THE TASMANIAN NATURALIST. 
character. This compressed shape speaks 
.rather against the rise as a hammer-stone, 
as it can easily be proved by experiment 
that one Of the more globular boulders 
would serve this purpose much better 
than a Hat specimen, as it rests much 
'better in the hand than tiie latter. The 
-ize was also -immaterial. The largest 
specimen, hitherto found measures HJin. 
in length and weighed 71b. ooz.; but there 
are numerous specimens which, are much 
smaller; apparently the most procurable 
size was about 5 to l> inches in length. 
These Hat pebbles had their naturally* 
smooth surface improved by polishing. 
Vs to that there cannot lie the slightest 
doubt* Perhaps this view might he 
questioned with regard to specimens Fig. 
1. Fig. 3, and Fig. 4, though the traces 
•of polishing arc very conspicuous in Fig. 
4; but there cannot, be the slightest doubt 
that the specimens Fig. 2 and Fig 5 have 
been subjected to a considerable amount 
of grinding and polishing. In specimen 
Pig. 2 the upper surface has been deeply 
hollowed out and afterwards carefully 
smoothed by polishing; the some applies 
to specimen Fig. 1. it is probable that 
these depressions have been produced by 
a prolonged grinding action by means of 
another pebble, because it does not seem 
very Mkely that such evenly concave sur¬ 
faces could be produced by hammering 
and subsequent polishing. In this case 
the surface would he rougher and -more 
uneven. This ran also be proved by ex¬ 
periment. Let anyone take two ordinary 
(Diabaw pebbles, using one as a hammer- 
stone. and a rough spot showing the re¬ 
peated blows will soon be produced. But 
the process of smoothing and polishing 
this rough mark will be very imperfect. 
On the other hand, if the two pebbles are 
ground 1 against each other, and assisting 
this process by the use of sand, a nice, 
smooth surface can be produced. The 
best proof that these stones have been 
“treated by grinding and poH-shing is given 
by specimen Fig. A smooth surface, 
seen in this specimen, can only be pro¬ 
duced by scraping or grinding. As scrap¬ 
ing is out of the question, on account of 
the- hardness of the rock, the only pos¬ 
sible way to produce this feature is by 
grinding and polishing. That the art of 
grinding was, therefore, not wholly un¬ 
known to the Tasmanian aborigines may 
be tak-n as granted, but it is equally cer¬ 
tain that they never applied it in the 
manufacture of their stone implements 
(Eolithes and Archaeolithes), but only 
used it for the production of the speci¬ 
mens here described. This is a very re¬ 
markable fact, giving rise to a consider¬ 
able amount of reflection. If the abo¬ 
rigines knew the art of grinding, 
and the specimen^ here described leave 
no doubt that they did, how is it, then, 
that they did not apply it in the manu¬ 
facture of their tools? It seems fairly 
certain that the grinding and polishing 
•was done in order to improve on the ap¬ 
pearance of those already smooth water- 
worn pebbles. But, then, why did they 
not subject -the chipped archaeolithes to 
a similar subsequent treatment? They 
kr.ew that they could improve, and mate¬ 
rially alter -the ordinary pebbles, and 
from our -way of reasoning, we -should 
think that it -would have been the most 
natural thing to treat the roughly- 
chipped knives and choppers in a similar 
way. But that the aborigines did not do 
it is an absolute fact, and this shows, in 
my opinion, a perfect absence of a pro¬ 
gressive mind. They were incapable of 
thinking further than their forefathers 
did. and this lack of inventive genius, so 
essential to the progress of mankind, is 
most probably the true reason of the ex¬ 
termination of their race. We may now 
raise the question, for what purpose did 
these remarkable stones serve? Their 
shape -proves that a considerable amount 
of labour has been bestowed on them. If 
we consider the long time it would take 
to produce a specimen like Fig. 2, we are 
bound to assume -that these stones must 
have played an important role in the life 
of the aborigines. But wlmt their object 
really was is unfortunately a mat¬ 
ter of conjecture. As I stated 
above, very few complete speci¬ 
mens are found; by far the ma¬ 
jority are broken, and even the complete 
specimens are generally a little damaged 
by fragments being broken oil'. This 
seemingly insignificant obs rvation is. 
however, of the greatest importance; if 
we bear in mind that so much labour 
ha* been spent in their production, it is 
impossible to assume that th sc stones 
were accidentally destroyed. Even the 
primitive Tasmanian aborigines knew 
the value of labour, and to assume that 
they wire so careless as to allow one 
of their treasures—and stones that were 
shaped by many a laborious day of hard 
grinding must represent treasures 
— being accidentally destroyed is highly 
improbable. It is more probable to 
suppose that th-se stones were pur¬ 
posely destroyed. In examining the 
broken and fragmentary specimens we 
notice another curious fact; it is certain 
' hat some of the «p ncimens were broken 
by smashing them; a fine specimen I 
found on Hope Beach shows traces of 
an almost savage desire to destroy it bv 
blows. A fine specimen from llok by, 
which has been kindly given to me by 
Air. Ghipman, ha,s an edge which has 
been severely treated by blown, but tli 
hardness of the rock, a finely-grained 
quartzite or quartzitic sandstone, with¬ 
stood these attacks, and, though the 
