The different stages of the evolution of technical skill 

 in the production of stone implements is clearly expressed 

 by this" table, but, though technically the t^olithes repre- 

 sent the lowest, the Neolithes, the highest types of ston& 

 implements, ' it does not necessarily follow, that from a 

 chronological point of view the Eolithes must 

 always be the oldest, the Neolithes the youngest 

 implements. "Mere roughness of form, unsupported, 

 by other evidence, is no proof of the antiquity of an 

 implement,'" is one of the rules which every student of 

 prehistoric relics should constantly keep in mind. 



If we v/ish to ascertain the age of any stone imple- 

 ment, we must abandon the view of deducing ic from form 

 alone, and sesk for more reliable evidence elsewhere. The 

 safest, and at the same time most trustworthy evidence, 

 are geological and pal^ontological data, but these are, un- 

 fortunately, not always available. In the absence of re- 

 liable data as to age, it is well to jremember that, though, 

 from a point of technical skill, a certain implement may 

 be much lower than another one, the former may be ab- 

 solutely much younger than the latter. The Eolithic- 

 Archfeolithic civilisation still prevailed in Tasmania, while 

 Europe had already passed through all subsequent stages, 

 up to oixr present day civilisation, and it is more than pro- 

 bable to assume that in the early days of its history cer- 

 tain parts of Europe had already advanced to the j-'alaeo- 

 lithic, even Neolithic stage, when others still remained in. 

 the Eolithic or Archseolithic period. 



The study of the Archaeolithes has proved that there 

 exists a wide gulf between Amorpholithes and Morpholi- 

 thes. However rudely finished a Palaeolithe may be, by its 

 symmetrical, intentional foi'm, it is closer related to the 

 most highly finished Neolithe, than the most elaborately 

 worked unsymmetrical Archaeolithe is to the same Palaeo- 

 litTie. From the most rudely chipped Palaeolithe to the 

 most highly wrought Neoilithe is only a matter of 

 gradual improvement of the technical methods employed. 

 Palseolithes and Neolithes are merely the starting and 

 terminal point of one continuous cliain, but an Archaeo- 

 lithe can never become a Pal?eolithe without absolutely 

 losing its most essential and characteristic features- 



The Archteolithic man grasped his implements with 

 his fingers only, and he accordingly wrought his tools to 

 that effect. Artificial hafting was unknown to him. if 

 he wished to get a firai grip, it was indispensable that the 

 thumb should have a good rest, hence the necessity of pro- 

 ducing a good pollical face. 



Palseolithic man did not trouble about the production 

 of a pollical face ; no longer did he grasp his implements 

 with his fingers. He had made the greatest invention that 



