Prehistoric man : a general outline of prehistory

Front matter

2 TR PA = EE

~- At + us Ge ee

5 i Os

Foreword

RAECHANDOANDNTI AE TOGE

THE first volume of ’Evolution de l'Humanité doth links man with nature and shows in what he has broken away from tt. We see the human form appear in the course of the ascent of living forms. This form, doubtless, results from an infinite number of different circumstances, and of these Perrier has indrcated the principle among those that come within the bounds of our knowledge; but this form above all results from innate tendency—from the inner growth that constitutes life itself, and which, in the human brain, culininates in thought.

“Tt is our desire to know, to see further and from a greater height, that has made us rise to the completely erect attitude of which we are so proud,” says Perrier: “It ts this which has freed the hands from tasks other than prehension and the examination of objects and the construction and manipulation of defensive weapons. Thanks to these, the jaws entirely ceased to bite and tear, as they had already ceased to seize, and limited themselves to the mastication of food. On account of this less arduous work, they became shorter and lighter.’* The reduction of the muscles controlling the biting movement of the lower jaw had the effect, in turn, of giving more room for the brain and thus permutting a considerable development. by the joint action of cause and effect and of the persistence of the tnittal tendency, the human | face was gradually “ prepared for language aud for smiling.”

The hand and language: 7 these two ts comprised humanity. We feel that two things should be given the premier place in this work — two things that mark the close of soologwal and the beginning of human history ; one, if we may so put tt, is the invention of the hand, and the other ts the invention of language. In these two lies the decisive progress in practical logic and in mental logic that characterizes mankind.

1 Part III, Chap. iv, p. 324. / 2 Part III, Chap. iv, p. 320.

V vi : - PREHISTORIC MAN

Though physical environment and the factor of race have both played their part in human evolution—and that a considerable one which will be treated in detail—the logical element in either case has been their basis. Though social environment has played tts part—an important one, which will be emphasized—far from having created logic, tt is in itself a manifestation thereof : society is an intensive manner of living, tentatively begun by the animals, - perfected by mankind.

Logic, it must be remembered, ts for us something wider than finality. It ts the appropriation—which may yet be purely fortuttous, or just experimental—of means to necessities artsing out of the inner tendency.! Logic in act or deed is manifested in that life retains what zs useful to it and thus adapts ttself to environment. As Henri Bergson has shown (since there ts one part of lis. Evolution créatrice which zs unassatlable and which sums up, profoundly and attractively, the data of objective science), organized matter has “ the mysterious power of building up very complicated machines” and, by means of this mechanism, of usefully setting Sree the energy it has accumulated? We can define it either as a mechanism formed within, or as an ‘organization which invents itself.” History, in tts widest sense, ts logic that ts lived,—before wt has either been extertorized logic (technique), collective logic (society), or reflective logic (reason).

History in its entirety is essentially logic. This, then ts our Jfundamental hypothesis : that the work, taken as a whole, should be verified by the independent labour of eminent collaborators. And this hypothesis governs our plan.

OUT

The subject of the present volume, in essence is the hand and the hand’s extensions, We cannot insist too strongly that in the evolution of life the “ decisive moment” arrived when a living being—who became man—adopted the erect attitude, thus freeing © his hands and when the industrious activity was inaugurated which this freedom made possible. In the use of the hand as an instrument, we have the manifestation of an important psychical progress and the promise of further important progress.

* See Vol. I, General Introduction, p. xi, and my Synthèse en Histoire pp. 141-226.

2 * LE.T.] Creative Evolution, p. 76.

= See E. de Majewski, La So de la Civilisation (a deep and. LE Si book), p. 213.

FOREWORD vi

The primitive evolution of mental processes can only be gathered in approximate fashion from the relation between the behaviour of beings—as modern zoological psychology: calls it—and the development of the nervous system, or rather of ils crowning cerebral effort. Among those “ moving oceans of the forms of life,” we see the brain, which assures internal harmony and presides over external relations, growing ever larger and more perfect in proportion as the organism grows more complex, and not only adjusting itself better to the external world, but frequently exercising influence on tt.

Already among the insects, tn the course of the Secondary Pertod, the brain had acquired a certain volume which corresponded to thts almost fixed “ savoir-faire” which we call (by an equivocal term) instinct. There zs here a lower psychic system, the result (we have the right to tnfer) of the ‘‘ tendency” and the associative memory ?

