BY Fi;i'JZ >=UKTLING, iM.A., I'lll). 4( 



never found in quarries, where the natural surface afforded 

 a good hard support. Yet there are such a number of very 

 vtnghty arguments against this view that I am not inclineci 

 to accept it, unless convincing evidence is forthcoming. In 

 the first instance, it seems to me, that if a hard boulder is 

 broken on anothei', the mai'ks which the former left on the 

 latter ought to be spread all over the surface, and not to 

 be concentrated m a central space of a few millimetres in 

 diameter (])• Further, if the peripheral marks are those of 

 the hammer, how is it that they so frequently occur only on 

 four opposite points, and why are they, particularly those 

 on the longitudinal side, frequently flattened, just as if the 

 edge had been ground ? It is true that specimens occur 

 whose edge is hammered, or even flattened all round, but 

 often enough these specimens are without contral marks. 

 Aiiother important point is the comparative smallness of 

 these boulders. I cannot well imagine how a boulder of 

 the size of the Kempton one rested on one of these small, 

 flat pebbles while it was broken. Further, why should 

 these anvil-stones so frequently be polished, even actually 

 ground, like the specimen from the Old Beach? Is it jDro- 

 bable to assume that the aborigines bestowed more labour 

 on their anvil-stones than on the implements themselves, 

 which were in the last instance the desired object of all the 

 hard labour applied ? All these are such weighty argu- 

 ments against the theoiy of the indented pebbles to be 

 iokeii as anvil-stones that I do not feel inclined to accept 

 it Yet, if anvil-stones were used at all, there are no other 

 objects known but those stones that could have served for 

 such H purpose- 

 However that may be, if anvil-stones were used at all, 

 they w(.ro not reoresented by flakes of hornstone split off 

 from a parent block, as Dr. Rutot assumes. In Eur)p? 

 such flat pieces or slabs of flint may have served as anvil- 

 stones, but not in Tasmania. We have here no similar 

 pieces of hcrnttone, and the anvil-stone such as mentioutid 

 by Dr. Pait'ot would first have to be manufactured. Fur the 

 present there it little or no evidence to show that anvil- 

 stones were used in the manufacture of the tero-watta. 'Ilie 

 only evidence, viz-, that of the implements themselves, goe.s 

 to prove the contrary, and I, personally, feel inclined to 

 discredit the alleged use of anvil-stones altogether. 



a) There are no doubt some specimens which show the marks of 

 blows all over the surface, but I cannot understand how the central 

 indentation could originate while the surrounding surface remained 

 perfectly smooth. 



