appearance, as if from attrition against a hard substance. These tools are usually from 2 to 4 inches long, and made from large thick flakes, with the cutting edges removed by chipping; but occasionally, they are carefully finished implements of a pointed oval or a subtriangular section, and sometimes slightly curved longitudinally. Of these, illustrations will be given at a subsequent page. They are usually well adapted for being held in the hand, and I cannot but think that we have in them some of the tools which were used in the preparation of flint arrow-heads and other small instruments. I have tried the experiment with a large flake of flint used as the arrow-flaker, both unmounted and mounted in a wooden handle, and have succeeded in producing with it very passable imitations of ancient arrow-heads, both leaf-shaped and barbed. The flake of flint on which I have operated has been placed against a stop on a flat piece of wood, and when necessary to raise the edge of the flake I have placed a small blocking piece, also of wood, underneath it, and then by pressure of the arrow-flaker upon the edge of the flake, have detached successive splinters until I have reduced it into form. If the tool consists of a rather square-ended flake, one corner may rest upon the table of wood, and the pressure be given by a rocking action, bringing the other corner down upon the flake. In cutting the notches in barbed arrow-heads, this was probably the plan adopted, as I was surprised to find how easily this seemingly difficult part of the process was effected. Serration of the edges may be produced by the same means.
The edges of the arrow-heads made entirely with these flint arrow-flakers are, however, more obtuse and rounded than those of ancient specimens, so that probably these flint tools were used rather for removing slight irregularities in the form than for the main chipping out. This latter process, I find experimentally, can be best performed by means of a piece of stag’s horn, used much in the same way as practised by the Eskimos. By supporting the flake of flint which is to be converted into an arrow-head against a wooden stop, and pressing the horn against the edge of the{42}flake, the flint enters slightly into the body of the horn; then bringing the pressure to bear sideways, minute splinters can be detached, and the arrow-head formed by degrees in this manner without much risk of breaking. Not only can the leaf-shaped forms be produced, but the barbed arrow-heads, both with and without the central stem. The leaf-shaped arrow-heads are, however, the most easy to manufacture, and this simple form was probably that earliest in use. The counterfeit arrow-heads made by the notorious Flint Jack are of rude work, and were probably made with a light hammer of iron. Of late years (1895) a far more skilful workman at Mildenhall has produced imitations which can hardly be distinguished from genuine arrow-heads. He keeps his process of manufacture secret.
Among many tribes[131]of America, arrow-making is said to have been a trade confined to a certain class, who possessed the traditional knowledge of the process of manufacture; and it can hardly be expected that a mere novice like myself should be able at once to attain the art. I may, therefore, freely confess that, though by the use of stag’s horn the ordinary surface-chipping characteristic of ancient implements may be obtained, yet the method of producing the even fluting, like ripple-marks, by detaching parallel splinters uniform in size, and extending almost across the surface of a lance- or arrow-head is at present a mystery to me; as is also the method by which the delicate ornamentation on the handles of Danish flint daggers was produced. It seems, however, possible that by pressing the flint to be operated upon on some close-fitting elastic body at the time of removing the minute flakes, the line of fracture may be carried along a considerable distance over the surface of the flint, before coming to an end by reason of the dislodged flake breaking off or terminating. It is also possible that the minute and elegant ornaments may have been produced by the use of a pointed tooth of some animal as a punch. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell,[132]in an interesting article, has suggested that the final flaking was effected after the blades had been ground to a smooth surface, in the same manner as the flaking on some of the most symmetrical Egyptian blades. His view appears to be correct, at all events so far as certain parts of some Danish blades are concerned. It seems, however, very doubtful whether any such general practice prevailed. I have seen a delicate lance-head{43}6 inches long, of triangular section, with the broad face polished and the two other faces exquisitely fluted. In this case also the faces may have been ground before fluting. This blade was found in a cavern at Sourdes, in the Landes, and was in the collection of M. Chaplain-Duparc.
