VOL. I. WATERLOO, INDIANA, NOVEMBER, 1893. NO. 11. ON AN "INSCRIBED TABLET" FROM LONG ISLAND. [BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.] (Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, Oct. 5, 1893,) A few days ago Professor Gifford, of Swarthmore college, presented me a cast of an inscribed tablet lately found on an Indian site toward the east end of Long Island, and requested an opinion as to its genuineness. I take the opportunity to lay the supposed inscription before you, and in connection with it, to explain the general principles which should govern an archæologist in deciding upon the authenticity of such finds. Many such have been from time to time brought before the public. There was the famous Grave Creek mound stone, accepted by Schoolcraft but extinguished by Squier; then there are the Newark inscribed stones, the Rockford, Davenport, and Cincinnati tablets, the Lenape stone, the "Mastodon shell", which was exhibited at Madrid, and others, not to specify the rock inscriptions which have been reported and to some extent copied in various parts of the country. convey ideas. All these are asserted to be aboriginal work, and intended to The present "tablet" is a piece of slate, six inches long, four and a half wide and (I am informed) about three-fourth of an inch thick. Both sides are inscribed with a number of rough figures, but the cast of one side is quite imperfect, or the stone itself is, so that I can be sure of the outlines on one side only. These are quite distinct, and I show them on the accompanying drawing. Before proceeding to examine them, I will define the canons of criticism which I shall follow. We are well aware that the Indian tribes of the eastern United States, especially those of Algonkian lineage, were acquainted with a graphic system, which they employed for recording facts, songs, myths, and legends. Numerous authentic specimens of this have been preserved. An early and interesting account of it was published by Dr. Edwin James in 1830, in his edition of "Tanner's Narrative". Since then, Schoolcraft in his large work on the Indian tribes, Copway in his History of the Chipeways, and various government publications furnish us ample material on which to found a correct opinion as to this method of writing. In every such unquestionable aboriginal specimen we observe certain rul s to prevail, without exception. The writing is not only pictographic, it is also symbolic and emblematic as well. Not only are some objects represented by pictures of them, but the same or other objects may be represented by a SYMBOL, that is, by something connected with the object; as when the Lenape indicated a turkey by the mark of its three toes, or a wolf by its rounded footprint; or by an EMBLEM, which is a picture of something in no way connected with the object, but purely allusive to it, through some process of mental association with which we may or may not be familiar. Thus, in the "Meday songs" as written down, a small paralellogram means "fire"; a circle with a dot in the center means a spirit, and so on. These conventional symbols and emblems belong to this method of writing, and when they are absent, or appear in unusual relations, it is enough to excite grave suspicions of the authenticity of an inscription. The term "picture writing" as applied to this graphic method conveys an erroneous impression, These delineations were intended and are to be regarded as letters, not as pictures. The object of the artist was not to paint or draw a picture, but TO WRITE. Hence, we almost never find any true pictorial elements in this script. There is no shading and no grouping: that which artists call "composition" has no place in it whatever. Therefore, when we discover any of these esthetic elements present, we must look with serious distrust on the specimen. I believe it will certainly prove to be spurious. This is one of the chief reasons why I have never been able to accept the Lenape stone or the Davenport tablet. This is an all-important distinction, as upon it turns the science of reading these inscriptions. In a genuine document of the kind there is no more connection between the figures than there is between the letters which go to form a word. The difference between them and the letters of our alphabet is this: in the Indian writing, each figure stands for a whole sentence, while in our alphabet each letter stands for a single phonetic element. This is carry ing out the difference in the languages. In Algonquin, a whole sentence is expressed by a single word; while with us a number of separate words are needed. When a "medicine man" reads off from his "meday stick" the sacred chants thereon inscribed, each figure calls up by association a whole line of the song. This he repeats often several times before proceeding to the next. There is no grammatical connection between them, though the same train of ideas is pursued. A given figure may contain several objects; as in one given by Tanner, in which are shown a hunting lodge, a pole placed crosswise, a cord from it, and a kettle on the cord. This was intended to call to mind the whole sentence, MOOSHKIN AGUWA MANITOWA, "I fill my kettle for the spirit"; i. e. "I prepare to go forth on a medicine hunt". It is obvious from this that anything like an alphabetic script in the proper sense of the word cannot appear on any of these inscriptions, and if present, condemns it as a fraud (as the Grave Creek stone). The same is true of the presence of art-motives which we know they did not possess, such as indications of landscape or perspective, correctness of outline or proportion, conventional old-world designs (as the forked lightnings on the Lenape stone), or of objects with which the