Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

709

The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization in Western Europe An Evaluation by Gilliane F. Monnier In the late nineteenth century, the European Paleolithic was divided into stages, each of which was characterized by a distinct stone tool type known historically as a fossile directeur, or index fossil. Today, these index fossils are no longer explicitly used to date assemblages because they are known to overlap widely, but they continue to be used as key components in the periodization of the Paleolithic. This study addresses two major questions: (1) How have archaeologists justified retaining these index fossils to distinguish the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic? and (2) Does the diachronic patterning of these tool types support this periodization? The results reveal (1) that the overlap of index fossils was a known problem from the beginning and prehistorians repeatedly modified the classification to accommodate data which documented this overlap without rejecting its fundamental index-fossil-based core and (2) that, while temporal trends agreeing with the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization can be identified, they are insignificant compared with the chronological variation observed in each of these tool types. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization should therefore be revised on the basis of a comprehensive examination of multiple lines of evidence, not just lithic typology.

The past two decades have witnessed intense research and debate regarding the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe and its relationship to the origins of modern humans. There has been little interest, however, in the Lower/Middle Paleolithic transition (but see, e.g., Ronen 1982a). There are several reasons for this lack of interest. First, the Lower/Middle Paleolithic transition is less dramatic than the later one, its exact date being unclear and its existence sometimes called into question (e.g., Tuffreau, Lamotte, and Marcy 1997). Second, the chronological resolution from this time period has been extremely poor, although it is improving. Finally, the Lower and even the Middle Paleolithic have generally been regarded as static and unchanging (Kuhn and Hovers 2005). Therefore, while recent volumes have focused on variability in the Middle Paleolithic (e.g., Roebroeks and Gamble 1999; Hovers and Kuhn 2005) and on the earliest occupation of Europe (Bonifay and Vandermeersch 1991; Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten 1995a), very few have tried to refine our knowledge of what happened at the interface of the Lower and the Middle Paleolithic. Yet, a comparison of the two

Gilliane F. Monnier is Instructor and Fellow in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota (301 19th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, U.S.A. [[email protected]]). The present paper was submitted 11 V 05 and accepted 6 XII 05.

transitions reveals that they are hampered by similar problems. The first problem is that an archaeological transition tends to dichotomize the archaeological record, producing a “before” and an “after” which are often seen as internally cohesive. Many years ago, Straus (1983) pointed out that the treatment of the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic as single entities has magnified the differences between the two while reducing the variation within each period. Upon closer examination, it turns out that there are more continuities across the transition than is generally acknowledged (e.g., d’Errico et al. 1998). Recent studies have also shown that the transition varied geographically: in Africa, for example, the Middle/Later Stone Age transition was “gradual and episodic,” occurring over a span of at least 200,000 years (McBrearty and Brooks 2000), while in China the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition (ca. 27,000–30,000 years ago) appears to have been so abrupt and change in the period preceding it so gradual that Gao and Norton (2001) have proposed eliminating the Middle Paleolithic altogether. The second problem with these transitions is that we often forget that they are artificial boundaries designed to provide structure to a complex record and, rather than being conceived of as permanent or real, should be frequently examined and revised (Roebroeks and Corbey 2001). Yet, the Lower and Middle Paleolithic index-fossil-based definitions created over