With regard to the process of grinding or polishing flint and other stone implements not much need be said. I may, however, refer the reader to Wilde’s Catalogue[133]of the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, for an account of the different processes. In all cases the grindstone on which they were polished was fixed and not rotatory, and in nearly all cases the striæ running along the stone hatchets are longitudinal, thus proving that they were rubbed lengthways and not crossways on the grinding-bed. This is a criterion of some service in detecting modern forgeries. The grinding-stones met with in Denmark and Scandinavia are generally of compact sandstone or quartzite, and are usually of two forms—flat slabs, often worn hollow by use, and polygonal prisms smallest in the middle, these latter having frequently hollow facets in which gouges or the more convex-faced hatchets might be ground, and sometimes rounded ridges such as would grind the hollow part of gouges. From the coarse striation on the body of most flint hatchets, especially the large ones, it would appear that they were not ground immediately on such fine-grained stones, but that some coarse and hard grit must have been used to assist the action of the grindstone. M. Morlot[134]thought that some mechanical pressure was also used to aid in the operation, and that the hatchet to be ground was weighted in some manner, possibly by means of a lever. In grinding and polishing the hollowed faces of different forms of stone axes, it would appear that certain rubbers formed of stone were used, probably in conjunction with sand. These will be more particularly described in a subsequent page. The surface of hard rocks or of large boulders fixed in the ground was often used for the purpose of grinding stone implements. Instances will be given hereafter.
Closely allied to the process of grinding is that of sawing stone. It is however rarely, if ever, that in this country any of the stone implements show signs of having been reduced into shape by this process. Among the small hatchets in fibrolite, so common in the Auvergne and in the south of France, and among the greenstone, and especially the nephrite celts found in the{44}Swiss Pfahlbauten,[135]many show evident traces of having been partially fashioned by means of sawing. I have also remarked it on a specimen from Portugal, and on many fibrolite hatchets from Spain.[136]Dr. Keller has noticed the process, and suggests that the incisions on the flat surface of the stone chosen for the purpose of being converted into a celt were made sometimes on one side, and sometimes on both, by means of a sharp saw-like tool. He has since[137]gone more deeply into the question, and has suggested that the stone to be sawn was placed on the ground near a tree, and then sawn by means of a splinter of flint fixed in the end of a staff, which at its other end was forked, and as it were hinged under one of the boughs of the tree sufficiently flexible to give pressure to the flint when a weight was suspended from it. The staff was, he supposed, to have been grasped in the hand, and moved backwards and forwards while water was applied to the flint to facilitate the sawing. The objection to this suggestion is, that in case of the flint being brought to the edge of the stone it would be liable to be driven into the ground by the weight on the bough, and thus constantly hinder the operation; nevertheless some such mechanical aids in sawing may have been in use.
M. Troyon[138]considered that the blade of flint was used in connection with sand as well as water. This latter view appears, at first sight, far more probable, as the sawing instrument has in some instances cut nearly3⁄4of an inch into the stone, which, it would seem, could hardly have been accomplished with a simple flint saw; and the sides of the saw-kerf or notch show, moreover, parallel striæ, as if resulting from the use of sand. The objection that at first occurred to my mind against regarding the sawing instrument as having been of flint was of a negative character only, and arose from my not having seen in any of the Swiss collections any flint flakes that had indisputably been used for sawing by means of sand. At one time I fancied, from the character of the bottom and sides of the notches, that a string stretched like that of a bow might have been used with sand in the manner in which, according to Oviedo,[139]the American Indians sawed in two their iron fetters, and I succeeded in cutting off the{45}end of an ancient Swiss hatchet of hard steatite by this means. I found, however, that the bottom of the kerf thus formed was convex longitudinally, whereas in the ancient examples it was slightly concave. It is therefore evident that whatever was used as the saw must have been of a comparatively unyielding nature, and probably shorter than the pebble or block of stone it was used to saw, for even the iron blades used in conjunction with sand and water by modern masons become concave by wear, and, therefore, the bottom of the kerf they produce is convex longitudinally. I accordingly made some further experiments, and this time upon a fragment of a greenstone celt of such hardness that it would readily scratch window-glass. I found, however, that with a flint flake I was able to work a groove along it, and that whether I used sand or no, my progress was equally certain, though it must be confessed, very slow. I am indeed doubtful whether the flint did not produce most effect without the sand, as the latter to become effective requires a softer body in which it may become embedded; while by working with the points and projections in the slightly notched edge of the flake, its scratching action soon discoloured the water in the notch. What was most remarkable, and served in a great measure to discredit the negative evidence to which I before referred, was that the edges of the flake when not used with sand showed but slight traces of wear or polish.
