14 



Supposing we were to deal only with those Archseo- 

 lithes which actually served as tools, therefore omit groups 

 M. (magic stones) and O. (red ochre); and distribute the 

 following groups : K. (rechipped implements) ; P. (broken 

 and unfinished rejects); H- (combination tools); I., L., N., 

 (hammerstones) ; Q. (specimens found in qua^^rries) ; R. 

 (specimens which have been exposed to fire), among the 

 other groups, and if we further distributed parts of group 

 B. (waterwom pebbles and flakes thereof), as well as group 

 C among the remaining groups, the result would be the 

 following five large groups : — 



I. Arch£eolithes of considerable thickness, in which 



the length does not exceed the width : 



Choppers. 

 II. Archaeolithes of small thic"kness, in wnich the 



length does not considerably exc&sd the 



width : Scrapers. 



III. Archseolithes in which the length considerably 



exceeds the width : Knives. 



a. Thick and pointed, or rounded. 



b. Thin and pointed* or rounded. 



IV. Aixhaeolithes with one or more concave edges : 



Concave Scrapers. 

 Such a simple classification would have its undoubted 

 advantages; but if we were to carry it out in practice, we 

 would find the groups so large and unwieldy that a further 

 subdivision would soon be necessary. It could not be con- 

 sidered as a very natural one, either, because a thin- 

 ner chopper could serve as scraper, and a more elongated 

 scraper as a knife; while one edge of a conveniently shaped' 

 concave scraper may have been used as a chopper, a scraper, 

 or a knife. On the whole, I therefore think that the more 

 detailed classification is the practical, because it allows any 

 implement to be classified. 



3. DESCRIPTION OF TYPES REPRESENTING THE 

 DIFFERENT GROUPS OF AMORPHOLITHES. 



A. PIECES OF COLUMNAR DIABAS. (1.) 



These specimens are well-known to every collector of 

 Tasmanian implements, and they are invariably, though 

 not very frequently, found on every camping ground. 



(1) Much as I would like to illustrate each of the groups above distiuguishecl by- 

 giving a representative photograph, I must, on account of expenses, limit myself 

 in reproducing the most important types only. For a similar reason, and in order 

 not to make the paper too lengthy, I must restrict myself to groups A-H, and M, 

 omitting all the others. Those who wish to inform themselves on the subject of na- 

 tive quarries (Q), and the magic stones (M), I refer to Vol. I of the Tasmanian Field 

 Naturalist No. 2 and 3, in which thesa subjects have been exhaustively dealt with. 

 I propose dealing with those that are still outstanding, in particular the red ochre 

 and the pieces of glass, as well as a comparison of European and Tasmanian 

 Amorpholithes in subsequent papers. 



