definite opinion on an object which, after all, may only 

 be a lusus naturae, which accounts for the mditference, not 

 to say contempt, with which this branch of the prehistoric 

 science has generally been treated. Only quite recently 

 the enormous importance which these rudely manufactured 

 implements bear on the history of our race have been fully 

 recognised, mainly thanks to the energetic and skilful 

 work of the Belgian geologist, Rutot, in Bruxelles. Eutot 

 tei-med those specimens which he found in the diluvial 

 strata of Belgium, and of late, as he tells me by letter, even 

 in beds of Miocene and Oligocene age : Eolithes. It is 

 in my opinion unquestionable that this term is too widely 

 circumscribed, and that among a larger number of Eolithes 

 in the meaning of Rutot, we can, with tlie greatest 

 ease, distinguish a certain number of specimens which ara 

 always characterised by two veiy different faces. One 

 face is always flat, and, as proved by the bulb of percussion, 

 unquestionably represents the plane of fracture when 

 struck off from the parent block. This' face never shows 

 any traces of secondary trimming or chipping. Flatne^ 

 was an essential feature of this face, and as we shall pre- 

 sently see this flatness was not accidental, resulting from 

 the flaking off the implement from a larger block, but a 

 feature that was desired, intended, to produce when the 

 implement was manufactured. Quite different is the ap- 

 pearance of the opposite face ; this is always convex, and 

 always more or less worked or trimmed. 



The name of Archaeolithes has been suggested for this 

 group of Amoi-pholithes, and though this term has not 

 been generally accepted, yet the study of our Tasmanian 

 Am >rpholithes has convinced me that it fits adiiiiral)iy to 

 the largest number of the specimens found in this island. 

 I therefore divide the Araorpholithes into two groups, 

 viz : — Eolithes and Archseolithes. As Eolithes, I define 

 all those Amorpholithes which show traces of use only, 

 but no traces that they have been subjected to previous 

 chipping or trimming. Eolithes are, in fact, the most 

 primitive tools human beings ever used- Conveniently 

 shaped pebbles picked up anywhere, shaiio-edged pieces of 

 rock, in Tasmania, handy pieces of columnar Diabas; in 

 faxt, any piece or fragment of stone that primitive man 

 could use for his. simple purposes, without previous dress- 

 ing, constitutes an Eolithe. 



As Archceolithes, I define all those Amorpholithes 

 which previous to use have been subjected to a more or 

 less elaborate dressing which, however, was strictly limited 

 to niip facp only, the convex indK-al face (1), while tlie opposite 

 poUical face always remained flat, and was never subjected 

 to working. 



(1) An explanation and the reason for introducing these new terms will le given 

 later on. 



