DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0103
Pal. East. Desert
81
latter were made by the removal of many more and much smaller flakes. In the Eastern
Desert specimens, the edges and surfaces are smoother and straighter, and there is a certain
symmetry of form entirely lacking in the Theban implements.'21
One of these discs, which I have not figured, measures 12 X 11 X 2 cm. It is com-
posed of very imperfect chert, is roughly radially flaked, and bears an incrustation (?)
of dark brown color. The flaking has been much influenced by incipient fracture planes.
On it are a few facets which do not bear the characteristic incrustation. These may repre-
sent a later stage of chipping (in which case there was absolutely no change in the form
of the implement) or, more probably, they are due to a recent accident, and are conse-
quently without significance. The description of the other disc follows.
Fig. 127. Andover Museum. Rustafjaell collection. Luxor (?)
Flint — dark — opaque. Patina — reddish brown. Incrustation —• calcareous in spots. 9.5 X
9 X 2.5 cm. Face shown in figure — mainly one large reversed cone of percussion — radial flaking along
one edge forming a slight bevel. Other face — radially flaked — large portions of original cortex retained
in center.
This implement resembles very closely those shown in figs. 80 to 83. Its chief point
of difference is the slight bevel which occurs on one edge of the face shown in the figure.
I have had occasion to note the prevalence of Acheulean forms in the collection from
the Eastern Desert, and of types even Chellean from Luxor. Rough examples of coup-
de-poings are shown in figs. 59, 60, 63, 64, and 119. The smoothly ovoid form character-
istic of the Acheulean of Europe is, however, absent from these collections.22 In the
Rustafjaell collection, there is a good example of the type.
Fig. 128. Andover Museum. Rustafjaell collection. Luxor (?)
Flint — light —- translucent. Patina — face shown in figure, red brown — other face, yellow brown.
Incrustations — calcareous in spots — mottled especially near the broad end on face shown in figure,
the mottling being black. 12 X 9 X 3 cm. Face shown in figure — radially flaked. Other face —
mainly a portion of the original cortex — radial flaking along two edges.
21 This contrast between grossly chipped, rather heavy implements and more finely chipped symmetrical forms
seems to be the main point of difference between the flints of Thebes and those of the Eastern Desert. This differ-
ence corresponds roughly to the distinction between the Chellean and Acheulean implements of western Europe. Cf.
H. F. Osborn, Men of the old stone age, New York, 1916, p. 113; E. A. Parkyn, Prehistoric art, London, 1915, p. 8;
W. J. Sollas, Ancient hunters, London, 1915, p. 150; J. Dgchelette, op cit., vol. 1, p. 81. The heavier Theban forms
seem to have no disadvantages over the finer made Eastern Desert type, while they certainly possess marked advan-
tages as implements. They were certainly more easily made — a point which would have had great weight with
men who often left unchipped large portions of the original nodular surfaces merely because it was useless to remove
them. Perhaps symmetry of form and neatness of finish appealed to some nascent aesthetic instinct of the primitive
maker in the Eastern Desert.
22 Cf. H. F. Osborn, op cit., p. 113; Sollas, op. cit., p 151. C. T. Currelly, op. cit., figures no good examples of
this type from the Cairo Museum collections.
81
latter were made by the removal of many more and much smaller flakes. In the Eastern
Desert specimens, the edges and surfaces are smoother and straighter, and there is a certain
symmetry of form entirely lacking in the Theban implements.'21
One of these discs, which I have not figured, measures 12 X 11 X 2 cm. It is com-
posed of very imperfect chert, is roughly radially flaked, and bears an incrustation (?)
of dark brown color. The flaking has been much influenced by incipient fracture planes.
On it are a few facets which do not bear the characteristic incrustation. These may repre-
sent a later stage of chipping (in which case there was absolutely no change in the form
of the implement) or, more probably, they are due to a recent accident, and are conse-
quently without significance. The description of the other disc follows.
Fig. 127. Andover Museum. Rustafjaell collection. Luxor (?)
Flint — dark — opaque. Patina — reddish brown. Incrustation —• calcareous in spots. 9.5 X
9 X 2.5 cm. Face shown in figure — mainly one large reversed cone of percussion — radial flaking along
one edge forming a slight bevel. Other face — radially flaked — large portions of original cortex retained
in center.
This implement resembles very closely those shown in figs. 80 to 83. Its chief point
of difference is the slight bevel which occurs on one edge of the face shown in the figure.
I have had occasion to note the prevalence of Acheulean forms in the collection from
the Eastern Desert, and of types even Chellean from Luxor. Rough examples of coup-
de-poings are shown in figs. 59, 60, 63, 64, and 119. The smoothly ovoid form character-
istic of the Acheulean of Europe is, however, absent from these collections.22 In the
Rustafjaell collection, there is a good example of the type.
Fig. 128. Andover Museum. Rustafjaell collection. Luxor (?)
Flint — light —- translucent. Patina — face shown in figure, red brown — other face, yellow brown.
Incrustations — calcareous in spots — mottled especially near the broad end on face shown in figure,
the mottling being black. 12 X 9 X 3 cm. Face shown in figure — radially flaked. Other face —
mainly a portion of the original cortex — radial flaking along two edges.
21 This contrast between grossly chipped, rather heavy implements and more finely chipped symmetrical forms
seems to be the main point of difference between the flints of Thebes and those of the Eastern Desert. This differ-
ence corresponds roughly to the distinction between the Chellean and Acheulean implements of western Europe. Cf.
H. F. Osborn, Men of the old stone age, New York, 1916, p. 113; E. A. Parkyn, Prehistoric art, London, 1915, p. 8;
W. J. Sollas, Ancient hunters, London, 1915, p. 150; J. Dgchelette, op cit., vol. 1, p. 81. The heavier Theban forms
seem to have no disadvantages over the finer made Eastern Desert type, while they certainly possess marked advan-
tages as implements. They were certainly more easily made — a point which would have had great weight with
men who often left unchipped large portions of the original nodular surfaces merely because it was useless to remove
them. Perhaps symmetry of form and neatness of finish appealed to some nascent aesthetic instinct of the primitive
maker in the Eastern Desert.
22 Cf. H. F. Osborn, op cit., p. 113; Sollas, op. cit., p 151. C. T. Currelly, op. cit., figures no good examples of
this type from the Cairo Museum collections.