1 66 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



at the extreme end of the Upper Palaeolithic, if not in the Mesolithic, 

 and the Upper Capsian must, by definition, be later still. The only 

 alternative to this view is to suppose that the microlithic facies appeared 

 in Africa much earlier than in Europe — a theory for which at present 

 there is no evidence. 



The Oranian — I adopt the name suggested by Vaufrey, since it is now 

 clear that the so-called Iberomaurusian does not occur in Spain — is a 

 poor and monotonous industry. The bulk of its inventory consists of 

 small blunted-back blades ; end-scrapers and burins are very rare. 

 The typical nucleus, made from a small pebble, resembles the Sabylian 

 core, and, as in the Sabylian, miniature Levallois cores sometimes occur. 

 In the Oranian sites excavated by Arambourg at Afalou-bou-Rhummel, 

 in the department of Constantine, no micro-burins were found, but 

 Vaufrey records that geometric microliths and micro-burins occurred in 

 all the Oranian sites which he investigated, and he concludes that this 

 industry is probably contemporary with the Upper Capsian. It is not 

 excluded that some part of the Oranian may be rather older than Vaufrey 

 thinks, but it seems probable that, like the Capsian, it belongs at most 

 to a very late stage of the Upper Palaeolithic. 



Finally, a very interesting proof of connection between the Oranian 

 and the Aterian was obtained at the open-air site of El Hank, near Casa- 

 blanca. This was very carefully excavated by Lieutenant Brouaux, and 

 the industry has been described by Vaufrey. El Hank contained two 

 archaeological levels, of which the uppermost yielded a typical Oranian, 

 and the lower an industry showing on the one hand definite Aterian 

 affinities, in the presence of Mousterian points and tanged points, and 

 on the other equally definite links with the Oranian, especially in its 

 cores, which were identical with those of the upper level. 



The rock paintings of North Africa Vaufrey now places in the Neolithic, 

 since at all the sites which he examined the only implements to be found 

 belonged to the Neolithic of Capsian tradition, and Obermaier, working 

 on the basis of style and of the fauna represented, supports this view. 



It is impossible in the time at my disposal to deal with the African 

 continent as a whole ; nor is the chronology of African prehistory suffi- 

 ciently sure to make correlation with Eurasia anything but hazardous 

 at present. On the whole I am inclined to agree with Vaufrey that 

 Africa in Upper Palaeolithic times was something of a backwater, and 

 that more or less all over the continent industries of Mousterian type 

 lingered on until and after the arrival of blade cultures in a relatively 

 late stage of development. I would suggest that this is possibly the 

 case even in Kenya, where Leakey has claimed a great antiquity for the 

 Aurignacian. The only well-developed blade industry known at present 

 (apart, of course, from admittedly late ones, such as the Elmenteitan) is 

 the Upper Kenya Aurignacian, which is later than the second maximum 

 of the Gamblian pluvial. By correlating Gamblian II with Wiirm II 

 Leakey makes this stage contemporary with the Upper Aurignacian and 

 Solutrian of western Europe, but in view of the fluid state of opinion 

 in the matter of pluvials and glacials such a correlation can only be 

 regarded as tentative. Vaufrey, and more recently S. A. Huzzayin, 