䉷 2006 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2006/4705-0001$10.00

710

100 years ago, when the Acheulean was characterized by bifaces and the Middle Paleolithic by Levallois technology and retouched flake tools, are still defined the same way despite the vast temporal distribution of each type and huge overlaps between them. Representative definitions are as follows: Lower Paleolithic: [The Acheulean includes] biface assemblages older than the Middle Paleolithic, where the Middle Paleolithic includes all assemblages with or without bifaces that have Mousterian-like flake tools and may be as old as stage 8 in the oxygen isotope chronology. (Villa 1991, 199) The majority of specialists recognize in the Acheulean an assemblage of lithic industries characterized by the presence of bifaces. (Tuffreau 1996, 7) In both Africa and Europe the Mousterian/MSA differs from the preceding Acheulean mainly in the absence of large bifacial tools (hand axes and cleavers). (Klein 1999, 408) Middle Paleolithic: The most basic innovation marking the Middle Paleolithic remains the emergence of prepared-core technique. (Rolland 1988, 179) Most of these [MP] industries share one or more of a number of characteristics, including the use of preparedcore flaking techniques and a limited range of major tool classes (principally racloirs [i.e., “scrapers”], denticulates/ notches, and bifaces). (Dibble and Rolland 1992) The prime hallmark of Middle Paleolithic technology [is] the emergence of more complex and sophisticated patterns of prepared-core flaking, classically illustrated by the various Levallois and allied techniques. (Mellars 1996, 4) [The Middle Paleolithic] is a stage anterior to the Upper Paleolithic where lithic assemblages are characterised by a high proportion of standardised flake-supports and flaketools. These are based on de´bitage which generally, but not always, involves the Levallois technique. (Gamble and Roebroeks 1999, 5) By the Middle Paleolithic we mean the period in which, at least in Europe, the first standard techniques of flake manufacture were developed (Tuffreau 1979; Bosinski 1982). (Vega Toscano et al. 1999, 23) Middle Paleolithic industries, as characterized by the occurrence of fully developed Levallois technology, seem to start about 300,000 years ago. (Roebroeks and Tuffreau 1999, 121) Well-made Levallois flakes and cores appear in some later Acheulean assemblages, dating between perhaps 400 and 200 ky ago, but they become common only in Mousterian and

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

MSA assemblages after 200 ky ago. Not all Mousterian/MSA people produced Levallois flakes, but many did, and Levallois technology is sometimes regarded as a hallmark of the Mousterian/MSA. (Klein 1999, 411)

Unfortunately, the continued use of these criteria and the absence of a serious examination and revision of the definition of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization have led to a focus on limited aspects of variation while neglecting other questions. For example, the meaning of the presence or absence of bifaces in industries such as the Acheulean and Clactonian has been debated ever since bifaces became the defining criterion for the Lower Paleolithic. It has now been demonstrated conclusively that these two industries are contemporaneous (Ashton and McNabb 1996) and that there is no cultural distinction between them (Ohel 1979; Ashton and McNabb 1992; Roberts, Gamble, and Bridgland 1995); they differ only on the basis of the presence or absence of bifaces (Ashton et al. 1994). In fact, bifaces have even turned up in Clactonian contexts, providing the final blow to the notion of the Clactonian as a real tradition (Ashton and McNabb 1996; McNabb 1996; Conway 1995). In other contexts the meaning of a distinction between early biface- and non-biface-bearing assemblages has been questioned (e.g., Jelinek 1977; Mussi 1995), and many have noted that the only distinction between certain Acheulean and Mousterian assemblages is the presence or absence of bifaces (e.g., Tuffreau 1982; Bosinski in Ronen 1982b; Villa 1991; Bordes 1950a). Finally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that biface typology has no consistent temporal patterning (e.g., Bosinski 1995; Tuffreau and Antoine 1995; Roberts, Gamble, and Bridgland 1995; Milliken 2001; Villa 1991). In other words, biface morphology and presence/absence seem to vary independently of any other variable except for raw material (e.g., McPherron 2000; Gamble and Marshall 2001). Bifaces are probably simply a basic component of Lower and Middle Paleolithic toolkits throughout much of the world and as such carry a limited amount of cultural and temporal information. The continued focus on index fossils such as bifaces, which are so widespread spatially and temporally that they carry almost no meaning, and their continued use in defining the Lower and Middle Paleolithic lead to two key questions: (1) How have archaeologists justified retaining these index fossils to distinguish the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic? and (2) Does the diachronic patterning of these artifact types in welldated, well-excavated sites support the traditional Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization? The first question requires a historical treatment. The second relies upon detailed information from absolutely dated sites in western Europe to trace the diachronic patterning of each index fossil through time.

