1 68 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



accepted as a standard, I propose to make it my point of departure, 

 and to examine its various stages in the light of the evidence now available, 

 trying to trace each one back to its original centre. Afterwards it will 

 be possible to shift our point of observation, and taking a wider view 

 of the distribution map thus plotted, to see what general pattern 

 emerges. 



The first blade industry to reach Western Europe is that of the 

 Chatelperron stage, Peyrony's Perigordian I, which is the former lower 

 Aurignacian. The distinctive implement of this industry is, of course, 

 the curved blunted-back blade, or Chatelperron point. The Chatel- 

 perron level — which, for convenience I shall provisionally call Chatel- 

 perronian — has not so far been found in Central and Eastern Europe, 

 but a similar though not identical industry occurs at the base of the 

 Upper Palaeolithic sequence in Palestine. This, however, is less primitive 

 in appearance than that of France, and seems already to be in process 

 of evolution towards something resembling the La Gravette stage. We 

 have seen that the Lower Capsian, which is characterised by curved points, 

 was formerly regarded as the parent of the Chatelperron industry, but 

 that Vaufrey has demolished this theory by demonstrating that it is 

 later in time. On the other hand, the Lower Kenya Aurignacian appears 

 to be more or less of Chatelperron type, and may be in part contemporary 

 with this stage in France. We thus have at the beginning of the Upper 

 Palaeolithic three areas which may in a wide sense be called Chatel- 

 perronian, two of which, Palestine and East Africa, may have been in 

 touch with each other through Arabia and across the Bab-el-Mandeb, 

 while the third remains apparently isolated. The problem of how the 

 Chatelperronian entered Western Europe without leaving any traces on 

 the way is one that awaits solution. 



Although the Chatelperronian only appears as a distinct industry at 

 the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic we can trace its essential features 

 much farther back than this. The Levalloiso-Mousterian of Palestine, 

 which covers a very long period, has yielded throughout a small pro- 

 portion of well-made curved points, burins and end-scrapers and in the 

 Tabun cave on Mount Carmel typical Chatelperron points, end-scrapers, 

 and blades with abrupt retouch were relatively abundant all through a 

 well-determined zone within the Final Acheulian. In Kenya also 

 Leakey has found backed blades associated with the Upper Acheulian, 

 and he suggests that the so-called Lower Aurignacian — the Chatel- 

 perronian — may have developed from the contact of the Acheulean and 

 Levalloisian cultures, the makers of the Acheulian hand-axes borrowing 

 from the Levalloisian the idea of making use of long narrow blades. 

 This is not impossible, of course, but it should be noted that in the 

 Upper Acheulian of Palestine, as in Western Europe, the flake industry 

 which is actually associated with the hand-axes is in the Clactonian 

 tradition, and the Chatelperronian tools look markedly out of place and 

 intrusive, while in the Kharga Oasis, where a Levalloisian flake industry 

 actually forms part of the late Acheulian, no Chatelperronian forms have 

 been found. I should like to put forward the alternative suggestion that 

 the Chatelperronian already had an independent existence at this time, 



