BY FKITZ NOETLINO, M.A., TH-D. 41 



essential feature in the manufacture of tero-watta, but 

 merely a preliminary one, to obtain suitable pieces. 



We have, therefore, no other means of finding out how 

 the tero-watta were manufactured than the study of the 

 traces 'the process of manufacture left behind. These are 

 numerous enough, but it required a large number of tero- 

 watta to collect sufficient evidence, and to sort it. From 

 the account of an actual eye-witness (1), we know that two 

 stones were required for the manufacture of a tero-watta, 

 viz. : 



1. A piece of (siliceous) rock which was to be turned 



into an implement- 



2. Another stone to strike the former with. 



In other words, a hammer-stone and an object-stone. The 

 hammer-stone was activelv employed, that is to say, it was 

 u&ed to deliver the blows; the object-stone was passively 

 employed, that is to say, it was subjected to the blows de- 

 livered with the hammer-stone. 



The object-stone may be of two kinds; it was either 

 a natural pebble, or boulder of siliceous rock, which we 

 may term the parent block, or it represented a flake strxick 

 oiff the parent block. Primarily we may take it that the 

 object-stone was represented by a natural block or boulder, 

 and the effect of a well-directed blow was to divide the 

 parent block into flake and nucleus. (2)- 



All this appears to be very plain and simple, yet if 

 we come to examine a larger number of tero-watta we at 

 once observe specimens, which are difficult to classify. Are 

 they hammer-stones, or do they represent nuclei? Are 

 they to be considered as unfinished rejects, or as nuclei ? 

 It is obvious that it makes a great difference whether I 

 consider a specimen as an actively used hainmer-stone or as 

 a passively used nucleus, and yet in many instances it is. 

 almost impossible to say which is which. Furthei-more, if 

 we consider that it is often enough impossible to discern 

 ai true hammer-stone from a, sacred stone, or the latter from 

 an anvil-stone, the great difficulties are obvious. 



I will here attempt to solve these problems by study- 

 ing the evidence handed over to us on the actively and pas- 

 sively used objects, that is to say, hammer-stone and object- 

 stone. 



(1) Scott I.e. 



(2) See also : The effe"ts of percussion on siliceous rocl?s 



