Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising,

Public Relations, and Journalism, 4th Edition

Thomas Bivins pdf download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/mixed-media-moral-distinctions-in-
advertising-public-relations-and-journalism-4th-edition-thomas-
bivins/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition Benjamin
Harrison

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-
history-workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-
edition-benjamin-harrison/

Handbook of Research on New Media Applications in

Public Relations and Advertising 1st Edition Elif
Esiyok

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-new-media-
applications-in-public-relations-and-advertising-1st-edition-
elif-esiyok/

Advertising and Public Relations Research 2nd Edition

Donald W Jugenheimer

https://ebookmeta.com/product/advertising-and-public-relations-
research-2nd-edition-donald-w-jugenheimer/

Spring Catch Spring Fever 2 1st Edition Ava Pearl

https://ebookmeta.com/product/spring-catch-spring-fever-2-1st-
edition-ava-pearl/
Catch a Kiss Deborah Diesen Kris Aro Mcleod

https://ebookmeta.com/product/catch-a-kiss-deborah-diesen-kris-
aro-mcleod/

A History of Mathematics Third Edition Uta C Merzbach

Carl B Boyer Isaac Asimov Foreword

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-history-of-mathematics-third-
edition-uta-c-merzbach-carl-b-boyer-isaac-asimov-foreword/

Marijuana on My Mind Timmen Cermak

https://ebookmeta.com/product/marijuana-on-my-mind-timmen-cermak/

Diagnostic Ultrasound in Dermatology

https://ebookmeta.com/product/diagnostic-ultrasound-in-
dermatology/

Pocket Rough Guide British Breaks Orkney Travel Guide

eBook 1st Edition Rough Guides

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pocket-rough-guide-british-breaks-
orkney-travel-guide-ebook-1st-edition-rough-guides/
Waterloo 1st Edition Paul O'Keeffe

https://ebookmeta.com/product/waterloo-1st-edition-paul-okeeffe/
Mixed Media

Mixed Media offers students of journalism, advertising, and public relations the
tools for making ethical and moral decisions within their professional disciplines.
The fourth edition of this popular text features more recent ethical theories
that acknowledge and address intersectionality within the communicative land-
scape, including issues of gender, race, ability, and age. The author also takes
into account today’s rapidly expanding technology, touching on subjects such
as free speech, censorship, cancel culture, and misinformation, and considers
how each of these is affected by online and social media. Other updates to the
text include expanded coverage of citizen journalism, the increasing media use
of artificial intelligence and virtual reality, power in communicative structures,
and public interest, as well as refreshed examples throughout. As in previous
editions of the book, special attention is paid to key ethical decision-making
approaches and concerns in each media industry, including but not limited to
truth telling, constituent obligations, persuasion versus advocacy, and respect
for the consumers of public communication.
Mixed Media is key reading for students of all branches of Media and
Communication Ethics.
The author’s own website, featuring lecture notes, case studies, and links to
further reading, can be accessed at www​.j397mediaethics​.weebly​.com.

Tom Bivins is the John L. Hulteng Chair in Media Ethics and the head of
the Graduate Certificate Program in Communication Ethics in the School of
Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, USA.
Mixed Media

Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public

Relations, and Journalism

Fourth Edition

Tom Bivins
Cover design by Thomas H. Bivins

Fourth edition published 2023

by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2023 Tom Bivins

The right of Thomas H. Bivins to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

[First edition published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2003]

[Third edition published by Routledge 2018]

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bivins, Thomas H. (Thomas Harvey), 1947- author.
Title: Mixed media : moral distinctions in advertising, public relations,
and journalism / Tom Bivins.
Description: 4th edition. | New York, NY: Routledge, 2023. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022059358 (print) | LCCN 2022059359 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781032269603 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032269610 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003290674 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Mass media–Moral and ethical aspects.
Classification: LCC P94 .B53 2023 (print) | LCC P94 (ebook) |
DDC 175–dc23/eng/20221230
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022059358
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022059359

ISBN: 9781032269603 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781032269610 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003290674 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003290674

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Deanta Global Publishing Services Chennai India
Contents

Preface viii

PART I
The Basics 1

1 What Is Media Ethics? 3

Ethics and the Act of Communication 3
Ethics or Morals? 3
The Media and Morality 4
Moral Excuses 9
Can Personal Ethics Become Professional Ethics? 10
Media Similarities: The Common Threads 11
Media Differences: A Coat of Many Colors 12
Forming Ethical Standards for the Mass Media 16
Can the Media Be Ethical? 20

2 Moral Claimants, Obligation, and Social Responsibility 23

Relationships among Media and Their Claimants 24
Functional versus Moral Obligation 25
The Nature of Obligation 27
The Libertarian Approach 30
The Social Responsibility Approach 31
What Does It All Mean? 33

3 The Media and Professionalism 35

Are the Media Industries Professions? 36
The Professional–Client Relationship 42
Ethics Codes 48
Profession versus Professionalism 54
vi Contents

PART II
The Theories 57

4 Introduction 59
Why Don’t We Just Act Ethically? 59
Why Can’t We All Be Right? The Dilemma of Relativism 61
Why We Reason the Way We Do 63
Social Contract Theory: The Debate Between the One and the
Many 64

5 The Argument over Means and Ends 72

Consequential Ethical Theories 72
Duty-Based Ethical Theories 79
Duty-Based Theory in Modern Practice 83

