from artifacts. Specimens collected from earlier excavations up to the present are under analysis by archaeologists volunteering at the Calico site. Many have been confirmed to be geofacts, but some are believed to be potential artifacts and have been cataloged and submitted for thermoluminescent dating. Currently work is being done on compiling and publishing the most recent finds at the site to be submitted to the local tribes, community and journals for peer review. Flake scar angles Payen (1982) studied flake scar angles as traits for distinguishing artifacts from geofacts. He tested a method developed by Barnes (1939) who had compared frequency of obtuse angles on eoliths, natural fractures, and artifacts. Barnes found obtuse angles on 72% of eoliths, 75% of natural fractures, and 18% of artifacts and concluded that “The flaked tools of an industry…may be considered to be of human origin if not more than 25% of the angles scar-platform are obtuse (90° and over)” (Barnes 1939:111). Payen measured all flake angles on each Calico specimen in his sample. It is conceivable that flake scars were confused for striking platforms. Flaking from one side of a specimen can often remove earlier platform areas on the other side. Angles between two flake scars are different from angles between platforms and derivative flake scars. Payen compared mean angle values for Calico specimens with those on specimens selected as representing controlled and uncontrolled fracture. He found that “Statistically, there is no significant difference between the sample of alleged tools and the uncontrolled fracture series.” (Payen 1982:200). Duvall and Venner (1979:462) examined a sample of Calico artifacts and concluded they were form-selected examples of naturally flaked rocks. Their assessment was based on variances in seven attributes (length, width, thickness, flake angle, medial axis angle, lateral edge angle, and distal edge angle) and comparison with comparable attributes on specimens in eight Paleoindian collections reported by Wilmsen (1970). Current consensus Both the Duvall/Venner and the Payen papers have been criticized on a number of levels, and analyses supporting the pro-artifact argument have been published. The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including: The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts). The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas