102 STONE I.Ml'LEMENTS (etii.asn.1S 



The lirst step — the testing and shaping of tlie, ci-udc mass — tliough 

 represent I'd by much rejectage, is omitted for economy of sinxce. An 

 ilhistration of a slightly advanced stage is given in «, a tliick, clumsy 

 form, rejected no doubt on account of the breaking away of portions 

 of the upper end. A half blade representing a somewhat more ad- 

 vanced stage is given in /*, in which a portion of the water- worn surface 

 remains; and c and <J illustrate further progress in tiakingout the thick 

 blade. In «■ and _/' the battering has begun, the former having been 

 rejected |>r<)l)al)ly on account of defective shape at the upper end, and 

 the latter having broken under the hammer. In the; fragment i/ the 

 pecking was well under way, and in It much of the surface has been 

 liecked and the edge with portions of the sides ground. In this case 

 the llaking seems to have been so successful that little i)eeking inter- 

 vened between the roughing-out by the tlaking process and the finish- 

 ing by the grinding process. The specimen shown in i is the upper end 

 of a well-advanced specimen, and./ is the blade of what must have been 

 a perfected implement. It is, of course, impossible to say whether these 

 latter pieces were broken during the finishing operations or in use. 



COMPARISON OF CELT IWAKING WITH BLADE IWAKING 



A comparison of the rejected forms produced in celt making as ])rac- 

 ticed in such shops as that of I'ass creek with corresponding forms 

 from the Haked-blade shops such as those of Piny branch will prove 

 instructive. In general appearance the rejects of the two sites are very 

 much alike. At a glance we see that the form constantly kept in view 

 in both cases is of leaf shape, one end being decidedly pointed and the 

 other broad and abruptly terminated. We observe, however, that in 

 the tlaked group— the leaf-shape group proper — the pointcil end was 

 designed to be finished for use, and that in the group shaped by flaking, 

 pecking, and grinding — the celt group — the broad end was designed to 

 form the edge of the imi)lement, and this distinction can be traced in the 

 rejectage back toward the inceptive stage by the difference in degree 

 of attention given to the two ends. In the one case the narrow end was 

 to be specialized for use and the broad end for hafting; in the other, the 

 broad eiul was to be specialized for use and the narrow end for holding 

 or halting. In general, we may say that rejectage in the one class was 

 the result of too great thickness, and in the other class of (in many 

 cases) too great thinness. Two excellent examples of failure in celt 

 making resulting from too great thickness at the broad end and thin- 

 ness at the small end are shown in plates lxv and lxvi. 



As made on the Pass creek site, the grooved axes were roughed-out 

 by tlaking pretty much as were the celts, rude notehes being broken 

 in the sides as the only jiossible contribution of the flaking process to 

 the groove making. In plate lxvii specimens of axes are given, show- 

 ing traces of the conchoids of flaking, though the implements are well 

 advanced through the subsequent pecking and grinding stages. 