6 Virtue and Caring 86

Virtue Ethics 86
The Ethic of Care 93

7 Free Speech 101

History of Free Speech in the United States 101
John Milton and the Marketplace of Ideas 102
The Liberty Theory 105
Free Speech and the Individual versus Society 106
Liberty-Limiting Principles 110
Satire and Freedom of Expression: A Special Case 112
Satire in Summary 120
What Does It All Mean? 121

8 A Checklist for Ethical Decision-Making 124

How to Choose Applicable Theories 124
Organizing Your Approach 125
The Checklist 127
An Example 132
What Does It All Mean? 137

PART III
Issues and Applications 139

9 Ethical Issues Across the Media 141

To Tell the Truth 141
Truth as a Legal Concept 142
 Contents  vii

Truth and the Act of Communication 144

Can We Tell Truth from Fiction? 150
The “Post-Truth” Society 154
Avoiding Harm 162
What Does It All Mean? 170

10 Ethical Issues Common to Both Public Relations and

Advertising 175
What’s the Difference between PR and Advertising? 175
Public Relations, Advertising, and the First Amendment 177
Ethics and Persuasion 181
Guidelines for Ethical Persuasion 185
Propaganda vs Persuasion 187
What Does It All Mean? 191

11 Ethics and Public Relations 194

What Is Public Relations? 194
Ethical Approaches Specific to Public Relations 200
Special Issues in Public Relations Ethics 205
Public Relations Ethics and the “New” Media 215
What Does It All Mean? 223

12 Ethics and Advertising 226

What Is Advertising? 226
Ethical Approaches Specific to Advertising 229
Special Issues in Advertising Ethics 235
Creating the Image: Between the Truth and the Lie 238
A Reflection or a Creator of Reality: Stereotyping 244
What Does It All Mean? 268

13 Ethics in News Journalism 275

The Broad Issues in News Journalism 277
Ethical Approaches Specific to News Journalism 289
Special Issues in Journalism Ethics 295
Ethics and the “New” Media 308
What Does It All Mean? 319

Index 327
Preface

Media professionals spend a great deal of time talking about “doing the right
thing.” Why is it then that the consumers of mass media perennially find so
much fault with the ethics of the disseminators of news, information, and enter-
tainment? What has led the purveyors of mass communication to believe and
act the way they do? Do they have a special obligation for ethical behavior that
ordinary citizens do not; or do they, in fact, have a special waiver of the basic
moral tenets that the rest of us must accept in order that we may have access to
a “free marketplace of ideas”? These are the questions we must ask ourselves if
we are to be moral agents of the mass media.
This book is designed to familiarize you with the tools needed to make moral
decisions regarding the use of mass media, both as a consumer of the “products”
of the media and as a potential working member of the media. You should real-
ize from the outset that there are no “right” answers in this book – only answers
that are “most appropriate” in certain situations. To whom they are the most
appropriate is a major concern of this book. Many questions will be asked, and
many answers will be discussed. Ultimately, it will be up to you to draw your
own conclusions about the rightness of the answers you choose to accept. It is to
be hoped that you will come away with a greater appreciation for the complexi-
ties of making a moral decision. At the very least, you will be forced to develop
a personal yardstick by which to measure your decisions.

The Structure of the Book

The only possibility of arriving at anything approaching a satisfactory response
to our moral dilemmas lies not with rote answers to prepackaged questions, but
with real sweat that comes only from real thinking. And real thinking can only
happen if the thinkers understand as much how to think as what to think about.
The ethical dilemmas faced by the mass media are not unique to them alone;
however, the appropriate responses to those dilemmas are often dictated by the
position of importance the media hold in our society. They are powerful but,
like the rest of us, they do not operate in a vacuum. Because they are an integral
part of our society, everything they do affects everything else. And, like the
 Preface  ix

rest of us, they are obligated to a great many people by virtue of those effects.
Obligation is at the heart of much that is presented in this book. Although our
society strongly favors individual freedom, we also recognize that without com-
munity we are simply isolated and self-interested beings. Somewhere, a balance
must be struck between individual autonomy and community interests.
A good portion of this book is devoted to exploring how ethical theories can
be applied in modern-day moral decision-making. Don’t be afraid of these theo-
ries. After all, they represent merely the thoughts of those who would have us
act “morally,” or in the “right” way. And that’s the point of ethics, after all.
Ultimately, the lessons presented serve not only to better your ability to make
decisions, but also to better your chosen professions as you become more pro-
ductive, and more ethical, members of the mass media.
PART I

The Basics


Chapter 1

What Is Media Ethics?

Always do right. That will gratify some of the people, and astonish the rest.
Mark Twain

Ethics and the Act of Communication

Communication is basic to being human, and is essential for social interaction.
But because communication plays a significant role in influencing others and
because intent is so important as a motivation, the likelihood that ethical issues
will arise as a result of communication is great indeed. The fact that media prac-
titioners consciously choose specific means of communication in order to reach
a desired end pretty much guarantees that issues of right and wrong will arise.1
Most of us accept that much media-originated speech is designed to influ-
ence, in one way or another, our attitudes and behaviors. We distinctly do not,
however, accept that that speech will or should be allowed to force us into a
particular attitude or behavior through such methods as deception, coercion,
carelessness, or even laziness.
It is clear that the act of communication is inextricably bound up with the
potential for ethically questionable practices. How mass media communicators
unravel that knot is the subject of the rest of this book.

