952 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1897. 



of their use in this iiiauner becomes more apparent when the edge view 

 is considered. This shows the want of symmetry in the imjjlement and 

 completely changes the idea presented by the side view. There is on 

 the top, if one may so call it, a decided hump, and, for want of a better 

 name, these implements have been called " humpbacked." One of them 

 is the chalcedonic flint, while the other three are quartzite. They are 

 rude and have all been made by chipping. Each implement lias only 

 one rounded edge sharp enough for use, and could be used when held 

 in the hand after the manner of the fish knife (Plate 44, fig. 1). 



The manner of holding these humpbacked implements for use is 

 shown in Plate 48, where two of them are held in the hand so as to pre- 

 sent the cutting edge. This (in Plate 48) leads to another hy])othesis, 

 that is, that these implements were used ambidextrously, and furnish 

 evidence of right- and left-handedness on the part of prehistoric man. 

 It is certain that the shaj^e of an occasional implement fits the left hand 

 better than it does the right. Certain specimens show this more or 

 less plainly. Their humi)S are not in the center but off to one side, 

 sometimes to the right, other times to the left, while the experiment of 

 grasping them in the hand (as shown in Plate 48) demonstrates that 

 they are more easily manipulated and more effective when used right 

 and left handed respectively, than when used indifferently. 



It has been suggested that these implements were only accidents or 

 failures made by the aboriginal workmen when endeavoring to make 

 the usual leaf shaped imjdement, but such is not regarded as a correct 

 deduction. 



It would be foolish to assert that there were no accidents or failures 

 in the prehistoric i^uarry or workshop. The author has shown in Plate 

 03, the chips and debris which he personally took from Flint Ridge, 

 Ohio. Anyone having the slightest familiarity with such work has 

 seen and will recognize thousands of such specimens. At Piney 

 Branch, District of Columbia, they were to be numbered by the hun- 

 dreds of thousands and to be measured by the ton. But it is equally 

 daring to assert that everything found was an accident or failure, and 

 that implements with the specialization of these now under discussion 

 were but waste, the debris and rejects of the workshops and the acci- 

 dents or failures of the workmen. Their number is too large, their 

 dissemination too general, their distribution too extensive, and their 

 specialization and adaptability too evident to permit such a conclusion 

 to pass unchallenged. The evident existence of an intentional cutting 

 edge around one side of the oval can not be ignored, while their fitness 

 to either hand, as shown in Plate 48, and their adaptability for use as 

 knives or for cutting purposes, are evidences against the reject or waste 

 theory that can not be set aside by mere declarations, however persist- 

 ently or pertinaciously made. No reason is, or, I take it, can be given 

 why the workman, having gotten his implement into its present hump- 

 backed condition, should not have continued his work by striking off' 