In the course of the Tertiary Period, the psyche developed vemarkably among the vertebrates. With the mammals the various functions became centralized and controlled by the growth of the cerebral hemispheres. This growth, in a skull that was too narrow, involved, especially among the primates, folds and convolutions. The brain was modified to a greater extent, and more rapidly, than the rest of the body. “In the progression of the cerebral hemispheres through the geological epochs and the zoological stages, it was the frontal lobe, the seat of the most complicated associations and the closest mental combinations, which increased in size”;* tt became the intellectual centre* The Primate, the relative weight of whose brain is enormous,’ has a wonderful faculty for adaptation; and this ts especially manifest in the aptitude for prehension of its anterior limbs, with an opposable thumb and flat natls. In the Anthropoid the anterior limbs, freed from the locomotor function, ave kept entirely for prehension, and thus we arrive at the hand.

It ts probable that, in the course of the Tertiary Period, the

1 See H. Piéron, ‘‘ La psychologie zoologique, science du comportement animal,” in the Journal de Psychologie, February and March 1920.

2 See E. L. Bouvier, La Vie psychique des Insectes.

8 E. Houzé, ‘‘ Les étapes du lobe frontal,” in the Bull, de l’Institut de sociologie Solvay, February 1910, p. 93.

4 On this question, see Gley, Physiologie, Vol. II, pp. 1081 ff.

5 Taking the weight of the brain as equalling 1, the weight of the body is 5,688

for Fishes, 1,321 for Reptiles, 212 for Birds, 100-60 for Anthropoids, 36-22 for Man. Houzé, p. 94; cf. Gley, p. 1,085.

Vill PREHISTORIC MAN progressive differentiation of the seasons and the absence of fruit for many months of the year, caused certain Primates, whose anterior limbs were shorter than their posterior limbs, to abandon definitely the arboreal life, to stand erect, to walk, and to differentiate the four extremities of their limbs into feet and hands.

The “ desire to know, to see further and from a greater height,” of which Perrier talks, is better satisfied by the erect posture, and certainly encouraged its adoption. But the desire to know, tn tts origin, ts altogether practical; it is grafted on the tmmediate vital interest. Just as it was self-interest that provoked the adoption of the erect attitude and the employment of the hand qua hand, so it was self-interest that kindled the dawn of consciousness in the brain. The psychic synthesis produced this dawn, and the light increased the power of the synthests. Tendency can satisfy itself after a fashion, in the most obscure consciousness ; but activity as tt comes out into the light, becomes ever more sure of ztself.+

It has been aptly observed that animals are specialists, that their structure, adapted to determined conditions of life, has procured for them a certain superiority within narrow limits, and, at the same time, has stabilized them almost definitely. Their mental system or “psychism” has only “ fringes of intelligence.’ Man escapes morphological specialization. Homo nudus et inermis. zs frontal lobe orders everything, and his hand ts the active exteriorization of his brain. Being without any such specialized physical means of defence or offence as tusks, horns, claws, carapace or scales, he yet has his hand—an instrument strengthened by its locomotor use, made supple and delicate by ats prehensile activity, and early appropriate to the most diverse uses in the most varied circumstances.

The hand, as a result of experiment—both tactile and muscular —acquires information that ts ever more and more precise, associated, as tt is, with visual sensations which it completes, and thus contributes effectively to the knowledge of the external world. By mimickry and attempts at language it brings men ever closer together, and indirectly encourages relations between them by making co-operation between them possible—thanks to a new sort of specialization that ts no longer specific and structural, but individual and functional. Thus society develops, like the living

See H. Wallon, ‘‘Le probléme biologique de la conscience,” in the Revue Philosophique, March-April 1921, p. 180.

FOREWORD 1x being, by the stronger unity of the whole in the greater diversity of tts component parts.

