Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 25, No. 3 ...

CONTRIBUTIOl\'S TO THE ADVANCE OF NEW EI\GLAI\D ARCHAEOLOGY 69
appear at different sites in the same area, and even
sometimes at the same site. In place of the diffusion
theory, it could be that the varying shapes are as a
result of the ingenuity of their makers.
Or for example, take the naming of a large
implement - the gouge. The distinguishing trait is
that which determines the shape of its stem. In
one case, it is left perfectly plain, which prompts
the name Plain gouge for this type. In another, a
groove with rounded trough that runs across the
back of the stem to keep hafting thongs in place
inspires the name Grooved gouge. In still another,
a relatively wide channel with flat trough, often
extending nearly the length of the stem across its
back, suggests the name Channeled gouge. Incidentally,
it has been proven beyond a doubt, as has
already been stated, that the last two types represent
separate culture periods. The Grooved belongs
in the Late Archaic, the Channeled in the
Early Archaic, which demonstrates the wisdom of
separating them into two types.
In any comprehensive classification it is necessary
to use care and place in separate categories
implements that may seem closely related, but
probably have different functions. For instance, take
small axes and clubs. In the past, many have held
these two implement forms to be interchangeable
under one heading. But the Society's classification
has found marked differences between them, which
has seemed significant enough to warrant establishing
a separate class for each. The reasons back of
this separation seem quite obvious when submitted
to careful analysis. Hatchet, is the name given to a
small ax without a groove; its shank is chipped into
shape and it has a honed cutting blade. This sharpening
by grinding would seem to indicate an
intent to make this tool capable of cutting wood.
William \Vood, an early 17th century commentator,
in describing the making of a dugout canoe, refers
to implements presumably similar to this type,
when he says: "cutting their out-sides with stonehatchets."
From this the classified Hatchet with
ground cutting edge would seem to fit the case best.
On the other hand, an implement having a chipped
blade without a ground cutting edge appears to
have been intended for use as a club, as it is
obviously unsuited for cutting wood. Excavation
of a typical hunting site has yielded such clubs,
exclusive of the ground edge type which seems to
support separation of these two kinds of implements
into different type classes.
The classification of stone implements, which
the Society has now completed seems a fitting climax
to twenty-five years of growth. It embraces
implement types common to all of New England.
It appears evident that all of the region east of the
Appalachians and north of Long Island Sound, now
divided up into six New England states, was once
a contiguous culture area, all parts of which could
have been reached conveniently by canoe or foot
travel. However, appearance of certain implement
modifications in Maine leads to the belief that cultural
development there may have passed through
a somewhat different pattern than in areas to the
south. Nevertheless, the basic implement types
seem to have extended into Maine with a few
exceptions. For example, one or two of its chipped
projectile point types resemble certain New York
State types. This may indicate contact of some
kind with the cultural life to the west with a subsequent
diffusion of ideas. Or it could I1lean importation
of actual projectile points from outside regions.
A similar condition is noted in southern Connecticut
on some sites, where recoveries occasionally appear,
in which points seem to have traits equating with
certain New York State blades. Because of such
diffusive probabilities, these point types have not
been included in the classification.