FIG. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6, and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development. ] But before explaining and expanding the accepted classification, it is well to state that we have confined our plan to the arts, industries, and so forth, of man, as expressed in his handiwork. If one realizes this, he will at once understand that we have not included the vocations, or cultures, or divisions of labor, or anything of that sort. Such would be, manifestly, out of place in a classification of the products of man’s handiwork. [Illustration: FIG. 8. (S. 1–1.) These four figures which follow are from W. H. Holmes’s paper in the 15th _Annual Report_, pp. 5–150, Bureau of Ethnology. They are selected forms illustrating progressive steps in the shaping of leaf-blade implements from argillite, from village- and shop-sites at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania. ] Were one to consider primitive or prehistoric man from every aspect of his life, a totally different classification would be necessary, one far broader and more comprehensive. Again, we have thought of other classifications which suggested themselves to the investigators. None of these could be accepted entirely, for the simple reason that we do not yet know the purpose of every object made and used by prehistoric man. There are, however, two grand divisions to which no one can object—the Known and the Unknown. All objects naturally fall into these. But they are too sweeping in character and have not been adopted, although—regardless of form or material—all Stone-Age implements are of one or the other of these two grand divisions: those whose purpose is clear to us, and those regarding which we have no positive knowledge. Under these heads one might summarize all the implements or paraphernalia made use of by the man, the woman, the priest, the warrior, the child. Or one might subdivide, and under the heading of woman place objects made use of in the carrying industry, domestic science, agriculture, etc. But in following such a classification one is beset by certain difficulties. We are not certain as to the division of labor between man and woman. The lines are not so sharply drawn among barbarians as with ourselves in some matters; in others they are more sharply drawn. The construction of a wigwam, a cabin, a tepee, or a council-house, might be placed under archæological architecture, primitive though it is. Just where to draw the line between the insignia of the priest and highly ornamental possessions of the wealthy warrior presents a problem not easy of solution.