(213) 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

 Conclusions. 



Were conclusions to be drawn from the documentary evidence 

 they would be summed up. as follows : — 



All over South Africa are scattered numberless palseoliths that find 

 an absolute counterpart in those occurring in the rest of Africa, 

 India, Arabia, Europe, &c., but not in Australia. 



If my theory is correct, e.g., that the rolled boulder, pebble, or 

 nodule lends itself more naturally than any other stone to the pro- 

 duction of the implements of Chellean-Mousterian type, and has on 

 that account been the more readily utilised, then the occurrence of 

 this type in places far remote, or even sundered, is explained. 



The facies of these palaeoliths. South African or African, is also 

 such that it is not unreasonable to formulate the opinion that this 

 probably accidental discovery — the stone implement — originated in 

 Africa, and was transmitted or transported thence to Asia and 

 Europe, it may be by the Neanderthal or Eiver- Drift man, the doli- 

 chocephaly of which is so characteristically African. 



If a close comparison is made between European and South 

 African palaeoliths, other than scrapers and like objects, we dis- 

 cover, however, certain discrepancies. Thus, the South African 

 bouchers of Chellean-Acheulean-Mousterian types are found side by 

 side, and in such a position, or in such " factory sites," that we are 

 compelled to look upon them as having been made by the same 

 people and at the same time. Therefore the amygdaloidal Chellean 

 or Acheulean form is not here an advance on the less finished, some- 

 what spall-like Mousterian, whereas in Europe the latter is con- 

 sidered by many, if not most, antiquarians to be of posterior date. 



Another characteristic of the South African palaeolithic series is 

 the huge size of many of the tools and the proportionate dimensions 

 of the nuclei. 



