Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:20:15.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pipestone and Red Shale Artifacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 1940

David H. Howell
David H. Howell*
Affiliation:
Claremont Colleges, Claremont, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the summer and fall of 1938 the writer made several trips into Arizona and while there visited various museums in the central and northern part of the state. In each of these he encountered numerous artifacts made of a red shale material which varies in color from a light pink to a dull red. This is often referred to locally as pipestone. On more than one occasion the writer was asked if these rock samples were catlinite and was astonished to find that he could not answer this query, nor, indeed could he define or properly describe catlinite. It was quite apparent, moreover, that much confusion prevailed concerning many of the red-stone artifacts incorporated in the museum collections and that some few people were drawing far-reaching conclusions as to the extent of commerce and trade indulged in by our North American predecessors. Regrettable as this tendency is, it is not entirely unexpected since research with pipestone has been neglected.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , July 1940 , pp. 45 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mearns, Edgar A., Popular Science Monthly, Vol 37, No. 6, pp. 745–763 Google Scholar, 1830: also verbal comments while the writer was in the field.

2 Winchell, N. H., The Geology of Minnesota, Vol. I of The Final Report of The Geologist and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 1872–1882, pp. 1–110 Google Scholar.

3 Op. cit., p. 24.

Carver, J., The New Universal Traveler (London 1779), p. 631.Google Scholar

Shea, J. G., Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley (New York, 1852), p. 35.Google Scholar

4 Catlin, George, American Journal of Science (1), Vol. 38, p. 138, 1840 Google Scholar.

5 Winchell, N. H., Op. tit., p. 542. Woodman, E. E., Wisconsin Academy of Science Transactions, Vol. 5, pp. 251–254, 1882 Google Scholar.

6 Berg, Ernest L., American Mineralogist, Vol. 23, pp. 258–268, 1938 Google Scholar.

7 Note on specimen bags received from Department of Geology, University of Minnesota.

Personal Communication with the Anthropology Department, University of Minnesota; also correspondence with Ernest L. Berg, 1938.

8 Barrett, S. A., Milwaukee Public Museum Yearbook, Vol. 4, pp. 16–18, 1924 Google Scholar.

West, G. A., Milwaukee Public Museum, Bulletin 17, Part I, p. 329.

Personal communication of the Museum, January 1939.

9 A station on the Prescott, Ashfork and Phoenix branch line of the Santa Fe twenty miles north of Prescott, Arizona.

10 Location: Yavapai County, Township 17, R. 1, W. Sections 38 & 34.

Pit #1—No claim papers found.

Pit #2—Filed “Lode Claim”—White Metal Mine. April 1927 by L. J. Rinehardt and Alex Ratcliff. Relocated, “Placer Claim”—Clay Bank No. 1, January 1936, by A. Noxan and Grace M. Sparkes.

Pit #3—Filed “Placer Claim” date obscured. Clay Bank Extension—by A. Noxan and Grace M. Sparkes.

11 Kennard, T. G., American Mineralogist, Vol. 20, pp. 392–399, 1935 Google Scholar.

Kennard, T. G. and Howell, D. H., American Mineralogist, Vol. 21, pp. 721–726, 1936 Google Scholar.

12 Staud, A. H., and Ruehle, A. E., Industrial Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition 10, p. 59, 1938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 The solutions were made as follows: Weighed amounts of each of the elements calculated either as oxides or as pure metals were put into solution. Successive dilutions were then made by adding water to make each concentration vary as the cube root of ten, i.e., 0.1, 0.046, 0.022, 0.001.

14 The persistent lines of potassium in samples 303 to 375 were weaker than those of this element in the solution with a concentration of 0.046 mg. K2O per 0.1 ml. This being the weakest readable potassium spectrum, the presence of that element is questionable in the specified samples. Similarly barium in samples 306 to 375 followed by the (?) in Table II, is questionable. The persistent lines of barium were weaker than those shown by the weakest solution, which had a concentration of 0.0004 mg. BaO per 0.1 ml.

15 Two of these outcrops are not more than one hundred yards apart.

16 The presence of water was determined by the Penfield method though no quantitative estimation was made.

17 Ross, C. S., and Kerr, P. F., United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper #165.

18 Op. cit.

19 Larsen, E. S., and Breman, H., United States Geological Survey Bulletin 848, p. 52, 1934.Google Scholar

20 Grim, R. E., Bray, R. H., and Bradley, W. F., American Mineralogist, Vol. 23, pp. 813–829, 1937 Google Scholar.

21 Gladwin, Haury, Sayles and Gladwin, Medallion XXV, p. 126 and p. 130, 1937.

22 Winchell, op. cit.

23 Dana, E. S., A Textbook of Mineralogy, Revised by Ford, W. E., Fourth Ed. p. 684, New York, 1932 Google Scholar.

24 Berg, op. cit.

25 Jackson, C. T., American Journal of Science (1), Vol. 35, p. 388, 1839.

26 Lexicon of Geological Names of The United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 896, Pt. 2, p. 2004.

27 See footnotes 5 and 8.

28 See footnote 5,

29 Wilson, E. D., University of Arizona. Personal Communication.

30 Among others: Schoolcraft, H. R., Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, Vol. I, pp. 76–79, 1860.

Moorehead, W. K., The Stone Age in North America, Vol. II, pp. 29–92, 1910 Google Scholar.

31 Wilson, E. D., Pan American Geologist, Vol. 38, pp. 299–312, 1922 Google Scholar.

32 Kidder, A. V. and Sheppard, A. O., The Pottery of Pecos, Vol. II, p. 530, 1936 Google Scholar.

Caywood, L. R., and Spicer, E. H., Tuzigoot, The Excavation and Repair of a Ruin on the Verde River near Clarkdale, Arizona, 1935, pp. 109–111 Google Scholar. Spectrographs examination by Morris G. Fowler.