Ethics or Morals?
Would you feel worse if someone called you unethical or if someone called you
immoral? Most of us react differently to these two words, but we can’t quite pin
down the reason why. Ethics has come to be recognized as the study of concepts
such as ought, should, duty, and so on, whereas moral tends to be attached to
activities that are either good or bad and the rules that we develop to cover
those activities. Some prefer to think of morals as being culturally transmitted
indicators of right and wrong, whereas ethics is merely a way to determine what
we ought to do. You could also think of ethics as a subset of morality, which
is a broader term. In more modern usage, ethics tends to refer to professional

DOI: 10.4324/9781003290674-2
4 The Basics

actions, while morality is most often applied to personal actions. For example, a
journalist who cheats on their spouse can be seen to have violated a moral dic-
tate. However, if they have lied or misled their readers about an issue of interest
to them, we may think of it as a professional offense.
For our purposes, however, the terms will be used pretty much interchange-
ably, except when noted otherwise. In fact, the technical term for making ethical
decisions is “moral decision-making,” a term that will be used throughout this
book.

The Media and Morality

Whether the media simply reflect our cultural morality or directly influence that
morality is a question of considerable debate and disagreement. Undeniably, the
media influence our lives in myriad ways – some good, some not so good. We
rely on them for information vital to our daily lives, including everything from
hurricane alerts to the variety of products available for headache relief. They
also sell us ideas and images we might not otherwise be exposed to were it not
for the “mass” nature of the media. They can, and sometimes do, remind us of
the joys of being human; but they just as often pander to our basest instincts.
The media reflect our lives in a number of ways as well. We see ourselves in
newscasts, we wonder with commentators at the seeming increases in violence
and other undesirable cultural trends, and we increasingly enjoy ever speedier
and flashier entertainment. In fact, the debate over whether the media contrib-
ute to or merely reflect societal mores is really a false one. It is ridiculous to
think that they don’t do both. They do reflect what we are right now, sometimes
distilled so much as to be simply a caricature, but reflective nonetheless. They
also constantly test our reactions to change, and back off only when it becomes
unprofitable for them not to do so. They may not innovate as much as many
would like, but they do evolve, and so influence us in often subtle ways. Is
this necessarily bad? No. All societies are organic in the sense that they are
constantly changing. Modern mass media are both reflective of that change and
effective agents of it.

Are the Media Prone to Ethical Dilemmas?

We are all probably prone to as many ethical dilemmas in our daily lives as most
media people. Why, then, do we seem to attach so much importance to what the
media do? The answer is varied and complex. First of all, the ethical dilemmas
we face each day may not affect large numbers of people. Our decision to tell
that “white” lie when our best friend confronts us with a new (and questionable)
hairstyle affects only the two of us, at least initially.
But an editor’s decision to post a questionable photo on their newspaper’s
website affects a great many people. An advertising executive’s decision to run
an ad symbolically demeaning women affects more than just the agency and the
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 growth and migration of tribes is to be got from an arrowhead
which might have come from Polynesia, or Siberia, or the Isle of
Man, or from a celt which might be, for all its appearance
shows, Mexican, Irish, or Tahitian. If an observer, tolerably
acquainted with stone implements, had an unticketed collection
placed before him, the largeness of the number of specimens
which he would not confidently assign, by mere inspection, to
their proper countries, would serve as a fair measure of their
general uniformity. Even when aided by mineralogical
knowledge, often a great help, he would have to leave a large
fraction of the whole in an unclassified heap, confessing that he
did not know within thousands of miles or thousands of years
where and when they were made.

How, then, is this remarkable uniformity to be explained? The

principle that man does the same thing under the same
circumstances will account for much, but it is very doubtful
whether it can be stretched far enough to account for even the
greater proportion of the facts in question. The other side of the
argument is, of course, that resemblance is due to connection,
and the truth is made up of the two, though in what proportion
we do not know.8

While the several authors quoted do not fully agree, and some are
even slightly self-contradictory, still, if the statements are to be taken
at their face value, it would seem that efforts to make such
classifications are mainly a waste of time.

It may be premised that in every class of implements there are

almost as many forms as specimens, if every variation in size or
pattern is to be considered; and these merge into one another
imperceptibly. Not only is this the case with individual types, but the
classes themselves, totally unlike as their more pronounced forms
may be, gradually approach one another until there is found a
medium type whose place can not be definitely fixed.
 THE ARTS AND THEIR
DISTRIBUTION.

Districts.

As space would be needlessly occupied by attempting to name each

county, the area from which specimens have been obtained is, for
convenience, divided into districts. These divisions are for use in this
article only, and are not intended as archeologic districts.

In the tables given under each heading, the names of counties or

districts show where the types described are obtained; the columns
following show the number of specimens of each material mentioned
in the collection of the Bureau.

Where a limited area only has been examined in any division, the
name of the county is usually given; but where specimens of any
kind have been obtained from different counties near one another,
they are assigned to the district including those counties. The
districts are as follows:

Arkansas.

Northeastern: Between White and Mississippi rivers.

Southeastern: Between White and Washita rivers from

Clarendon to Arkadelphia.
Southwestern: West of Washita river and south of Arkadelphia,
including Bowie and Red River counties, Texas.

