1894.] Archeology and Ethnology. 359 
at the very heart of the question where the ground seemed surest, 
when he found two hoards of rough argillite “Turtlebacks” which 
by all quarry experience ought to have been “ rejects. ” 
A whole new class of pros and cons were introduced into the study 
when we discovered in June at the argillite outcrop and indian blade 
quarry in the Delaware Valley, 20 miles above the hunting ground 
for the Trenton Turtlebacks; that there were twoclasses of Indian Turtle- 
backs—those of the quarry and those of the river-side. The evidence 
of these latter river-side specimens made from surface material, and 
that of Jasper pebbles found flaked by Indians at sea shore camp 
sites in New Jersey and Maryland, suggested strongly that “quarries” 
were comparatively modern and that rules of stone chipping derived 
therefrom: would not cover the whole ground. 
. It seemed that the Indian must have been for atime a chipper of 
erratic stones on river beaches before the status of culture involved by 
quarries was reached, and that “Turtleback” work shops of what 
might be called a pre-quarry age, probably existed in the United 
States older than Flint Ridge, Durham, Gaddis’ Run and Piney 
Branch, whose products remained to be compared with the alleged 
work in argillite of the Drift Man. 
It was important to note that of the recorded argillite Trenton 
specimens, 29 were of this Delaware Indian “ river-side” type, but 
against the case that one (Peabody Museum, No. 33,168, labelled as 
found 9 feet below the surface in the Penna. R. R. cut) had the 
stamp of the Gaddis’ Run Indian quarry strongly upon it.—H. C. 
ERCER. 
