4(j THE MA.NUfACTUUK Ul- THE TEUU-WATTA, 



in fact, it is diflicult to imagine how some of the specimens 

 could exhibit and preserve such a fine Indical face, unless 

 the flake was held in the free hand, while the other wielded 

 the hammer- 



The evidence of the tero-watta themselves, therefore, 

 goes to negative the assumption that an anvil-stone was 

 used when they were made. 



As far as the evidence of the Kemptcn nucleus and its 

 spalls goes, it seems to indicate that it did not rest on an- 

 other stpne or hard support while it was broken, but was 

 probabiV mostiy imbedded in the soft sand of the camping 

 place. The Kemnton nucleus does not support the theory 

 of the use of anvil-stones, and the arguments in favour of 

 its use at all are not very strong. It would oe ludicrous to 

 assume that the Kempton boulder was broken at some 

 other place affording a hard natural surface as support, and 

 that afterwards the core and all the flakes, even the small- 

 est, were brought to the camping ground simply to be left 

 there. If anything appears to be cei'tain it is that the 

 Kempton boulder was 'broken at the place where its frag- 

 ments were subsequently found, but there is no proof that 

 it rested on a hard support- 

 Now, if any supports whatever were used — and if we 

 admit the praemisse we must assume that they were habi- 

 tually used — where ai'e they? If they existed they must 

 be recognisable, because if a hai'd boulder is broken on a 

 hard surface, the effect of the bloAvs which broke it must 

 also leave some marks on the support when the boulder re- 

 bounded under the effect of the heavy blows. 



I have pcissed the whole inventory list of the specimens 

 found on the camping grounds and elsewhere, and the only 

 objects that could possibly come in consideration are those 

 I have described as "magic stones."' The flatness of these 

 pebbles would render them very suitable as a support. The 

 queer central indentations could be considered as the result 

 of the rebounding of the block to be broken (1) and the 

 peripheral hammering would result from the hammer-stone 

 striking or touching the anvil-stone. 



This theory would in some way explain the great va- 

 riety of these remarkable stones, and also why they are 



(1) When tlie stone was turned over tlie Indentation on tlie opposite 

 s'de would be produced. 



