( 29 ) 



CHAPTEE IV. 

 What were the Bouchers used por ? 



Let us endeavour now to realise the purpose which these artificially 

 worked stones, which we are now terming " bouchers," were in- 

 tended to serve. 



Primitive man did not use his uncouth tools for exclusively one 

 purpose. Had he done so, he would not have been primitive ; but it 

 is generally assumed that the bouchers of large, or moderately large 

 size, were held in the hand, and nof hafted. 



This admission holds good for the South African ones, and for 

 reasons which have not, to my knowledge, been adduced for the 

 European, Algerian, or others, and which I give here. 



1. In all the examples of these artificially worked stones — be they 

 of the more or less perfect tongue- or amygdaloidal-shape, as well as 

 in many, if not most, of the cleaving tools of the Stellenbosch type — 

 whenever they are worked on both sides, the sharp, median, uneven 

 ridge of one face never corresponds with that of the other. The 

 stability of a boucher inserted in a hollowed- or cleft-handle of horn 

 or wood would be greatly impaired thereby in spite of thong attach- 

 ments, or the use of gum-cement in the manner obtaining among 

 the Australian aborigines — a manner which did also obtain in South 

 Africa, but for smaller tools only, as will be seen hereafter. 



Yet the thing is not impossible with bouchers of the Mousterian 

 type, one face of which is the result of the cleavage, while the other 

 is pared with the resulting median longitudinal ridge, because in 

 these the fiat face would add firmness to the hafting. This applies 

 especially to the cleaving implements, but whereas the axes, Figs. 33, 

 34, 54, 55, 56, could not have been hafted easily, the same cannot 

 be said of Figs. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, which represent cleavers 

 or hand- wedges belonging to both the Stellenbosch and Orange River 

 types. 



