•68 ON DR. noetling's conclusions. 



ON DR. NOETLING'S CONCLUSIONS RESPECT- 

 ING THE ABORIGINAL DESIGNATIONS 

 FOR STONE IMPLEMENTS. 



By Hermann B. Ritz, M.A. 

 (Read October 12th, 1908.) 



Dr. Noetling's conclusions are that — 



(a) There were two classes of stone utensils — one- 

 consisting of round, water-worn stones, called 

 pe-ura, and used for religious ceremonies ; the 

 other of dhipped, sharpened stones, called by 

 various names, and used for cutting; 



(b) The Aborigines had perhaps two words, but 

 probably only one, for siliceous implements ; 



(c) The Aborigines did not manufacture special 

 implements for special purposes. 



The arguments he adduces from the aboriginal 

 vocabulary are so cogent that his conclusions are almost 

 inevitable. It seems to me that only some of the details 

 are arguable, and I shall confine myself to these. 



When we investigate the language of the Aborigines 

 we meet at the outset with serious difficulties. In the 

 first place, the records are very meagre, and then, even 

 these were made by men who had no special training in 

 philology. Still, a careful collation of the vocabularies 

 will enable us to arrive at a greater amount of positive 

 knowledge than would at first be suspected. 



Subject to correction, I would conclude from my in- 

 vestigation that — 



(a) The number of words in the aboriginal 

 vocabulary is very small — much smaller than 

 the lists drawn up by Calder, Milligan, Ling 

 Roth, and others would lead one to expect; 