On the whole, I am inclined to think that both the Swiss antiquaries are in the right, and that the blocks of stone were sawn both with and without sand, by means of flint flakes, but principally of strips of wood and bone used in conjunction with sand.[140]The reader may consult Munro’s Lake-Dwellings, 1890, p. 505.
Professor Flinders Petrie, in addition to the flint implements of the “New Race,” which he discovered near Abydos, found a number of stone implements at Kahun, and Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell has contributed to his[141]book an interesting chapter on their character and the method of their manufacture.
Most of the jade implements from New Zealand and N.W. America have been partially shaped by sawing, and in the British Museum is a large block of jade from the former country deeply grooved by sawing, and almost ready to be split, so as to be of the{46}right thickness for amere. The natives[142]use stone hammers for chipping, flakes of trap or of some other hard rock for sawing, and blocks of sandstone and a micaceous rock for grinding and polishing. Obsidian is said to be used for boring jade. I have a flat piece of jade, apparently part of a thin hatchet, on one face of which two notches have been sawn converging at an angle of 135° and marking out what when detached and ground would have formed a curved ear-ring. It was given me by the late Mr. H. N. Moseley, who brought it from New Zealand.
There is another peculiarity to be seen in some of the greenstone hatchets and perforated axes, of which perhaps the most characteristic examples occur in Switzerland, though the same may occasionally be observed in British specimens. It is that the blocks of stone have been reduced into form, not only by chipping with a hammer, as is the case with flint hatchets, but by working upon the surface with some sort of pick or chisel, which was not improbably formed of flint. In some instances, where the hatchets were intended for insertion into sockets of stag’s horn or other materials, their butt-end was purposely roughened by means of a pick after the whole surface had been polished. Instances of this roughening are common in Switzerland, rare in France, and rarer still in England. The greenstone hatchet found in a gravel-pit near Malton[143](Fig. 81) has its butt-end roughened in this manner. The shaft-holes in some few perforated axes appear to have been worked out by means of such picks or chisels, the hole having been bored from opposite sides of the axe, and generally with a gradually decreasing diameter. In some rare instances the perforation is oval. The cup, or funnel-shaped depressions, in some hammer-stones seem to have been made in a similar manner. The inner surface of the shaft holes in perforated axes is also frequently ground, and occasionally polished. This has in most cases been effected by turning a cylindrical grinder within the hole; though in some few instances the grinding instrument has been rubbed backwards and forwards in the hole after the manner of a file. M. Franck de Truguet,[144]of Treytel, in Switzerland, thinks he has found in a lake-dwelling an instrument used for finishing and enlarging the holes. It is a fragment of sandstone about21⁄2inches long, and rounded on one face, which is worn by friction.
But, besides the mode of chipping out the shaft-hole in{47}perforated implements, several other methods were employed, especially in the days when the use of bronze was known, to which period most of the highly-finished perforated axes found in this country are to be referred. In some cases it would appear that, after chipping out a recess so as to form a guide for the boring tool, the perforation was effected by giving a rotatory motion, either constant or intermittent, to the tool. I have, indeed, seen some specimens in which, from the marks visible in the hole, I am inclined to think a metallic drill was used. But whether, where metal was not employed, and no central core, as subsequently mentioned, was left in the hole, the boring tool was of flint, and acted like a drill, or whether it was a round stone used in conjunction with sand, as suggested by the late Sir Daniel Wilson[145]and Sir W. Wilde,[146]so that the hole was actually ground away, it is impossible to say. I have never seen any flint tools that could unhesitatingly be referred to this use; but Herr Grewingk, in his “Steinalter der Ostseeprovinzen,”[147]mentions several implements in the form of truncated cones, which he regards as boring-tools (Bohrstempel), used for perforating stone axes and hammers. He suggests the employment of a drill-bow to make them revolve, and thinks that, in some cases, the boring tools were fixed, and the axe itself caused to revolve. Not having seen the specimens, I cannot pronounce upon them; but the fact that several of these conical pieces show signs of fracture at the base, and that they are all of the same kinds of stone (diorite, augite, porphyry, and syenite) as those of which the stone axes of the district are made, is suggestive of their being merely the cores, resulting from boring with a tube, in the manner about to be described, in some cases from each face of the axe, and in others where the base of the cone is smooth, from one face only. One of these central cores found in Lithuania is figured by Mortillet,[148]and is regarded by him as being probably the result of boring by means of a metal tube; others, from Switzerland, presumably of the Stone Age, are cited by Keller.[149]Bellucci[150]thinks that he has found them in Northern Italy.