Central: From Dardanelles southward and eastward to the

above limits.

Alabama.

Northeastern: Bordering Tennessee river east of Decatur.

Northwestern: Bordering Tennessee river west of Decatur.

Coosa: Bordering Coosa river southward to and including Dallas
county.

Tuscaloosa: Bordering the Tuscaloosa and Little Tombigbee, and

extending a short distance below their confluence.

Ohio.

Miami valley: The country along the two Miami rivers, including
Shelby county on the north and Madison and Brown counties on
the east.

Scioto valley: South of Franklin county, including Adams and

Lawrence counties.

Central: Including Union, Knox, Perry, and Franklin counties, and

the area within these limits.

Wisconsin.

Southwestern: The counties bordering on either side of

Mississippi river from La Crosse to Dubuque (Iowa).

Eastern: The portion between Lake Michigan, Lake Winnebago,

and the Illinois line.
Southern: Dane and adjoining counties.

Iowa.

Keokuk: The southeastern corner of the state and adjacent

portions of Illinois and Missouri.

Tennessee.

Eastern: All the mountain district, with the extreme

southwestern part of Virginia.

Western: From Mississippi river to and including the tier of

counties east of the Tennessee.

Northern: The northern half of the interior portion.

Southern: The southern half of this portion.

South Carolina.

Northwestern: North and west of a line from Lancaster to

Columbia. As no other portion of the state has been examined
under direction of the Bureau, only the name of the state is
used herein, reference being always to this section.

Georgia.

Northwestern: The portion northwest of the Chattahoochee.

Southwestern: Area contiguous to the lower Chattahoochee and

Flint river.

Savannah: The vicinity of the city of Savannah, where a large

collection was gathered.

Kentucky.
 Northeastern: Between Kentucky, Big Sandy, and Ohio rivers.

Southeastern: From Estill and Cumberland counties to the

Tennessee and Virginia state lines.

Central: Between Green and Ohio rivers, west of the last

described districts.

Southern: From Green river southward and as far westward as

Christian county.

Western: West of Green river and Christian county.

North Carolina.

Western: West of Charlotte.

Central: Between Charlotte and Raleigh.

Illinois.

Southwestern: From the mouth of the Cumberland to

Washington county, and thence to the Mississippi.

Descriptive Terms.

The various forms of implements will now be considered. As stated

above, the names given the various articles are those by which they
are usually known; but it may be well to define some of the terms
used.

In the grooved axes, edge refers to the cutting portion; blade, to the
part below the groove; poll or head, to that above the groove; face,
to the wider or flat portion of the surface; side, to the narrower part;
front, to that side farther from the hand, and back, to the side
nearer the hand when in use.
In celts, the terms are the same, so far as they are applicable; blade
referring to the lower half of the implement; that is, to the portion
on which the cutting edge is formed.

Ground and Pecked Articles.

Grooved Axes.

The implements known as grooved axes seem to be of general

distribution throughout the United States; being, so far can be
learned from various writers, much more numerous east of
Mississippi river than west of it. It must be remembered, however,
that thousands of diligent collectors have carefully searched for such
things in the east, while in the west little attention has been paid to
them; consequently, deductions are not to be made concerning their
relative abundance or scarcity, until further knowledge is gained. The
same remark will apply to every form of aboriginal relic.

In the eastern and interior states, the grooved axes are far more
abundant than the celts of the same size9, because as a rule only
the larger implements of this class are grooved. All the ordinary
varieties of axes and hatchets are found about Lake Champlain, by
far the most abundant being celts, or grooveless axes.10

According to Adair and other early observers, the southern Indians

had axes of stone, around the grooved heads of which they twisted
hickory withes to serve as handles; with these they deadened timber
by girdling or cutting through the bark.11 According to travelers of a
later generation among the western Indians, similar implements
were used on the plains to chop up the vertebræ of buffaloes, which
were boiled to obtain the marrow.12
These statements, which might be multiplied, show that such
objects are to be found widely scattered; none, however, give
information more definite than that the axes are “grooved,” no
reference being made to the shape of the ax or the manner of
grooving.

The various modes of mounting axes and celts in handles are

illustrated in the Smithsonian Report for 1879.

Stone axes were used in Europe by the Germans at as late a period

as the Thirty Years’ war, and are supposed to have been used by the
Anglo-Saxons at the battle of Hastings.13

Fig. 29.—Grooved ax, showing groove projections.

Axes having two grooves occur in considerable numbers in the

pueblos of southwestern United States, but they are extremely rare
elsewhere and unknown in most districts; as the objects are
generally small, the utility of the second groove is not evident.
The arrangement of stone axes may be based upon the manner of
forming the groove. In one class are placed those which in the
process of making had a ridge left encircling the weapon, in which
the groove was formed. This gives the ax greater strength with the
same material. Usually the groove has been worked just deep
enough to reach the body of the ax; that is, to such a depth that
should the projections be ground off there would remain a celt-like
implement (as shown in figure 29, of chlorite-schist, from Sullivan
county, Tennessee). The axes of this class in the Bureau collection
are shown in the following table:

District. A B C D E F
Eastern Tennessee 9 8 4 5 1
Western North Carolina 1 1
Central North Carolina 1 1
Savannah, Georgia 4 1
Butler county, Ohio 1 1
KEY:
A = Greenstone.
B = Argillite.
C = Sienite.
D = Granite.
E = Schist.
F = Quartzite.

