1896.] Piney Branch (D. C.) Quarry Workshop. 879 
can, by any such process as he has indicated, make out of 
either his first or second stages, the leaf-shaped implement 
of the third stage. (I will refer to this later). 
His notes on Plate IV are descriptive of the processes and 
products, and in this he speaks with the air of a master, de- 
scribing with particularity the intentions and desires of the 
aboriginal maker, telling wherein he was unsuccessful and 
specifying the causes of rejection. 
First stage—one side worked. 
“a. Boulder with two flakes removed. 
b, c, d. Specimen worked on one side only and had probably 
been rejected on account of perverse fracture or excessive thickness. . 
Second stage—both sides worked. 
e. A few flakes removed from the back; fracture perverse. 
f, g. Carefully worked on both sides, but still excessively 
thick, hence the rejection. 
h. Broken by a stroke intended to remove a prominent hump. 
Third stage—both sides worked. 
i. Neat in shape, but with a ridge or hump on the back 
which many strokes have failed to remove. 
j. Unsymmetric broken blade. 
k, l, m. Thin, neat, broken blades. * * The last specimen 
of the series, m, is, perhaps, the most advanced form found, but 
that it was not finished is clear. * * It is highly improbable 
that we have in the whole series of products of the quarry, 
here epitomized, any finished tool, either whole or represented 
by fragments. This should not be regarded as an opinion only ; 
it is a conclusion based upon evidence that cannot be lightly treated 
by the scientific investigator.” 
This is sufficiently positive to admit of no mistake as to the 
meaning of the writer. It is an ex cathedra opinion. It is the 
conclusion of one who knows, and who knows that he knows. 
It is the “ Thus Saith the Lord” of holy writ. It is the ipse 
dixit of one who speaks by authority rather than the opinion 
of one who is making his first essay in his new appointment 
as Archeologist. This short sentence decides off-hand the 
