608 ANNUAL EEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 19 2 8 



the Aiirignacian and the following periods on the other. The results 

 are unexpected. There is nothing- authentic from Acheulean times; 

 and there is less, in the number of finds, from the Aurignacian than 

 there is from the Mousterian period. Moreover, what there is from 

 the Aurignacian is found, on consulting the details of the discoveries, 

 to be essentially middle and upper, rather than the most-needed 

 early Aurignacian. The data leave a strong impression that the 

 material, but esf)ecially that from the earlier portion of the Aurig- 

 nacian period, is still far from sufficient for drawing from it far- 

 reaching inductions. 



