H.— ANTHROPOLOGY 169 



having developed in some centre still unknown, and that it is an intrusive 

 element in the Acheulian. In trying to trace this centre, we must take 

 into account the fact, which seems to me significant, that the two regions 

 in which the presence of backed blades in the late Acheulian is clearly 

 established are precisely those in which a distinct Chatelperronian industry 

 appears at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. If — -as I am inclined 

 to do — we reject the theory that the Chatelperronian developed within 

 the Acheulian, we cannot accept either Palestine or East Africa as its 

 original home, but must place this somewhere within reach of both. 

 An Asiatic centre seems inevitable, but it is impossible at present to be 

 more precise. Investigation of that region which from the point of view 

 of the pre-historian still justifies its name of the Empty Quarter should 

 help to prove or disprove this theory, since it supposes that one line 

 of migration passed through southern Arabia. 



After the early stages of the Upper Palaeolithic the Chatelperronian 

 proper apparently ceases to exist. In Palestine, however, the Chatel- 

 perron point reappears unexpectedly in the final stage, which must be 

 roughly contemporary with the Magdalenian, and it is present in the 

 Lower Capsian at approximately the same moment. Now, Vaufrey's 

 theory of the late arrival of the Capsian still leaves us in the dark as to 

 its origin. In its general lines it is unlike either the Sabylian or the 

 blade industries of Palestine. We have seen, however, that the Upper 

 Kenya Aurignacian is a nearly typical Capsian, which seems to have 

 developed in place from the so-called Lower Kenya Aurignacian. I would 

 suggest that East Africa may possibly be the centre of origin of the 

 Capsian, which would thus enter Little Africa already fully developed 

 by way of the Sahara. The Capsian would thus derive many of its features 

 direct from the Chatelperronian, though outside influences may also 

 have played their part, especially in the development of the microlithic 

 element. It is, for instance, unlikely that so specialised a type as the 

 micro-burin should have developed independently in the Sabylian and 

 the Capsian. 



As for the peculiar industry which closes the Upper Palaeolithic sequence 

 in Palestine, it is quite definitely Aurignacian rather than Capsian, in 

 spite of the presence of Chatelperron points, and it may conceivably be 

 a local development, arising on the fringes of our hypothetical Chatel- 

 perronian centre and the Aurignacian province of the Near East. 



Turning back to the Western European sequence we now reach the 

 Aurignacian proper, the former Middle Aurignacian. Peyrony claims 

 that this does not represent a real break in the sequence, but that the 

 Perigordian continued to develop in certain sites side by side with the 

 neighbouring Aurignacian. The stratigraphical evidence for this is, 

 however, insufficient. Even if there is a certain overlap, as is probable, 

 all the known facts are in favour of a general separation of the Chatel- 

 perron and La Gravette levels by the layers containing the Aurignacian. 



This industry can be traced right across Europe, through Lower Austria, 

 Hungary, Rumania, the Crimea, Transcaucasia and Anatolia into Palestine, 

 where it is very abundant and covers a much longer period than in the 

 West. This suggests that the East Mediterranean coast is not very far 



g 2 



