2. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE TAW- 

 MANIAN STONE IMPLEMENTS. 



If we examine any larger collection of implements 

 made by the Tasmanian Aborigines, the most striking fea- 

 ture we notice is a bewildering mass of forms, none 

 of which are exactly alike, and the total absence of any 

 definite intentional or conventional shape. We may ex 

 amine them over and over again, there is sort of genera^ 

 likeness, a family likeness so to speak, but each specimei/ 

 constitutes an individuality of its own, different from alf 

 the others. This absolute want of any intentional shape 

 at once fixes their position in the scale of evolution, ana 

 they must be considered as belonging to the first and lowest 

 group of stone implements, viz., the Amorpholithes. 



Tho next question to answer is, do they represent 

 Eolithes, Archjeolithes, or a mixture of both groups. At 

 first it seems almost hopeless to decide this question; by 

 far the majority of specimens show a flat face, and oppo- 

 site to it a more or less wrought, convex face. These speci- 

 mens must be considered as Archasolithes ; if we sort out 

 those, there still remain a fair number, which, although 

 they have been used, unquestionably prove that they never 

 were subjected to any kind of working previous to being 

 used. These specimens have all the criteria of the Eolithes. 



The Tasmanian stone implements ansv/er, therefore, to 

 the definition of Amorpholithes, and include the two 

 groups distinguished, viz., Eolithes, and Archaeolithes. Not 

 a single specimen has come to my knowledge which has 

 been wrought on both faces, and it is therefore absolutely 

 certain that the Aborigines never reached the higher 

 Palaeolithic stage of evolution- 



The next question to be decided is : Is there any way 

 of further subdividing the above two groups into separate 

 and distinct classes? At first this seems to be a hopeless 

 task, inasmuch as not two specimens are exactly alike- 

 But by observing certain broad principles, which will pre- 

 sently be explained, it is possible to sort out a number of 

 specimens which have some features in com*mon. it will, 

 however, soon be noticed that these groups merge so im- 

 perceptibly into each other, that though two specimens re- 

 presenting the extremes of each are apparently widely 

 different in shape, they are so intimately connected by 

 intermediate links, that it is possible to form a continuous 

 chain of passage from one to the other. It is often quite 

 arbitrary whether we consider a specimen as a lamelliform 

 scraper, a chopper or a knife, inasmuch as it might be rang- 

 ed in any one of these classes. 



The difficulties of a systematic arrangement prove con- 

 clusively the absence of any intentional shape, and also 