Worsaae[151]has suggested that in early times the boring may have been effected with a pointed stick and sand and water; and,{48}indeed, if any grinding process was used, it is a question whether some softer substance, such as wood, in which the sand or abrasive material could become imbedded, would not be more effective than flint. By way of experiment I bored a hole through the Swiss hatchet of steatite before mentioned, and I found that in that case a flint flake could be used as a sort of drill; but that for grinding, a stick of elder was superior to both flint and bone, inasmuch as it formed a better bed for the sand.
Professor Rau, of New York, has made some interesting experiments in boring stone by means of a drilling-stock and sand, which are described in the “Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute for 1868.”[152]He operated on a piece of hard diorite an inch and three-eighths in thickness, and employed as a drilling agent a wooden wand of ash, or at times, of pine, in conjunction with sharp quartz sand. Attached to the wand was a heavy disc, to act as a fly-wheel, and an alternating rotatory motion was obtained by means of a bow and cord attached at its centre to the apex of the drilling-stock, and giving motion to it after the manner of a “pump-drill,” such as is used by the Dacotahs[153]and Iroquois[154]for producing fire by friction, or what is sometimes called the Chinese drill. So slow was the process, that two hours of constant drilling added, on an average, not more than the thickness of an ordinary lead-pencil line to the depth of the hole.
The use of a drill of some form or other, to which rotatory motion in alternate directions was communicated by means of a cord, is of great antiquity. We find it practised with the ordinary bow by the ancient Egyptians;[155]and Ulysses is described by Homer[156]as drilling out the eye of the Cyclops by means of a stake with a thong of leather wound round it, and pulled alternately at each end, “like a shipwright boring timber.” The “fire-drill,” for producing fire by friction, which is precisely analogous to the ordinary drill, is, or was, in use in most parts of the world. Among the Aleutian Islanders the thong-drill, and among the New Zealanders a modification of it, is used for boring holes in stone. Those who wish to see more on the subject must consult Tylor’s “Early History of Mankind”[157]and a “Study of the Primitive Methods of Drilling,”[158]by Mr. J. D. McGuire.{49}
Professor Carl Vogt[159]has suggested that the small roundels of stone (like Worsaae, “Afb.” No. 86) too large to have been used as spindle-whorls, which are occasionally found in Denmark, may have been the fly-wheels of vertical pump-drills, used for boring stone tools. They may, however, be heads of war-maces.
In the case of some of the unfinished and broken axes found in the Swiss lakes, and even in some of the objects made of stag’s horn,[160]there is a projecting core[161]at the bottom of the unfinished hole. This is also often seen in[162]Scandinavian and German specimens. Dr. Keller has shown that this core indicates the employment of some kind of tube as a boring tool; as indeed had been pointed out so long ago as 1832 by Gutsmuths,[163]who, in his paper “Wie durchbohrte der alte Germane seine Streitaxt?” suggested that a copper or bronze tube was used in conjunction with powdered quartz, or sand and water. In the Klemm collection, formerly at Dresden, is a bronze tube, five inches long and three quarters of an inch in diameter, found near Camenz, in Saxony, which its late owner regarded[164]as one of the boring tools used in the manufacture of stone axes. This is now in the British Museum, but does not appear to me to have been employed for such a purpose. The Danish antiquaries[165]have arrived at the same conclusion as to tubes being used for boring. Von Estorff[166]goes so far as to say that the shaft-holes are in some cases so regular and straight, and their inner surface so smooth, that they can only have been bored by means of a metallic cylinder and emery. Lindenschmit[167]considers the boring to have been effected either by means of a hard stone, or a plug of hard wood with sand and water, or else, in some cases, by means of a metallic tube, as described by Gutsmuths. He engraves some specimens, in which the commencement of the hole, instead of being a mere depression, is a sunk ring. Similar specimens are mentioned by Lisch.[168]Dr. Keller’s translator, Mr. Lee, cites a friend as suggesting the{50}employment of a hollow stick, such as a piece of elder, for the boring tool. My experience confirms this; but I found that the coarse sand was liable to clog and accumulate in the hollow part of the stick, and thus grind away the top of the core. If I had used finer sand this probably would not have been the case.
