valued this flake, particularly if it was a tino grained, 

 dark-blue cliei-t, so much that he spent a good deal of work 

 in shaping the tiidical face. In my opinion, this obser- 

 vation proves conclusively the importance of the Pollical 

 face, that it was the essential feature of liie Archaeolithic 

 implement, and that a good flat Pollical face practically 

 determined the working of the Indical face. 



I have not the slightest doubt that onee the signili- 

 cance of the Pollical face has been recognised in Europe, 

 the study of the Aichaeolithes will take quite a new turn. 



If we now turn our attention to a closer study of the 

 Tasmania!! implements, we will find, that irrespective of 

 the purposes for which they were used, the following classes 

 can be distinguished. 



A. NATURAL PIECES OF COLUMNAR DIABAS. 



B. WATERWORN PEBBLES. 



, a. One edge has been either used directly without 

 previous work, or a few flakes have been 

 rudely chipped off. 



b. Flakes of Pebbles. The Pollical face is repre- 



sented by the plane of fracture, the Indical 

 face is formed by the crust of the pebble, or 

 has been slightly improved by chipping. 



1. Indical face unaltered. 



2. Indical face chipped. 



c. Flakes of Pebbles, in which the Indical faco is 



represented by the plane of fracture. 



€. IRREGULARLY SiiAPED, ANGULAR IMPLE- 

 MENTS, GENERALLY OF CONSlDJiiKABi^E 

 THICKNESS, AND FREQUENTLY OF i^AKGE 

 SIZE. 



a. Irregular lumps showing traces of a considerable 

 amount of work being spent on them. These 

 may be either nuclei or unfinished rejects. 



l>. Irregular, angular fragments, without a well-de- 

 fined Pollical face, probably mostly waste 

 from the manufacture of other specimens. 



1. Edges merely used- 



2. Edges trimmed previous to use. 



c. Specimens showing a distinct Pollical face, which 

 is generally rather uneven. The indicai 

 face shows a few large flakings. 

 1. Edges merely used. 



' 2. Edges trimmed previous to use. 



