Peck (1955, p. 70), comparing Zuma Creek with Topanga, mentions the following as occurring at the Tank Site (LAn-1): "... hard calcareous mass at lower levels." Reference must be to the nonculturally altered sandstone base of the site, since the lowest portion of the cultural deposit, the C profile, is rather soft (Treganza and Malamud, 1950, p. 130). Peck notes burial markers as: "stone platforms, red ocher abundant, and flint tools." Large aggregates of stone were common in the Tank Site and are termed _features_, being composed of large quantities of boulders, whole and broken artifacts, and frequently a segment of human long bone (fig. 1). Frequently one or more metates occurred with burials. Red ocher was abundant in small granules throughout the site and appeared more frequently in the burial areas, but not to the extent as to class an interment as being a red-ocher burial in the traditional meaning or even as a burial marker. Flint tools consist of a single chert blade. Varied silicates occur as artifacts in the Tank Site but not as grave markers. Peck (1955, p. 70) also lists manos as occurring in pairs. Two was not characteristic for the Tank Site as mano caches occurred, numbering from two up to six (pl. 19, _a_, _b_). It has been difficult to place the Topanga Culture in a compatible time perspective with the other known early cultural assemblages of southern California. Topanga, between its two phases, has elements in part comparable to all of these earlier cultures but lacks a majority of artifacts common to any one. Paramount for an explanation is the "abnormal" quantity of lithic artifacts classed under the broad heading of core and flake tools which occur in the Tank Site. Most characteristic are scraper planes, choppers, and a variety of heavy-duty scrapers. Western archaeologists fail to share any common understanding as to what these artifacts mean in time and function. The many subvarieties into which these major classes have been divided suggest they are more the product of a too elaborate or overextended typology rather than varieties that have cultural significance. In part, the Topanga papers make the same error in attempting to describe objectively a large mass of data and at the same time devise some system whereby not only the Topanga artifacts but other materials could be made more meaningful in terms of cultural comparisons. Needed is a reëxamination of the entire concept of "core tools" in western North America. Earlier, few people recognized or reported such tools. Now the other extreme has the artifact versus the "naturifact" and the talk of culture in such loose terms as preblade industries.