Mr. Rose[169]has suggested the use of a hollow bone; but, as already observed, I found bone less effective than wood, in consequence of its not being so good a medium for carrying the sand.
Mr. Sehested,[170]however, who carried out a series of interesting experiments in grinding, sawing, and boring stone implements, found dry sand better than wet, and a bone of lamb better than either elder or cow’s-horn for boring.
Most of the holes drilled in the stone instruments and pipes of North America appear to have been produced by hollow drills, which Professor Rau[171]suggests may have been formed of a hard and tough cane, theArundinaria macrosperma, which grows abundantly in the southern parts of the United States. He finds reason for supposing that the Indian workmen were acquainted with the ordinary form of drill driven by a pulley and bow. The tubes of steatite, one foot in length, found in some of the minor mounds of the Ohio Valley,[172]must probably have been bored with metal.
Dr. Keller, after making some experiments with a hollow bone and quartz-sand, tried a portion of ox-horn, which he found surprisingly more effective, the sand becoming embedded in the horn and acting like a file. He comments on the absence of any bronze tubes that could have been used for boring in this manner, and on the impossibility of making flint tools for the purpose. The perishable nature of ox-horn accounts for its absence in the Lake settlements.[173]On the whole this suggestion appears to me the most reasonable. Experiments have also been made in boring with stag’s-horn.[174]
M. Troyon[175]considered that these holes were not bored by means of a hollow cylinder, inasmuch as this would not produce so conical an opening, and he thought that the axe was made to revolve in some sort of lathe, while the boring was effected by{51}means of a bronze tool used in conjunction with sand and water. He mentions some stone axes found in Bohemia, and in the collection of the Baron de Neuberg, at Prague, which have so little space left between the body of the axe and the central cores, that in his opinion they must have been bored by means of a metal point and not of a hollow cylinder. Mortillet[176]thinks that some of the Swiss axes were bored in a similar manner. The small holes for suspension, drilled through some of the Danish celts, he thinks were drilled with a pointed stone.[177]Not having seen the specimens cited by M. Troyon, I am unable to offer any opinion upon them; but it appears to me very doubtful whether anything in character like a lathe was known at the early period to which the perforated axes belong, for were such an appliance in use we should probably find it extended to the manufacture of pottery in the shape of the potter’s wheel, whereas the contemporary pottery is all hand-made. M. Desor,[178]though admitting that a hollow metallic tube would have afforded the best means of drilling these holes, is inclined to refer the axes to a period when the use of metals was unknown. He suggests that thin flakes of flint may have been fastened round a stick and thus used to bore the hole, leaving a solid core in the middle. I do not however think that such a method is practicable. In some of the Swiss[179]specimens in which the boring is incomplete there is a small hole in advance of the larger, so that the section is like that of a trifoliated Gothic arch. In this case the borer would appear to have somewhat resembled a centre-bit or pin-drill. In others[180]the holes are oval, and must have been much modified after they were first bored. The process of boring holes of large diameter in hard rocks such as diorite and basalt by means of tubes was in common use among the Egyptians. These tubes are supposed to have been made of bronze, and corundum to have been employed with them. Professor Flinders Petrie[181]has suggested that they had jewelled edges like the modern diamond crown drill, and that they could penetrate diorite at the rate of one inch in depth for 27 feet of forward motion. I think, however, that this is an over-estimate. Saws of the same kind were also used.
Kirchner,[182]the ingenious but perverse author of “Thor’s Donnerkeil,” considers that steel boring tools must have been used{52}for the shaft-holes in stone axes; and even Nilsson,[183]who comments on the rarity of the axes with the central core in the holes, is inclined to refer them to the Iron Age. He[184]considers it an impossibility to bore “such holes” with a wooden pin and wet sand, and is no doubt right, if he means that a wooden pin would not leave a core standing in the centre of the hole.