In the second class the groove is formed by pecking into the body of
the ax after the latter is dressed into shape; in this pattern a regular
continuous line from edge to poll would touch only the margins of
the groove, leaving it beneath. An apparent medium between the
two is sometimes seen, in which there is a projection on the lower
side of the groove only; this is due, usually, to dressing the blade
down thinner after the implement was originally worked to a
symmetric outline. By continuous or long use the edge of the ax
becomes broken or blunted and requires sharpening, and in order to
keep the proper outline to make the tool efficient, it is necessary to
work the blade thinner as it becomes shorter. No such change is
required in the poll, consequently a projection is formed where
originally there was no trace of one.

Fig. 30.—Grooved ax, showing pointed edge.

There are different methods of finishing the ax, which may appear
with either form of groove. The poll may be worked into the shape
of a flattened hemisphere, may be flat on top, with the part between
the groove and the top straight, convex or concave, or may be
worked to a blunt point, with straight or concave lines to the groove.
The blade may taper from the groove to the edge, with straight or
curved sides, which may run almost parallel or may be drawn to a
blunt-pointed edge. This latter form is probably due to breaking or
wearing of the blade, which is reworked, as shown in figure 30, of
granite, from Boone county, Missouri.

There are a very few specimens, as noted below, in which the ax

gradually increases in width from the poll to the edge; but such
specimens seem to be made of stones which had this form
approximately at the beginning, and were worked into such shape as
would give a suitable implement with the least labor.

In nearly every instance the groove of an ax with a groove

projection extends entirely around with practically the same depth,
and the blade of the ax has an elliptical section. There are, however,
a few with the back flattened; and while many of the second division
may be similar in section, and in having the groove extend entirely
around, yet in this class are to be placed nearly all of those only
partly encircled by a groove or showing some other section than the
ellipse.
 Fig. 31.—Grooved ax, Fig. 32.—Grooved ax,
showing groove entirely slender, showing groove
around. entirely around.

With these exceptions, the second class of grooved stone axes

comprises seven groups, which may be described and tabulated as
follows:
A. Grooved entirely around, elliptical section, polls dressed in any of
the ways given above; three or four have the blunt-pointed edge
(figure 31, of granite, from Bradley county, Tennessee).

District. A B C D E F G H I
Southwestern Illinois 1 1 1
Eastern Tennessee 4 3 2 2 15 4 1
Central North Carolina 1 1
Western North Carolina 2 2
Central Arkansas 1 1
Ross county, Ohio 1
Green River, Kentucky 1 1
Northeastern Kentucky 1 1
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 4 1 1 1
Keokuk district, Iowa 1 1
Savannah, Georgia 1 2 6 3
Miami valley, Ohio 2 5 1
KEY:
A = Greenstone.
B = Granite.
C = Diorite.
D = Sandstone.
E = Quartzite.
F = Argillite.
G = Slate.
H = Sienite.
I = Porphyry.

B. Long, narrow, and thin, giving a much flattened elliptical section.

These are classed with axes on account of the grooves, although too
thin and usually of material too soft to endure violent usage. The
edges are nicked, striated, or polished, as though from use as hoes
or adzes (figure 32, of argillite, from Bradley county, Tennessee).

District. A B C
Eastern Tennessee 18 1
Keokuk district, Iowa 1
 Kanawha valley, West Virginia 1
Montgomery county, North Carolina 1
Western North Carolina 1
Butler county, Ohio 2
KEY:
A = Granite.
B = Argillite.
C = Slate.

Fig. 33.—Grooved ax, Fig. 34.—Grooved ax,

showing grooved back. showing grooved back.
C. Grooved on both faces and one side; back hollowed, usually in a
straight line the whole length; front drawn in from the groove to give
a narrower edge (figures 33, of porphyry, from Brown county, Ohio,
and 34, of granite, from Kanawha valley, West Virginia).

District. A B C D
Eastern Tennessee 1 1
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 1 1
Butler county, Ohio 1
Brown county, Ohio 1
KEY:
A = Granite.
B = Argillite.
C = Sienite.
D = Porphyry.

D. Same method of grooving; back is rounded, and may be in a

straight or curved line the entire length, or a broken line straight in
each direction from the groove. The type is illustrated by figure 35,
of granite, from Keokuk, Iowa. This specimen is unusually wide and
thin; generally the outlines are similar to those last described.

District. A B C
Eastern Tennessee 5
Butler county, Ohio 2
Keokuk district, Iowa 1 1
KEY:
A = Granite.
B = Argillite.
C = Sienite.
 Fig. 35.—Grooved ax, showing rounded back.

E. Grooved like the last; same general form, except that the back is
flat (figures 36, of sienite, from Brown county, Ohio, and 37, of
granite, from Drew county, Arkansas).

District. A B C D E
Miami valley, Ohio 2 3 5
Brown county, Ohio 1
Keokuk district, Ohio 1 1
Brown county, Illinois 1 2
Eastern Tennessee 2 2
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 4 1 2
Savannah, Georgia 1 1
Northeastern Kentucky 1
Licking county, Ohio 1
KEY:
A = Sandstone.
B = Argillite.
C = Granite.
 D = Sienite.
E = Greenstone.

