642 



STONE WOEK 



[B. A. B. 



THE "TURTLEBACK," A BOWLDER 

 WORKED ON ONE SIDE 



students who would intelligently dis- 

 criminate stone-age phenomena. These 

 are the various forms of rejectage of manu- 

 facture. In getting out stone where large 

 bodies are dealt with, the first step is that 

 of dividingthe masses by heavy blows, and 

 the resultant forms are blocks, fragments, 

 and splinters of diversified shape and size. 

 From these suitable pieces are selected for 

 specialization; the remainder are refuse. 

 When selected pieces are under treatment 

 by percussive processes the blows of the 

 hammer remove flakes, chips, and spalls, 

 and these become refuse; when other por- 

 tions are under treatment by pressure 

 processes, mi- 

 nute flakes or 

 chips are pro- 

 duced and be- 

 come refuse. 

 When a suit- 

 ablemassof the 

 material is se- 

 lected from which to remove flakes de- 

 signed for use as knives or other imple- 

 ments or for further elaboration, a nucleus 

 or core results and this also becomes refuse 

 (see Cores). Again, the portion of stone in 

 processof shaping and partly shaped often 

 breaks under the blows of the hammer or 

 the pressure of the flaking tool and the 

 pieces become refuse; and still more nota- 

 bly the piece beingshapeddoesnotdevelop 

 properly and becomes unmanageable un- 

 der the hammer or pressure flaker, and, 

 beingirreparaVjly faulty, is rejected and be- 

 comes refuse. The last-mentioned abor- 

 tive forms or 

 failures are 

 varied in shape 

 and may or 

 may not re- 

 semble closely 

 the final forms 

 which it was 

 intended they 

 should take. 

 The term " tur- 

 tle) )ack" is ap- 

 plied to such of 

 these rejected 

 forms as have 

 a faceted upper 

 surface and a smoother under surface, 

 suggesting the carapace of a turtle. It 

 is these rejected defective forms, show- 

 ing as they do clear evidence of design, 

 that have led to much misapprehension 

 because ignorant persons have mistaken 

 them for actual implements and have at- 

 tempted to classify them as such, assign- 

 ing them to particular uses or periods sug- 

 gested by their form. The various classes 

 of rejectage here described — fragments, 

 splinters, flakes, chips, cores, fragments 

 resulting from breakage of partly shaped 

 forms_, and unbroken abortive forms, as 



REJECT OF BLADE WORKING, ABAN- 

 DONED ON ACCOUNT OF HUMP ON 

 ONE FACE 



well as broken and abandoned hammer- 

 stones — are usually left on the shaping 

 sites. In bulk this rejectage far exceeds 

 that of the accepted product — the output 

 properof the shop work. Other processes, 

 as pecking, cutting, and grinding, also re- 

 sult in rejectage, but not to an equal ex- 

 tent with the fracture process, and the re- 

 jectage is seldom especially noteworthy 

 except on soapstone quarry sites, where 

 much breakage occurred during the pro- 

 cessof roughing out the larger utensils. 



The knowledge acquired in recent years 

 through experiments in stone-shaping 

 processes has led unfortunately to the 

 manufacture of fraudulent imitations of 

 aboriginal implements and sculptures for 

 commercial purposes, and so great is the 

 skill acquired in some cases that it is ex- 

 ceedingly difficult to detect the spurious 

 work; there is thus much risk in purchas- 

 ing objects whose pedigree is not fully 

 ascertained. See Pseudo-Indian. 



Works that may be consulted on this 

 subject are very numerous, and only a 

 few of the principal authorities are here 

 cited; these, however, will enable the 

 inquirer to find such other publications 

 as are of value. Abl)ott (1) Prim. Indus., 

 1881; (2) in Surv. W. 100th Merid., vii, 

 1879; Bailey in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. N. 

 B., no. VI, 1887; Beauchamp in Bull. 

 N. Y. State Mus., iv, no. 18, 1897; 

 Boas in Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., xv, 

 pt. 1, 1901; Boyle in Ann. Archteol. 

 Reps. Ontario, 1888-1905; Gushing (1) in 

 Am. Anthr., viii, no. 4, 1895; (2) in 

 Proc. A. A. A. S., xliv, 1896; Daw- 

 son in Can. Rec. Sci., ii, no. 6, 1887; 

 Dellenbaush, N. Americans of Yesterday, 

 1901; Dixon in Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. 

 Hist, XVII, pt. 3, 1905; Dorsey in Pub. 

 Field Col. Mus., Anthr. ser., ii, no. 4, 

 1900; Evans, Ancient Stone Implements 

 of Great Britain, 1872; Foster, Prehist. 

 Races, 1878; Fowke (1) in 13th Rep. 

 B. A. E., 1896; (2) in the Archaeologist, 

 II, 1894, and in, 1895, (3) Archa?ol. Hist. 

 Ohio, 1902; Holmes (1) in Bull. 21, 

 B. A. E., 1894; (2) in 15th Rep. B. A. E., 

 1897; (3) in Proc. A. A. A. S., xliii, 1895, 

 (4) in Am. Anthr., iii, no. 4, 1890; (5) 

 ibid., IV, nos. 1 and 4, 1891; C. C. Jones, 

 Antiq. Southern Indians, 1873; Jos. 

 Jones in Smithson. Cont., xxii, 1876; 

 Kunz, Gems and Precious Stones, 1890; 

 McGuire (1) in Rep. Nat. Mus. 1894, 1896; 

 (2) in Am. Anthr., vi, no. 3, 1893; (3) ibid., 

 IX, no. 7, 1896; MacLean, Mound Build- 

 ers, 1879; Matthew in Bull. Nat. Hist. 

 Soc. N. B., no. Ill, 1884; Mercer (1) in 

 Rep. of Madrid Commission, 1892; (2) 

 in Pub. Univ. Pa., vi, 1897; Moore in 

 Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1894-1909; 

 Moorehead, (1) Prehist. Impls., 1900; (2) 

 Prim. Man in Ohio, 1892; Nordenskiold, 

 Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde, 1893; 