How far back does tt go, this hand which so strangely increases the powers of a privileged species ? Even of tt ts tmpossible to determine exactly, there is no doubt that it was very far back— thousands of centuries—in the Tertiary. We are justified in saying, though we cannot prove tt, that several human spectes, among which was the species destined to become Homo Sapiens, existed in the Pliocene and even in the Miocene—1f not earlier. The earth has, up to the present, been but imperfectly examined, and has yielded little for Paleontology. “In the Pliocene and Miocene formations strange and thrilling discoveries lie tn veserve.... A day will surely come when we shall discover a small anthropotd, of almost erect attitude, and with a brain-pan velatively very large in comparison with the total volume of the body, but very inferior, in absolute value, to all known members of the Human Family} The ancient history of the historians gs in reality only an ultra-modern history for the prehistorian, and still more so for the paleontologist.” * Ln the most ancient history of all, the history of the Human Family, each cubic centimetre and each fold of the brain represents centuries of experience, to which the increasing ingenuity of the hand corresponds.®

Re

From the time when the earliest scanty human remains appear—at the beginning of the Quaternary—that ts, in the Lower and Middle Pletstocene—Manis already provided with artefacts :* this was the Lower Paleolithic, the period of the earliest implements—which dates back, consequently, hundreds of centurtes. In the Upper Pleistocene, after the last glacial phase, we find Jossil remains of Homo sapiens® and the already advanced civilization of the Upper Paleolithic. With the commencement of the last phase, Holocene, we are dealing with Homo sapiens ®

1M. Boule, Les Hommes fossiles, p. 175.

3 See Ibid., pp. 231 ff. for all that the study of the endocranial surface can teach.

4 Chellean, Acheulean, Moustierian: Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis.

5 Grimaldi, Cro-Magnon, and Chancelade races,

5 See Boule, op. cit.—a far-reaching and careful synthesis (resumé by J. de Morgan in the Revue de Synthèse historique, Vol. XXXI, ‘‘ Les origines de l’homme ’’), completed by M. Pittard’s volume on Race in this series.

x PREHISTORIC MAN as we know him. Hts industrial activity and his inventive genius are manifested so completely in the Neolithic—whtch dates | from some 14,000 years in the Orient, and 9000 years in our part of the world—and then in the age of metals whose starting point varies likewise according to locality—that it ts evident that the essentials of technique had already long been established. “AU manner of hand implements, the earliest elementary machines, industries of primary necessity such as spinning, weaving, ceramics and metallurgy; the wheel and navigation, the employment of domesticated animals, the practice of agriculture, buildings in stone—all these acquisitions pre-date history.” }

But it was the first inventions that were decisive, when the hand, more and more adroit, came to be used in the making of tools,and when these tnventions for defence and attack, for all sorts of useful ends, and for the amelioration of the conditions of extstence, increased the possibilities of the hands own employment. Completed as it were, by the implement, this organ of action on things itself becomes a universal instrument. More prectsely, tt is the brain which becomes a universal instrument—the brain which develops marvellously as a result of the very use of the tools that the hand permits it to realize. And while the species ttself increases and becomes universal, the faculties of functional spectalization in the individual are also increased.

How did the first implements come to be made? An obviously insoluble problem if we wish a precise answer.

Hypotheses have been advanced. The theory of spontaneous extension—according to which men extended the arm in the stick, the finger in the hook, the fist in the club—is not very satisfactory. It ts evident enough that tmplements elaborated and imitated parts of the human body in the beginning: but human invention ts manifest. more especially tn the utilisation of the properties of different materials, and in the fashioning of such materials?

Besides, there were primitive discoveries, like that of fire, which cannot be explained by this “ extenston” theory. Man knew how to make fire from the beginning of the Paleolithic, and this 1s ‘the pre-eminently human act, that which is at the foundation of all future progress, and potentially contains all civilisation—the discovery of which constitutes the most char-

+L. Weber, Y a-t-il un rythme dans le progrès intellectuel?’ (Bull. de la Soc. frang. de philosophie, February-March 1914, p. 81). * See L. Weber, Le rythme du progrès, p. 259.

FOREWORD x acteristic act of genius which Humanity can boast.”! A weapon, alight,a modifying agent of the most varied materials, jire marks a date in prehistory, more important than all the — revolutions of history. Prometheus ts the great revealer.

: For this invention in two stages had its Prometheus, or more than one of them. First, spontaneous fire had to be preserved, and then fire had to be made artificially. The part played by intelligence and by the individual must be insisted on in any consideration of the beginnings of human industry. Consequent on manual skill (itself consequent on the vital and creative activity of the organs of the body), practical intelligence activated by self-interest must be sharply distinguished from theoretical intelligence, and from disinterested curiosity. That form of intelligence which tends to the *‘ conquest of realities,’ and direct knowledge for immediate power, 1s anterior to speculative intelligence ; or at least, the utilitarian function of the intelligence was for a long time preponderant.