The drilling the holes through the handles of the New Zealand[185]meresis stated to be a very slow process, but effected by means of a wetted stick dipped in emery powder. I have seen one in which the hole was unfinished, and was only represented by a conical depression on each face.
In some stones, however, such holes can be readily bored with wood and sand; and in all cases where the stone to be worked upon can be scratched by sand, the boring by means of wood is possible, given sufficient time, and the patience of a savage.
To what a degree this extends may be estimated by what Lafitau[186]says of the North American Indians sometimes spending their whole life in making a stone tomahawk without entirely finishing it; and by the years spent by members of tribes on the Rio Negro[187]in perforating cylinders of rock crystal, by twirling a flexible leaf-shoot of wild plantain between the hands, and thus grinding the hole with the aid of sand and water. The North American[188]tobacco-pipes of stone were more easily bored, but for them also a reed in conjunction with sand and water seems to have been employed.
On the whole, we may conclude that the holes were bored in various manners, of which the principal were—
1. By chiselling, or picking with a sharp stone.
2. By grinding with a solid grinder, probably of wood.
3. By grinding with a tubular grinder, probably of ox-horn.
4. By drilling with a stone drill.
5. By drilling with a metallic drill.
Holes produced by any of these means could, of course, receive their final polish by grinding.
With regard to the external shaping of the perforated stone axes not much need be said. They appear to have been in some{53}cases wrought into shape by means of a pick or chisel, and subsequently ground; in other cases to have been fashioned almost exclusively by grinding. In some of the axe-hammers made of compact quartzite, the form of the pebble from which they have been made has evidently given the general contour, in the same manner as has been observed on some fibrolite hatchets, which have been made by sawing a flat pebble in two longitudinally, and then sharpening the end, or ends, the rest of the surface being left unaltered in form. This is also the case with some stone hatchets, to form which a suitable pebble has been selected, and one end ground to an edge.
Such is a general review of the more usual processes adopted in the manufacture of stone implements in prehistoric times, which I have thought it best should precede the account of the implements themselves. I can hardly quit the subject without just mentioning that here, as elsewhere, we find traces of improvement and progress, both in adapting forms to the ends they had to subserve, and in the manner of treating the stubborn materials of which these implements were made. Such progress may not have been, and probably was not, uniform, even in any one country; and, indeed, there are breaks in the chronology of stone implements which it is hard to fill up; but any one comparing, for instance, the exquisitely made axe-hammers and delicately chipped flint arrow-heads of the Bronze Age, with the rude implements of the Palæolithic Period—neatly chipped as some of these latter are—cannot but perceive the advances that had been made in skill, and in adaptation of means to ends. If, for the sake of illustration, we divide the lapse of time embraced between these two extremes into four Periods, it appears—
1. That in the Palæolithic, River-gravel, or Drift Period, implements were fashioned by chipping only, and not ground or polished. The material used in Europe was, moreover, as far as at present known, mainly flint, chert, or quartzite.
2. That in the Reindeer or Cavern Period of Central France, though grinding was almost if not quite unused, except in finishing bone instruments, yet greater skill in flaking flint and in working up flakes into serviceable tools was exhibited. In some places, as at Laugerie-haute, surface-chipping is found on the flint arrow-heads, and cup-shaped recesses have been worked in other hard stones than flint, though no other stones have been used for cutting purposes.{54}
3. That in the Neolithic or Surface Stone Period of Western Europe, other materials besides flint were largely used for the manufacture of hatchets; grinding at the edge and on the surface was generally practised, and the art of flaking flint by pressure from the edge was probably known. The stone axes, at least in Britain, were rarely perforated.
4. That in the Bronze Period such stone implements, with the exception of mere flakes and scrapers, as remained in use, were, as a rule, highly finished, many of the axes being perforated and of graceful form, and some of the flint arrow-heads evincing the highest degree of manual skill. The subsequent manufacture of stone implements in Roman and later times needs no further mention.
Having said thus much on the methods by which the stone implements of antiquity were manufactured, I pass on to the consideration of their different forms, commencing with those of the Neolithic Age, and with the form which is perhaps the best known in all countries—the celt.