1896.] - Piney Branch (D. C.) Quarry Workshop. 979 
I have taken the trouble to segregate the specimens in my 
Department in regard to material and locality and to ask a 
similar report from such private collectors as I could reach. 
The results I have given in the form of tables, and I have at- 
tempted in these to draw a sharp line between the implements 
which might, according to the Mr. Holmes’ PETK am come 
from Piney Branch quarry, and those which did 
No implement of quartz, found here or ERA came from 
the Piney Branch quarry, nor any of felsite or rhyolite, nor of 
argillite, shale or ferruginous sandstone, nor of flint, chert, 
or jasper; for Piney Branch was a quarry of quartzite only. 
The following tables show the Aboriginal chipped stone 
implements from the District of Columbia and its neighbor- 
hood, divided according to material, form, locality, and mode 
of deposit, so as to show the number of quartzite leaf-shaped 
blades which might have come from Piney Branch quarry, 
according to Mr. Holmes’ theory, and to compare them with 
those differing in these conditions, and thereby show what 
number did not come from Piney Branc 
TABLE k CACHES, HOARDS OR DEPOSITS OF LEAF-SHAPED BLADES. 
RRANGED ACCORDING TO LOCALITY AND MATERIAL. 
Porphyritic ot age Flint. 
Quartz, | Quartzite.| felsite, jshale, Fer.; Jasper. | [Totals.] 
Rhyolite. Sandstone. Chert. 
Locality. Pare 3 
. ot n n 
Po eunana aa 
2| No. of 3 No. of S| No. of No.of || No.of 8 No. of 
Ò Implts Ò Tmplts. Š Implts o Implts. O Implts. Implts. 
Bennings. 1 7 
1 5 2 12 
1 a8 1 8 
1 a32 1 32° 
1| b500 1, 500 
i 25 1 25- 
1 25 1 25: 
1 26 1i) 26 
South River, Ann Arundel! | 
Co., Maryland.........s0-+- 1| 114 i} 14 
South River, Ann Arundel 1 7 1 T 
Co. 1 4 1 4 
— iver Ann Arundel 
GIONGNY sisii krs ian 
mesan COUN sissit sesss 1| b100 1| 100 
Clarksville, Howard County. i; a 
a, not leaf-shaped; b, estimated. 
68 