This faculty, which Voltaire called the mechanical instinct, whose importance the eighteenth century was the first to emphasize, 7s specific rather than social, and appears in all individuals, though in varying degree in different individuals. Prometheus 7s the “ Foreseer, the individual gifted with attention and capable of dissociating. the part from the whole and employing it in a practical combination*® ; zt was Prometheus who utilized a brand from a fire kindled by lightning, or the property, either of two branches rubbed against each other by the wind, or of two stones struck against one another by chance, of kindling a spark. It was he too, who, noticing the recoil of a bent branch, by analogy with the arm which throws the stone, arrived at tmagining a bow ; tt was a Prometheus who, aiding the task of tooth or nail with the sharp edge of a flint-chip, invented the first implement : it was a Prometheus who saw what others did not see (as Galilio saw the lamp which swung in the cathedral of Pisa) and who had the wet to take advantage of his discovertes.

The imitation of such initial attempts, and the joining thereto

1 Boule, op. cit., p. 460. He himself cites Rémy de Gourmont, Promenades philosophiques, 2nd Series, p. 11. See also P. Lacombe, L'Histoire considérée comme science, pp. 180-185.

2 The cooking of food has had its effect on the brain: by reducing the masticating muscles, it has facilitated frontal activity. See Houzé, art. quoted, p. 95.

3 See Paulhan, Psychologie de l'invention; Ribot, Essai sur Vimagination créatrice.

xil PREHISTORIC MAN of successive steps in progress, are of a different order from all social action. Along with certain thinkers, we believe that technical invention, at its live point, so to speak, bears the hallmark of individual effort—like all invention. It ts born of direct experience from the contact of the brain with the external universe} Without doubt social life favours technique in a thousand ways : it is the instigator and propagator of inventions ; but tt also shackles them very often, by tradition, routine and the development of tllusory practices linked up with abortive speculation *— whereas in the most primitive technique an element of speculation is implicit.

Already the living organism ts in a measure an intelligence in action: “ AU our organs imply some sort of knowledge of the objective and material extertor world.... The lungs of a quadruped and the gills of a fish are in their degree an appreciation of the environment in which the animal has to breathe ; feet, fins, and wings postulate realization of the environment in which the various beings must move.... All organization, all system, zmplies something analogous to understanding which permits the existence and functioning of the system, as tt tmplies something analogous to desire and will, a tendency which ts an essential part of tt, just as it is an essential part of human activity”.*

If concrete mechanics and physics accompany the exercise of muscular energies, the extension of these energies by technique implies a sufficiently objective representation of the material world, and, at the very least, the clear feeling that there ts a certain regularity in things. Before it was conceived as such, the law of causality was more and more felt by the unfolding of human activity ina world ruled by this law,a world of which man ts an integral part.

1 See L. Weber, Le rythme du progrès, p. 263. ‘‘ The inventors (of implements), although for the most part unknown, misunderstood or forgotten, have not worked, in their inventions, in dependence on the group, nor according to its suggestions or beliefs, but according to their own intellectual spontaneity. The material invention is in itself the purest manifestation (and also the simplest and oldest) of the individual intelligence, the proprium quid of the specific human intelligence.” Even if it responds to a social need and comprises co-operation, the material invention is ‘‘in itself an individual penetration into the world of physical realities, a direct struggle of intelligence with matter carried on by a single being and precisely because of what is in him which is irreducible to the collective spirit.” Cf. Bull. de la Soc. française de philosophie, February-March, 1914. ‘‘Y a-t-il un rythme dans le progrés intellectuel?’’ pp. 70 (Weber), 90 (Parodi), 130 (Belot).

See Weber, op. cit., pp. 141 ff. ; Veblen, The Instinct of Workmanship (Cf. Halbwachs, Revue Philosophique, March-April 1921).

_ 3 Paulhan, ‘‘Sur le psychisme insconscient,”’ in the Journal de Psychologie, February 1921, p. 160.