F. Grooved on both faces and one side, with both sides flat. There is
only one of this form in the collection; it is of argillite, from Keokuk,
Iowa.

G. Grooved on faces only, with both sides flat (figure 38, of granite,
from Keokuk, Iowa). There are from the same place one of porphyry,
one of argillite, and three of sienite. This and the preceding form
seem peculiar to that locality.
 Fig. 36.—Grooved ax, Fig. 37.—Grooved ax,
showing flattened curved showing flattened
back. straight back.

There are a few exceptional forms which are not placed with those
just given, since they may have some features common to all except
the Keokuk type, while in other respects they differ from all. Among
them are some entire-grooved or grooved only on the two sides and
one face; the general outline may correspond with some of the
regular forms, but one face is curved from poll to edge, while the
other is straight or nearly so (figure 39, of granite, from Wilkes
county, North Carolina). This specimen has a depression, as if worn
by the end of a handle, on the straight face at the lower edge of the
groove.

None of this form are long enough for hoes, and although they may
have been used for axes and hatchets, their shape seems to indicate
use as adzes. Besides the one figured there are two from Savannah,
Georgia; three from eastern Tennessee, one with a slight groove and
very deep side notches; and three from western North Carolina, two
of them entire-grooved with groove projections.

Fig. 38.—Grooved ax, Fig. 39.—Grooved ax,

Keokuk type. showing adze form.
Another unusual form, which may come under any of the foregoing
figures, has the groove crossing the implement diagonally, in such a
way as to cause the blade to incline backward (figure 40, of granite,
from Carter county, Tennessee). Besides the specimen illustrated,
this form is also represented by one of granite from northwestern
North Carolina with projection for groove; two of argillite from
southwestern Tennessee; one, widest at edge, from Savannah,
Georgia; one from Ross county, Ohio; and two of granite, highly
polished, grooved on faces and one side, with backs flat, from
Kanawha valley, West Virginia.

Of the axes wider at the edge than at any point above (of which the
specimen illustrated in figure 41, of granite, from a grave at
Kingsport, Tennessee, may be taken as a type,) there are one of
diorite from Kanawha valley, West Virginia, which seems to have
been of ordinary pattern but broken and redressed to its present
form; and from Savannah, Georgia, one of uniform taper with
diagonal groove, and one widening irregularly until the blade is fully
twice the width of the poll.

Fig. 40.—Grooved ax, Fig. 41.—Grooved ax,

showing diagonal groove. showing wide edge.
Many, if not a majority, of the entire-grooved axes have the groove
wide enough for a very large handle, or for an ordinary withe to be
twisted twice around. In those which have one side ungrooved, the
intention was to admit a wedge between the stone and the curve of
the handle. The handles were very firmly fastened; two axes in the
collection have been broken in such a way that on one side, from
the top half way down, the blade is gone, carrying away the groove
on that side; yet the polish of the groove extends over the fractured
surface, which has never been reworked, showing that the tool was
long used after this accident. As the handles could easily slip off over
the top in specimens thus broken, they must have been tightly
lashed; perhaps gum or glue was used.

Fig. 42.—Grooved ax, showing curved edge.

Partly finished specimens show that the groove was pecked out and
the edge ground before the remaining parts of the ax were worked.
Some have the edge ground sharp and the groove worn smooth or
even polished by long use, while all the rest of the implement retains
the original weathered surface. A stone was always chosen that
could be brought to the desired form with the least labor, and very
often one could be found that required but little work to make a very
satisfactory weapon or implement or even ornament.

Occasionally specimens indicate by the manner of wear their

application to certain kinds of work. Sometimes the edge is curved
by the wearing away of one face until it has almost a gouge form;
sometimes the side of the blade next the hand, again that farthest
away, is more worn. This in time would give the blunt-pointed edge.
A peculiar finish of the lower part of the blade, which is also seen in
a few celts, is shown in figure 42, of sienite, from Carter county,
Tennessee. One half of each face has been left full, and the part
opposite hollowed out, giving an ogee curve to the edge. Figure 43,
of granite, from Jefferson county, Tennessee, seems to have a ridge
on the upper side of the groove; but closer examination shows that
it once had a groove projection, and that afterwards the poll was
nearly all broken away and a new groove made lower down, so that
what was originally the lower projection is now above the groove,
the remainder of the poll being worked down to a point.

There are a few hammers which differ from the ordinary ax only in
being blunt instead of sharp. They may be nothing more than
broken axes, utilized as hammers instead of being resharpened.

Fig. 43.—Grooved ax, showing single groove projection.

Under this head may be placed implements plainly used as adzes.
They are much longer than axes in proportion to their other
dimensions, have one face convex, the other straight or concave.
They may be placed in the same class as the specimen shown in
figure 39, and also those represented in figures 44 and 45, from
McMinn county, Tennessee. There is also a similar adze from Saline
county, Arkansas. All the specimens of this class are of argillite.

With the grooved axes is also placed a class of implements that may
be called axes notched on the sides. Many of them were no doubt
used as sinkers; but some of the same form, size, and material have
the notches and sometimes portions of the face worn perfectly
smooth, while frequently they are ground to a sharp edge. Again,
even in those that have not the least polish, the edge shows marks
that would seem to result from use as axes, adzes, or hoes.

