225 



It is on the principle, just stated, that the Tasmanian standard 

 of culture, in implement making, is placed at about the 

 lowest level. 



V. Points of Resemblance between the Tableland Imple- 

 ments AND THOSE MADE BY THE TaSMANIANS. 



In making this comparison, the great difference between 

 the raw material available in the tableland country and that 

 possessed by the natives in Tasmania must be taken into 

 account. After examining the collections as exhibited in the 

 museums of Tasmania and elsewhere, and from descriptions 

 given by various authors, together with the figures published 

 in the works of Brough Smyth [xxin.], Dr. Tylor [xxvi.], 

 H. Ling Roth [xxi.], Dr. Noetling [xn., xin.], and others, 

 it is impossible not to be struck with many points of similarity 

 which the Tasmanian stone implements bear to those found in 

 the gibber districts of Central Australia. The general points 

 of resemblance between these two classes of implements may 

 be summarized as follows: — 



1. The utilization of conveniently shaped stones in their 

 natural condition, more or less trimmed by chipping. 



2. Implements of large size, usually with cortical surfaces, 

 crudely shaped by flaking. 



3. A flat ventral surface, often showing conchoidal 

 fracture. Mr. R. M. Johnstone says, ■'From a study of a very 

 large number of these flints the author has observed one 

 general character common to them all, viz., that w T hatever 

 lack of symmetry they present in facial outline, one of the 

 faces is almost invariably smooth and flatfish, without marks 

 of chipping" [viri., p. 335]. 



4. Absence of any clearly-defined specific types, such as 

 occur in the higher orders of stone implements. Mr. Johnstone 

 says, "As a rule the flints have no definite form, being 

 irregularly ovate-round, wedge-shaped, or spatulate" [vin., 

 p. 336]. 



5. Tendencies towards either quadrately or triangularly 

 shaped implements. 



6. Frequent occurrence of crescentic or hollowed scrapers 

 — a prominent point or "beak" separates the two. 



7. Hand Choppers, large, and roughly chipped. 



8. Generalized types, the same tool having been used for 

 various purposes, such as, indifferently, either for cutting, 

 scraping, or chopping. 



9. Absence of grinding or hafting of tools. All imple- 

 ments were intended and shaped for hand-use simply. Mr. 

 Johnstone says, "It seems to be the prevailing opinion among 

 those who had the best opportunity for observing, that the 