FOREWORD xlll

Technique preceded technology, and, a fortiori, science ; but it prepared the way for both. “ Technique is the mother of rational logic.” }

Ni

Indeed, Man, in his beginning, is Homo faber rather than Homo sapiens. And he remains Homo faber. We shall have to show later that the part played by technique, decisive at the beginning, ts throughout human evolution immense :? Man is “a worker and an engineer,” “a tireless maker of tools, instruments, and machines.”

Paul Lacombe, that vigorous and original theorist in history, who gave a preponderant place to economics,* was to have contributed a preface to J. Toutain’s volume on Ancient Economic Organization, 7x which he would have related the technique of prehistory to the Economics of the Greeks and Romans. What he has written on these matters—for example in his Histoire considerée comme science ; and in certain notes in his Journal, where this preoccupation of his ts manifest—makes us keenly regret the loss of a collaborator so well fitted for the task. Not only did he analyse, with a penetrating ingenutty, this evolution from superficial to fundamental properties of things, and in which, little by little, art and science are disengaged from technique: but he also emphasized the fact that in the history of technique— a continuous chain of general history—the masses, the plebs, played their part, and an important part: ‘‘ The history of technique would not be universal history but, beyond a doubt, it would be the most universal of histories, since man in the mass, at all times has been a workman.” *

It ts under his inspiration that we shall return later to the development of inventions ; that we shall distinguish those which increase the power of our hands, those which take their place, and those which allow us not only to use things, but to capture and turn to our profit energies of all sorts, such as those that increase the

1 Ribot, Logique des sentiments, p. 27. Cf. Espinas, Les origines de la technologie.

2 This is the proportion of truth that historic or economic materialism contains,

# P. Lacombe, Rev. de Synth. hist : Vol. XXIV, p. 369. For P. Lacombe as for Weber, in opposition to Auguste Comte, the first phase of humanity is technical, and not theological.

4 On Lacombe, see Berr, L'Histoire traditionnelle et la Synthèse historique,

XIV PREHISTORIC MAN range of our senses and give us, so to speak, “ artificial senses”, and those that increase onr facilities for moving about in space, and communicating with our kind; we shall dwell on this infinite development of tool and equipment, born from the hand, whose repercussions are themselves infinite and very often completely unforeseeable—and all of which have made of man a god. It has been said that machines are exterior organs rendering the freshly muscles useless, and that by them we tend to the state of “pure spirit.”

* *

What we shall find in this book is prehistoric man, generically not physically. I mean that it will not be a question here of prehistoric anthropology. AU that concerns the physical characteristics of our far distant ancestors—the completion of the brief indications given by Edmond Perrier at the end of The Earth before History—z7l/ be related by M. Pittard in the volume in this series in which he studies proto-historic races and the factor of race in general. To secure a just distribution of material and a full use of expert knowledge, it seemed best to divide the subject thus.

M. Cartailhac had originally honoured us by a promise to lend to our work the great authority of his name. Later, he mistrusted his powers, surely without reason. He feared to delay us ; and M. de Morgan, at his desire, has been good enough to replace him. As M. Cartailhac had intended to do, the Former Director of Antiquities in Egypt and General Delegate to Persia has treated the subject of human activity zn the light of tts first extant traces, and indicated the primitive stages of human progress.

De Morgan is one of the most eminent representatives of thts distinctly French science of prehistory. No one comprehends it with a wider range of interests and a broader knowledge. All works dealing with prehistory take our part of the world as a basis and neglect the Orient. This entails not only an insufficiency of data but also, perhaps, an error in the point of view. It was the Orient, it seems, which, in the beginning, played the predominant part. The truth zs to be found, in all these cases, by. placing the evolution of those areas side by side with the evolution of Western Europe, and by putting together what we know of both. This De Morgan can do, having spent six years in Egypt,

. FOREWORD XV three years in the Caucasus and Armenia, and sixteen years tn Persia ; his synthetic point of view zs altogether happy, new, and highly appropriate to our design.

De Morgan, while dealing with primitive humanity as a whole, and treating of diverse regions and civilizations as particular cases of general prehistory, ts also personally familiar with the various sciences which have to be drawn upon for a thorough interpretation of the facts. Geology, paleozoology and palæobotany, and climatology are necessary to the comprehension of human evolution: the complexity of the causes necessitates diversity of knowledge.