There are three divisions of this class of implements, as follows:

A. Unworked, except notches; probably sinkers.

District. A B C D
Eastern Tennessee 1 5
Montgomery county, North Carolina 1
Northeastern Alabama 5
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 3
KEY:
A = Sandstone.
B = Argillite.
C = Quartzite.
D = Limestone.

B. Partly ground sharp edges, mostly with polished notches,

sometimes with faces polished from one notch to the other (figure
46, of argillite, from Cocke county, Tennessee). In addition there are
11 examples of argillite, besides one of mica-schist from eastern
Tennessee and another of sandstone from Savannah, Georgia.
 Fig. 44.—Grooved Fig. 45.—Grooved adze, showing
adze. curved blade.

C. Roughly chipped, with notches often at the middle but sometimes

nearer one end. Probably most of these were sinkers; but as above
stated the edges show marks of use, apparently in scraping, digging,
or striking. Of these the following examples are in the Bureau
collection: From several localities in eastern Tennessee, 40 of
argillite; from Montgomery county, North Carolina, 24 of argillite and
quartzite; from Kanawha valley, West Virginia, and from Savannah,
Georgia, a few specimens of the same materials.

Celts.

What is true of the uses and distribution of stone axes applies with
much the same force to what are called celts—not a good
descriptive term, but one which is now given to the implement in
lieu of something better. It would appear difficult or impossible to do
with these rude tools any work for which we commonly use an ax or
hatchet; and yet, by the aid of fire, or even without it, the aborigines
contrived to accomplish a great deal with them.

The Maori of New Zealand do all their wonderful work of wood

carving with only a chisel or adze (of stone or shell).14 Among the
Iroquois, in cutting trees, fire was applied at the root, the coals were
scraped away with a chisel, and this process was repeated until the
tree was felled. The trunk was divided into lengths in the same way.
Similarly canoes and mortars were hollowed out.15 The Virginia
Indians at an early day employed a similar process. They also
cleared ground for cultivation by deadening trees with their
tomahawks,16 and used adzes made of shell in cleaning out the
charred wood in making canoes.17 The Nootka of the northwestern
part of the continent in felling a tree use a flint or elkhorn set in a
handle, this being struck with a stone mallet. In hollowing canoes a
musselshell also is used as an adze, and sometimes fire is applied.
The outside is shaped by similar means.18

Fig. 46.—Notched ax, showing polished edge.

Stone chisels have been found in various steatite quarries, where
vessels and other utensils of this material were made, and the marks
of their use is plain both on the vessels in an unfinished state and on
the cores, as well as on the quarry face.19

The different ways of hafting, as shown by specimens in the Bureau

collection, were as follows:

(1) A hole was cut entirely through a stick and the celt was inserted
so that it would project on both sides;

(2) The hole was cut partly through, and the celt was pushed in as
far as it would go;

(3) The top of the celt was set in a socket of deer horn, which was
put into a handle as in form 2;

(4) Small celt-shaped knives or scrapers were set into the end of a
piece of antler long enough to be used as a handle;

(5) A forked branch was so cut as to make two prongs of nearly

equal length, and the celt was fastened to the end of one, parallel
with it, the other being used to guide and steady it, a prong being
held in each hand;

(6) The fork of a root or branch was trimmed so as to make a flat

face at any desired angle, to which the celt was lashed, a shoulder,
against which the end of the celt was set, being sometimes cut in
the wood;

(7) A stick was split its entire length and a single turn taken around
the celt, the ends being brought together and tied, forming a round
handle;

(8) A stick was split part way, one fork cut off and the other wrapped
once or twice and tied, thus forming a round handle of solid wood.
 Fig. 47.—Celt, showing Fig. 48.—Celt, showing
blade thick near edge. blade thick near edge.

Forms 5 and 6 were used as adzes; forms 7 and 8 are the same
methods as employed in hafting grooved axes.

A mounting similar to form 4 is seen in some Alaska specimens of

celt-scrapers in which the implement is fastened to a piece of wood
so as to project a short distance, and used like a plane. In all these,
the celt is very firmly fastened to the handle with sinew or rawhide,
which, when put on green, contracts with great force and binds like
wire.

As to the forms of celts, no division is practicable based on anything

but their entire appearance. The following descriptions and
tabulations represent the material of this kind in the Bureau
collection:

A. Round or nearly round section, pointed or flattened at the top,

blade rapidly thickening from the edge; a few are polished at the
top, but most of them show marks of a maul or hammer; all have
been highly polished; all of this class were probably used as wedges,
as their shape renders them more fit for this purpose than for any
other; the battered tops indicate such usage. The few not showing
such marks may have been set into a bumper of wood or horn, or
used with wooden mauls. They vary in length from 2½ to 7½
inches. They are represented by the specimen shown in figure 47, of
argillite, from Lincoln county, Arkansas; there are also one from a
mound in Sumter county, Alabama (figure 48), and one from
Kanawha valley, West Virginia, both of serpentine and elliptical in
section, though the form of the edge puts them in this class. The
following specimens are typical representations of the class:

District. A B C D E
Northwestern North Carolina 3 7 2
Eastern Tennessee 3
Western Tennessee 1
Southeastern Arkansas 2
Union county, Mississippi 1
Madison county, Illinois 1
Savannah, Georgia 2 1
KEY:
A = Sienite.
B = Argillite.
C = Granite.
D = Rotten limestone.
E = Sandstone.

