STONE AGE IN NEW JERSEY. oo\) 



reck and on tbe lower or basal outline of the specimen. The projecting 

 point in front much resembles tbe beak of a bird, and altbough rough in 

 finish does not appear to be merely an accidental fracture. Tbis speci- 

 men was found within a few yards of figure 170, and we do not doubt 

 that it is an unfinished specimen of tbe same nature. Two-thirds of the 

 original surface, upon one side, has been broken off in a single jiiece, 

 and this newer surface has now nearly the same degree of weathering, 

 and is of nearly the same tint as the natural surface of the specimen. 

 There are no grooves, scratches, or other markings that appear to have 

 been made when the stone itself recieved its present .shape. 



This specimen is a finely grained, compact sandstone, readily scratch- 

 ing glass, but is more easily worked than the jasperC?) pebble, figure 

 177. With the exceptions of the two portions of the margin above 

 referred to, there is no indication of any attempt to polish or smooth 

 down the surface of the stone. 



If it be objected that these stone figures are too rudely shaped to be 

 considered specimens of animal sculpture, we can only say, in reply, that 

 they are not accidentally fractured stones, as shown by their polished 

 and ground surfaces at different points. Again, thcj are not more crude 

 than those wonderful "animal mounds" mentioned* by Lapham, as 

 existing in Wisconsin j and it may not be inappropriate here to refer 

 to a figure given by this gentleman, and called " tbe stone bird."' 

 Mr. Lapham t remarks: "At Ilustisford a stone was sliowu us, which, by 

 the aid of a little imagination, may be supposed to represent the head 

 of a bird, and which was held in great veneration by tbe Winnebago 

 Indians, who have but very recently been removed from this part of the 

 State. It is a gneissoid granite, of accidental form, caused by the 

 unequal decay and disintegration of the different layers of which it is 

 composed." Here we see that an accidentally shaped stone was vene- 

 rated because of some resemblance to a bird ; and if a modern Indian 

 could see the resemblance in the case of tbe stone figured by Mr. Lap- 

 ham, would it not require a less fertile imagination to see the resem- 

 blance in the specimens we have figured, wbich are recognized as 

 animal carvings by those who have seen them, and which, unlike the 

 Wisconsin stone bird, are not chance shapings but designed cuttings. 



We have in Squier and Davis's} great monograph an account of 

 several "singularly sculptured tablets," one of which is figured. "It 

 represents a coiled rattlesnake ; both faces of tbe tablet being identical 

 in sculpture, exceptiug that one is plane, the other slightly convex. 

 The material is a xery fine cinnamon-colored sandstone." We bave 

 here a near approach to the general character of our specimen, figure 

 17G; but tbe Ohio tablet has elaborate carving upon tbe sides, which 

 alone enables the specimen to be recognized as a snake, while in the three 

 figures we bave given, tbe recognition of tbe intended likeness to ani- 

 mal beads is through the outline alone. 



* Aatiq. of Wisconsin, Smithaon. Contiib., vol. vii. t L. c, p. 51. 



t Anc. Mod. Miss, Valley, p. 27G, fig. 19G. 