Finally, de Morgan does not only provide a rich and precise text, but ample illustration. Primitive man, in his humble life, can only be reached through the remains of his industry: the prehistorian must investigate objects of all kinds; and he must, naturally, make them known to the reader. De Morgan has justly estimated that it would lighten the work, and obviate long descriptions and comparisons tf the objects were themselves presented ; and he found in this the further advantage of being able to give more room to general 1deas. The 190 plates of this volume, the 1300 figures—a certain number of them illustrating his own discovertes—have been for the most part drawn by him ; he has sought rest,in the course af his work, only in change of occupation. By their selection, juxtaposition and appropriate insertion to the body of the text, these figures add greatly to the value of the book; de Morgan has so concetved it that it appeals at once to the eye and to the mind.

This is true prehistory—with its paleoltthic and neolithic epochs —and industry occupies the principal place. But, in this great Fresco of our most distant past, de Morgan has also included the age of metals, and he gives us a general tmpression, in broad

_ strokes, of primitive life under its various aspects. He has thus set out in general outline the characteristics of proto-historic civilisations to be studied in detail in special volumes ; his volume zs the key to them.

One of his great merits, moreover—and one which we think tt worth while to stress, because tt falls in so well with the general character of this history—ts that of not over-emphastzing the extent

1 We shall have occasion to deal ourselves with psychic origins, and the social rôle of art and religion.

XVI PREHISTORIC MAN of our knowledge, of not hiding the problems which remain, but even of dwelling on them. “What we know to-day is very little in comparison with what remains to be learned”; such are his final words. But throughout the book he puts the public on tts guard against “ hypotheses which have nothing scientific about them,” and he multiplies prudent reservations. On the original homes of the human species, on the synchronism of the stages passed through by different races and groups, on their migratory movements and their inter-relations, on questions of independence or communications in relation to the development of industries, he exhibits that modesty of knowledge which ts characteristic of all great authorities.

There is no lack of collectors—“amateurs of worked fiints” —but there are only too few historians devoting themselves to prehistory. Nothing is more useful than to give workers in this field — beginners above all—a comprehensive idea of the evolution of humanity as a whole, and to point out the lacune in our knowledge.

As regards prehistory, much of the earth’s surface remains to be explored, and research ts not yet organized. De Morgan will have deserved well of science in showing precisely what remains to be done in this large and singularly attractive field, which 2s of capital importance for any historical synthesis}

HENRI BERR.

? We believe that there will also be something to do, in history, as regards standardizing the nomenclature—de Morgan deliberately uses the word prehistory in a broad sense:—all that concerns primitive man (he sometimes says: the barbarian), of whatever age and wherever found. For him, then, ethnography coincides in part with prehistory; he talks of ‘modern prehistory,” He also gives a very broad sense to the word ‘‘ philosophy.”

Contents

FOREWORD (By HENRI BERR)

PREFACE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE FIELD

CHAPTER . PALÆOLITHIC INDUSTRY

. ARCHÆOLITHIC INDUSTRY IN EUROPE

LIT

SOME

Part I The Evolution Of Industries

. MESOLITHIC INDUSTRIES

. IRON INDUSTRIES

PART HI THE DAILY LIFE OF PREHISTORIC MAN

. His DWELLING-PLACE . . HUNTING, FISHING, ANIMAL DOMESTICATION AND

AGRICULTURE DRESS AND ORNAMENT

PART LET

INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND INTERCOMMUNICATION

. THE ARTS OF PREHISTORIC PEOPLES

. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, TOTEMISM, AND MAGIC

. INTER-RELATIONS OF PREHISTORIC PEOPLES .

BIBLIOGRAPHY b

XVli

PAGE

160 174

ES wii fe Ar

à à SIEVALL

pny a: Ps

WWWwWwww ND D ND KN ND NN ON ND Het el HW Het el el bel bel bel Qi à OO NN #1 Ow ON Au à DO) N° Er © © ON Qui à WN FH ri = 6 © BWANA WD HA

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Imaginary section of Nile Valley

. Cap Breton Fossa

Submarine Plateau of North Sea Submarine valleys of Iceland ; Maximum extension of Pleistocene glaciers .

. The Isle Erlanic (Morbihan)

Eoliths (France, Portugal, Belgium)

. Chellean Implements =