Fig. 49.—Celt, showing long, slender form.

B. Long, narrow, elliptical section, pointed top, curved or straight

edges, sides straight or gently curved. None of these seem to have
been put to any rough use, as the edges are quite sharp and the
entire surface is well polished; length from 4¼ to 12½ inches. The
type is illustrated by figure 49, of argillite, from a mound in Monroe
county, Tennessee.

District. A B C D E
Eastern Tennessee 8 3
Northwestern Georgia 1
Savannah, Georgia 6 1 3
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 1
Northeastern Alabama 1
Western North Carolina 1
KEY:
A = Argillite.
B = Granite.
C = Sandstone.
D = Quartzite.
E = Sienite.

C. Thick, almost round section, round-pointed top, nearly straight to

sharp-curved edge, sides gently curved, widest at edge or just
above. Most of these show marks of use as cutting tools or hatchets.
In many the top has been roughened as if for insertion into a hole
cut in a piece of wood; others have this roughening around the
middle or immediately above, leaving a polish at both ends, and
these were hafted probably by means of a stick or withe twisted
around them. The roughening is a secondary operation, having no
relation to the making of the implement; it was produced by pecking
after the surface was polished. In a few cases it extends from the
top well down the sides; but usually it reaches but a little way below
the top, or else is in a circle around the body of the celt. Most of
them have sharp edges; a few have edges either chipped or blunted
and polished, showing long usage. Two from Kanawha valley (one
roughened for handle) have the edges worn in on one of the faces
until they almost resemble gouges; but that they were not intended
as such is shown by the concavity being nearer one side and not
reaching entirely across. The length ranges from 4½ to 10 inches.
The type is illustrated by figures 50 and 51, both of sienite, from
Lauderdale county, Tennessee.

Fig. 50.—Celt, nearly round section.

Fig. 51.—Celt, nearly round section.

This may be regarded as the typical form of celt for eastern United
States, and its geographic distribution is exceptionally wide, as
shown in the table.
The Bureau collection includes the following specimens of this class:

District. A B C D E F G H
Western North Carolina 4 2 9 16
Montgomery county, North Carolina 1
Coosa district, Alabama 1
Ross county, Ohio 1
Knox county, Ohio 1
Miami valley, Ohio 1 2
Eastern Tennessee 5 1
Green river, Kentucky 1
Northeastern Kentucky 1 2
Northeastern Arkansas
Kanawha valley, West Virginia 4 4 3 1
Crawford county, Wisconsin 1
Southwestern Illinois 2 1
Savannah, Georgia 3 2 2
Western Tennessee 2
KEY:
A = Porphyry.
B = Sienite.
C = Granite.
D = Argillite.
E = Greenstone.
F = Sandstone.
G = Diorite.
H = Compact quartzite.

D. Of the form last described, except in being much thinner; some

have the tops battered, showing use as wedges; length from 3 to 9
inches.

District. A B C D E F G H I J
Eastern Tennessee 11 3 2 1 1 1
Kanawha valley, West
Virginia 2 5 2 6
Northwestern Georgia 3 1
Savannah, Georgia 2
Green river, Kentucky 1
Northeastern Kentucky 2
Southeastern Arkansas 1
Central Arkansas 1
Northeastern Arkansas 1 1
Butler county, Ohio 2
Northwestern North Carolina 8 2 1 4
KEY:
A = Argillite.
B = Porphyry.
C = Sienite.
D = Diorite.
E = Sandstone.
F = Granite.
G = Hornblende.
H = Greenstone.
I = Serpentine.
J = Compact quartzite.

Fig. 52.—Celt, showing nearly diamond section.

E. Pointed oval, or nearly diamond section, sides straight or slightly

curved; length 6 to 12½ inches. Few as these are, they vary
considerably in appearance. The group is illustrated by figure 52,
showing a specimen of brown flint, containing numerous small
deposits of chalcedony, from Benton county, Tennessee; polished
over the entire surface, the edge highly so.

In addition, there are the following examples: From Caldwell county,

North Carolina, one of porphyry and one of granite, the latter
roughened on sides for handle; from McMinn county, Tennessee, one
of gray flint, highly polished over its surface, except the top, which is
much battered; from Cocke county, Tennessee, one of argillite.

F. Elliptical section, flattened or rounded top, edge curved or nearly

straight, sides straight or gently curved, tapering from edge to top or
in a few cases nearly parallel. These present many variations in
finish and in evidence of use. Some are well polished over the entire
surface; some have only the lower part polished; while some are
entirely without polish except at the extreme edge. In some the top
is battered; some have the surface roughened for handle at the top,
others around the middle, still others all over the upper half or even
more than half. One from McMinn county, Tennessee, has a roughly
pecked shallow groove at the middle. Several have the edge very
blunt, the faces at the edge form almost a right angle; these are
thickest very near the edge and become gradually thinner toward
the top. Most of this kind are from Caldwell county, North Carolina;
the same form coming also from Monroe county, Tennessee, and
from Savannah, Georgia. The length is from 3 to 7½ inches. Figure
53, of compact quartzite, from Monroe county, Tennessee; figure 54,
of granite; and figure 55, of sienite, from Caldwell county, North
Carolina.