136 " ^^- JOHNSTON MKMOIUAI. LKCTrUK. 



excavated, revealed three aboriginal basins, formed 

 of clay. With these "dipping basins" for holding 

 water on the surface of the sand [as practised now 

 at Kisimayu, on the East Coast of Africa (/. S.A. 

 White)] were found six undoubted artefacts, mostly 

 pounding stones, hammer stones, etc. This was at 

 a depth of approximately 8 to 9 feet below high 

 water. Therefore, there has been a positive move- 

 ment of the sea there, or a negative movement of 

 the land of at least 8i feet since man made the clay 

 "dipping basins." This evidence, so remarkably in 

 accord with that of Shea's Creek, is suggestive of a 

 eustatic positive movement of the ocean since the 

 occupation of the Adelaide and Sydney areas by 

 aboriginal man. 



j. Mr. Walter Enright (5) has recently recorded the 

 occurrence of an aboriginal tomahawk in sit^i at 

 Font Hill, near West Maitland, at 11 feet below the 

 surface. This was found in a bed of clay at the 

 Maitland Colliery Shaft. 



iii. Based on anatomical structure of the human remains. 

 The Talgai Skull. 



The state of mineralisation of this skull would not, in it- 

 self, be a proof of high antiquity, inasmuch as Dalrymple 

 Creek, near Talgai Station, where it was found, deposits a 

 considerable amount of carbonate of lime in a relatively short 

 space of time. But the dentition is considered to be dis- 

 tinctly archaic. The left canine of the upper jaw is not 

 only unusually large, but is separated from the adjacent 

 tooth by a diastema, and is strongly facetted on the side 

 where the canine of the lower jaw slid past it in such a way 

 as gradually to grind this facet. Such an interlocking of the 

 canine teeth, so characteristic a feature in the Piltdown man 

 {Eoanthropnx dav;soni) of Sussex, is, of course, a special 

 attribute of the .nnthropoid apes. It should here be mentioned 

 that Professor Keith considers that this skull has aflTinities 

 with those of the Tasmanian aborigines, but his opinion is 

 not shared by other anthropologists and anatomists. If, 

 therefore, this skull be that of an Australian aboriginal, a 

 later immigrant than the Tasmanian, the first coming of the 

 Tasmanian into Australia must have been still more remote 

 in time. 



