One illustration, Fig. 40, reproduced from Professor Holmes’s plate, is self-explanatory. Before the stage represented in Fig. 37 is reached one must imagine the ordinary oval or water-worn pebble of either quartzite or argillite. This pebble was pried by means of levers from its ancient bed. Both Professor Holmes and Mr. F. H. Gushing have constructed life-sized models of Indians at work in the Piney Branch quarries digging, hammering, flaking, in order to produce blades. (See Fig. 22.) At Piney Branch itself the abundance of material made it a mecca for the prehistoric people of the region. Several trenches dug by workmen under the direction of Professor Holmes penetrated this mass of material to a considerable distance. All of these, while varying in minor details, emphasize the general proposition that the quarry was in use for a considerable length of time. I present several illustrations showing the method of hammering the rough turtleback and partly finished blades and the completed forms. These are from Professor Holmes’s paper. In addition I show hammer-stones and blades from the collection of Phillips Academy, Andover, representing similar work on other sites. The difference to be noted between Piney Branch material and the material of chert and flint, the working of which is described by Mr. George Sellars, in Chapter IV, page 48, of this book, is considerable, and the probable method of treatment varies in a more marked degree. Apparently there was more pecking, hammering, etc., of these rude forms than in the case of flint and chert. That is, flint and chert lent themselves more readily to the flaker’s art. The quarry at Piney Branch was productive of large numbers of rejects. This is true of other sites as well, but it would seem that where material was scarce, the natives made use of many objects quite as crude as those we have designated as rejects. Only flawless materials seem to have been made into implements at Piney Branch, at Flint Ridge, on the Little River sites in Tennessee, and about the jasper quarries of Pennsylvania. This is natural when one reflects that there was a wealth of material and that the Indian naturally selected the best. But were these objects, blocks of flint, and objects of all kinds deposited in any of the large prehistoric villages, I am confident that much of the material called by Professor Holmes rejects, would have been made use of. I think we have overlooked the significance of this fact in our archæological studies. On the Great Plains, and at certain places in Texas, about the Mandan sites, and elsewhere, there are implements quite as rude and ill-shaped as many of those illustrated in the several reports as rejects, yet which show unmistakable evidence of usage. [Illustration: