AUSTRALIAN QUATERNARY CLIMATES AND MIGRATION 63 



which De Vis, if he examined it, attributed to Thylacoleo and 

 state : 



There is admittedly, as regards size, a great difference between the Myall 

 bone and the Colongulac bone, and moreover in the latter instance we have no 

 corroborative evidence of the work of Thylacoleo in the presence of markings 

 or cuts of any kind which might safely be attributed to him. At the same 

 time it throws much doubt upon what might otherwise unhesitatingly be accept- 

 ed as the handiwork of man, more especially when we know that that work is 

 not of a nature practised by the natives of Australia in historical times. 



It might be inferred from these comments that they were reluc- 

 tant to attribute the gashes to other than man. In other words 

 (1914 circa) they expressed the same indecision in connection 

 with the Buniuyong Bone : 



The acceptance of the authenticity of the work [on the Buniuyong Bone] 

 as that of prehistoric man including the cuts on the under side of the bone 

 must discount very seriously the objections we have made to the possible human 

 origin of the cuts on the Pejark and Colongulac bones on account of Australian 

 man not being known to cut bones in such a manner, in which respect he must 

 then have differed from his predecessors. Thus the deciphering of what is 

 man's work and what is the work of beast becomes purely a question of decid- 

 ing the work has been performed for a definite and useful purpose by an 

 intelligent being or in the haphazard manner of a bone-eating animal. 



There is little doubt that the Colongulac Bone came from a 

 swamp deposit, in the author's opinion, one probably contempor- 

 aneous with the bone bed of Pejark Marsh which is above that 

 from which the Millstone came; this being so, there is indirect 

 evidence of man existing in the Lake Colongulac area when the 

 Colongulac bone was fashioned. Its uniqueness and the fact 

 that it may be man-made is sufficient justification for including it 

 here with bones affording some evidence of antiquity. That the 

 bone itself is ancient is shown by the fact that it is a metatarsal of 

 the extinct Palorcliestes. 



Perhaps the most striking fact in this review of bone fragments 

 shaped by man or cut by aninmals is that the clean cuts through 

 the bones bearing so great a resemblance to the work of man are 

 characteristic of Pejark Marsh and are not found on bones else- 

 where, except perhaps, at Buchan. While there is no doubt 

 that many of the incisions on the Pejark Marsh fragments have 

 been made by animals, the fact that man lived in the district 

 when they were made, suggests the possibility that some of them 

 were made by him. With the illustrations of characteristic 

 Victorian fragments (Plate 2, Pig. 2), others of bone implements 

 from the Suffolk Bone Bed of Pliocene age illustrated by Moir 

 (1932) are given to show the resemblance. 



