50 THK M \M'KACl'l i;k ok TIIK TKK<i-\VATTA, 



hammering, whitli caiuidt be tonsidorod as hainnier-stones, 

 or as nuclei, strictly speaking. 



Mostly one, sonietinie=, two, and in very rare cases more 

 flakes were struck off such a pebble, but the remainder was 

 left intact. It is certainly by no means .accidental that, 

 with very few exceptions, all these pebbles consist of a more 

 or less saccharine quartzite of varying colour- Fine speci- 

 mens of this type were found at Devonport. the Arthur 

 River, at Shene. and Droughty Point. 



These specimens always show at the point where the 

 flake was struck off a peculiar percussion mark. Tliis is 

 usually a small semi-circular indentation of about 5 mm. 

 in diameter, which deeply penetrates into the matrix of the 

 pebble. Within the area of percussion the matrix is so in- 

 tensely pulverised, that the surface, assumes a whitish colour. 

 Almost in all cases a flake of greater or smaller size became 

 detached, though in one specimen from Devonpoii: the re- 

 sult of the blow was a deep roundish hole only. As already 

 stated, there are usually one or two, but very seldom more 

 than two. of these percussion marks. 



Now, the question would arise, are these pebbles to 

 be considered as hammer-stones or not; in other words, 

 were they actively used or passively subjected to blows? 

 I do not think that they can have served as hammer-stones. 

 The evidence of the true hammer-stones shows that they 

 were used till they broke into fragments. Now, if these 

 stones were used as hammei's, why was there only one. per- 

 haps two, points used, while the remainder of the edge re- 

 mained perfectly intact? To me it .seems cxtremelv im- 

 probable that one or, perhaps, two, blows were executed 

 with such a stone, which was aftenvards thrown away, 

 though it wa.s perfectly intact along the greater portion of 

 its edge. Further, I cannot believe that the deep ])ercus- 

 •sion mai'k, .showing an intensely pulverised surface, is the 

 result of an active blow. Such a mark ran only be produc- 

 ed if a pebble is passively subjected to a blow, and I. there- 

 fore come to' the conclusion that it is impossible t^j suppose 

 that pebbles of this type served as hammer-stones. 



Neither do 1 think that these pebbles can be considered 

 a? nuclei s-s. If they were such, why should onlv one or 

 two flakes have been struck off, if the rock was suitable for 

 the manufacture of implements? I rather think that they 

 must be considered as material that was tested as to its 

 suitability, and on being found unsuitable, were rejected. 