natives were unfamiliar (as the mastodon on the shell). All these principles are observed and carried out in the remarkable pictographic record of the Lenape or Delawares called the "Red Score", or WALUM OLUM, which I published some years ago, and which has been pronounced authentic by all the Indians to whom it has been submitted. It offers, I believe, an example of a genuine document of this nature; though I am ready to concede that it shows signs of "retouching", either by some educated native or by its finder, Professor Rafinesque. I shall not rehearse the criteria of a glyptic or lithologic character which should enter into the examination of such specimens; and still less into the question of the time, place and circumstances of their discovery,-further than to say in reference to the latter that in my experience the most palpable frauds in American archæology are those which have been established by the strongest array of affidavits and statements from "reliable gentlemen". I have learned not to attach the least importance to any such evidence, but to judge each specimen on its own merits. Applying these rules to the inscription before you, I see nothing in it which excludes it from a probable genuineness. We see, beginning at the top of the diagram, the figure of a man: below it that of a canoe: then a line beginning on the left with a rude outline of a quadruped, perhaps a deer; a bow and arrow; the footprint probably of a bear; sign of a fire; an unknown figure; and in the line below, a fish, an eel, some vague lines, ending with the symbol of a wigwam. It seems to be the record of a hunting and fishing excursion, of little importance. which the writer may have amused himse'f in inscribing on a piece of stone simply because it was suited to the purpose; or, it may have been a mnemonic aid to retain in the memory the words of some hunting song or medicine chant, intended to propitiate the divinities who confer or deny success in fishing or the chase. Whatever it may have been, I see nothing in it to convict it as spurious; nor, on the other hand, anything to indicate that it was a record of a matter of moment. NOTES ON NEOLITHIC FLINT MINES IN ENGLAND. [BY G. F. LAWRENCE, M. ANTH. INST., ETC., LONDON, ENG.] Mr. H. C. Mercer, in his paper on the Spiennes flint workings, mentions "wasters" of the Drift type; but says "that they do not occur at Spiennes". I have just returned from a visit to the famous Cissbury workings and have (Cne half Size.) A, B, C, Drift types Cissbury. grinding was done elsewhere. found, side by side with flints of the true Neolithic axe form, finished flints of the Drift or Palæolithic types. It appears to me that Neolithic man still made tools of the older form, for various purposes, I have several undoubted neolithic implements of the same drift types, found on the surface in other parts of England. I found, buried in earth, at the top of the ramparts at Cissbury, an implement of the chopper type, Fig. 1. This form has been found in the drift gravels of Suffolk, the Thames, and other localities, see Evans' Stone implements Fig. 433, and no doubt was a most servicable tool in savage times. I have also an implement found by myself at Cissbury in a layer of earth containing flakes, charcoal, etc., and just above a band of flakes, cores, chipped axes, etc., twelve inches thick; see Fig. 2: this implement is of the St. Acheul type, but being no doubt useful for digging purposes. was still made in late neolithic times, for underneath it, I found narrow thin axes of flint, of a type, probably made in the early bronze age. There is much to be discovered at Cissbury yet; as at Spiennes (with one exception,) no polished implements have been found in the pits, but I have several fragments of ground axes from the adjacent surface, as though the Scrapers also occur in the fields, but are very Knife daggers, curved knives, adzes, occur; but all broken in manufacture, cores, hollow scrapers for rounding bone pins, arrow shafts, etc., knives, sharp flakes, I had some severe cuts getting them out-saws, picks, etc., are all found in the old workings. No arrow heads have yet been found in the pits, but a good one was picked up in the fields near, some two or three years ago. Fragments of stag's horn picks are occasionally found, but are not so num erous, as at Grime's Graves, from which place I possess a fine specimen, Fig. 3. The drift forms also occur round the workings at Grime's Graves, I have several. I have also two or three horn picks from the Thames, and no doubt a better acquaintance with such rude looking tools, would result in the discovery of them in many other places. I think enough has been said to show that the roughness and primitive form of a stone implement is no proof of its great age, for it was natural that no great trouble was taken in making a tool for rough work, which would soon be damaged or broken and then thrown away to be replaced by a fresh one; for such skillful flint workers as the Cissbury and Grime's Graves inhabitants, whose whole life was probably spent in making implements, would not make a totally distinct form, accidentally and for no purpose. Note:-Some fresh chalk workings have just been found at Lavant, near Chichester, and I have been fortunate enough to secure a r ious chalk pendant from there, Fig. 4, but as the excavations are only just begun, enough has not yet been found to prove them of Neolithic age. They were certainly inhabited in Roman times, for some interesting bronze pins, etc., have been found in the caves. A PERUVIAN CEMETERY. [BY GEO. A. DORSEY.] The name Iquique suggests Salt Petre and Lord North (the Nitrate king) rather than the ancient empire of the Incas; in fact, it is famed the world |