H.— ANTHROPOLOGY 167 



suggest for Gamblian II a correlation with the final glacial stages 

 (Buhl, etc.), and this agrees better with the typological evidence, since 

 the Upper Kenya Aurignacian, with its microliths, micro-burins and 

 pottery, has a definitely late appearance. Vaufrey points out that, putting 

 aside the pottery, it is in fact an almost typical Capsian. Such a dating 

 would also rejuvenate the last phases of the Kenya Stillbay, since in 

 Gamble's Cave a layer of this type was found between the Upper Kenya 

 Aurignacian and the Elmenteitan. If we now turn backward in time we 

 find that the Lower Kenya Aurignacian, which occupies the period 

 from the beginning of Gamblian I to the second Gamblian maximum, 

 is not at present known as a separate industry, but that crude backed 

 blades do in fact occur side by side with Mousterian tools in deposits 

 of Lower Gamblian age. Leakey makes out a good case for regarding 

 these blades as belonging to a separate culture and not as part of the 

 Mousterian, but he does not prove that this Aurignacian must necessarily 

 be regarded as exceptionally early ; it can equally well be argued that 

 the Mousterian is a late survival. Here, again, the dating depends on 

 the correlation of Gamblian I with Wurm I, which has yet to be proved. 

 I do not mean to suggest by this criticism that Leakey's correlations 

 are necessarily incorrect, but simply that they are at present hypothetical, 

 and give no solid ground for supposing that the Kenya Aurignacian is 

 older than the Eurasiatic blade industries. On the other hand, the late 

 survival, as in Little Africa and Egypt, of a culture of Mousterian tradi- 

 tion — in this case the Kenya Stillbay — is certain, even on Leakey's own 

 dating. 



We have now worked round to our starting-point, and it remains to 

 see what general conclusions can be drawn from the material at our 

 disposal. A point which stands out at once, and very clearly, is the 

 diversity of the strains which have so far been grouped together under 

 the name Aurignacian. As long as we were dealing only with Western 

 Europe this did not matter very much, as everyone knew what was meant 

 by the Lower, Middle and Upper Aurignacian, but when we come to 

 regions in which the sequence is not the same, the use of these terms, 

 with their chronological implications, is definitely misleading. Peyrony, 

 as we have seen, proposes to retain the label Aurignacian for the culture 

 so far known as Middle Aurignacian, and to group all the industries 

 characterised by the blunted-back blade under the heading Perigordian. 

 This undoubtedly corresponds with a first, very important distinction, 

 which has been recognised for some time, but it does not go far enough. 

 Perigordian, like the former Aurignacian, is made to cover too much. In 

 spite of fundamental resemblances which certainly suggest relationship, 

 it is doubtful if the passage from the Chatelperron to the Gravette level 

 is the simple evolutionary process supposed by Peyrony. The blade 

 cultures, after all, have an immensely wide distribution, and it is unlikely 

 that the key to their development is to be found in southern France. 

 If we take more distant regions into account it becomes clear that the 

 French sequence is the result of successive immigrations, superimposed, 

 perhaps, on a certain amount of local variation and development in place. 

 Since, however, this sequence is so familiar, and has for so long been 



