40 



THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 



projection of the stem or base, the bowl remaining jierpendicular. The 



next modificatiou is shown in Fig. 6, 

 which represents a type less common 

 than the preceding, but found in sev- 

 eral localites, as, for example, in Hamil- 

 ton Connty, Ohio; mounds in Sullivan 

 Couuty, east Tennessee (by the Bu- 

 reau); and in Virginia.' In these, al- 

 though retaining the broad or winged 

 stem, we see the bowl assuming the 

 forward slope and in some instances (as 

 some of those found in the mounds in Sullivan County, Tenn.) the pro- 

 jection of the stem is reduced to a simple rim or is entirely wanting. 



Fig. 6. Pipe from Hamilton County, Ohio. 



Fii. 7 Pipe fioin Sulln an County, Tennessee. 



The next step brings us to what may be considered the typical form 

 of the modern pipe, shown in Fig. 8. This pattern, according to Dr. 



Fig. 8. Pipe from Caldwell County, Xorth Carolina 



Abbott,Ms seldom found in New England or the Middle States, "ex- 

 cept of a much smaller size and made of clay." He figures one from 

 Isle of Wight County, Va., " made of compact steatite." A large num- 

 ber of this form were found in the ]S"orth Carolina mounds, some with 

 stems almost or quite a foot in length. 



It is hardly necessary to add that among the specimens obtained from 

 various localities can be found every possible gradation, from the an- 

 cient Ohio type to the modern form last mentioned. There is, there- 



' Kan : Sinitlisoui.au Contributions to Knowledge, No. 267, p. 50, Fig. 190. 

 2 Prim. Industry, 18GI, p. :W9. 