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

The Identification of Handaxes, Levallois Technology, and Flake Tools as Index Fossils The history of the periodization of the Paleolithic from its initial formulation in the 1860s to its essentially modern form in the 1960s reveals that the wide temporal overlap between index fossils was recognized at the time of the very first artifact-based classification of the Paleolithic but no prehistorian ever suggested abandoning them. Instead, prehistorians created increasingly convoluted frameworks to account for their overlapping distribution. Further, the decades-old debate on the significance of biface versus flake industries stems from a dichotomy created in the first classification of the Paleolithic and subsequently reified and amplified through time. Finally, each new classification was the product of a dialectic between research paradigms and the ever-increasing resolution of the data. Gabriel de Mortillet and the Identification of Paleolithic Index Fossils The term “Paleolithic” was coined by John Lubbock (1865, 2–3) to distinguish the Old Stone Age (“Age of Flaked Stone”) from the New Stone Age (“Age of Polished Stone,” or Neolithic). The Paleolithic then began to be subdivided and refined, initially on the basis of faunal sequences. The French paleontologist Edouard Lartet, working in the Dordogne Valley of France, excavated key sites such as Le Moustier, Pech de l’Aze´, and La Madeleine and divided the Paleolithic into three epochs: the epoch of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus), the epoch of the mammoth (Elephas primigenius), and the epoch of the reindeer (Cervus tarandus) (Lartet and Christy 1865–75). His classification was initially adopted by antiquarians and geologists, but they soon favored an artifactbased classification proposed in northern France by Gabriel de Mortillet. De Mortillet rejected Lartet’s paleontological classification on the basis of three arguments (Mortillet 1872). First, he argued (1869) that the animal species upon which Lartet’s classification was based are found throughout the Paleolithic (a limitation Lartet acknowledged) whereas lithic industries are more variable and provide a stronger foundation for a chronology. Second, he argued (1872, 1883) that species abundance will be affected by site locality and type (e.g., cave versus open-air). Finally, he suggested (1872) that the classification of the Paleolithic, like that of later periods, should be based upon artifacts, which he felt would provide the best means of tracing phases of human development. Ironically, the same problems he criticized in the faunal classification were later to plague his own artifact-based classification, as demonstrated below. Although he eschewed the paleontological approach, de Mortillet did borrow two concepts from geology. The first

711

was the practice of naming periods after the best-known and most typical locality (Mortillet 1869). Thus, he named the Acheulean after the site of Saint-Acheul in northern France, the Mousterian after the site of Le Moustier in southwestern France, and so on. Second, he defined each period on the basis of a single characteristic tool type or fossile directeur, a notion borrowed from the geological concept of index fossils. De Mortillet’s methodology, therefore, was derived primarily from geology and viewed artifact sequences as analogous to fossil sequences (Sackett 1981, 1991). As director of the Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, de Mortillet was asked to classify the prehistoric exhibitions for the Universal Exposition in Paris in 1867. This led to his first classification of the prehistory of France, published in a guide to the exposition “Promenades pre´historiques a` l’exposition universelle” (Mortillet 1867). In this and a similar classification published in 1869, he defined the Mousterian as the first epoch of the Stone Age and characterized its index fossils as “almond-shaped handaxes” (also called bifaces) and “unifacial points” (table 1; Mortillet 1869). In a subsequent classification published in 1873, however, he changed the name of the first epoch to “Acheulean” and identified its index fossils as “large almond-shaped stone tools” (bifaces; table 2). He named the following epoch “Mousterian” and characterized it in terms of “unifacially worked flint points and scrapers.” In other words, in the 1873 version he removed handaxes as one of the index fossils of the Mousterian and made them the sole index fossil of the Acheulean and points, scrapers, and other flake tools of the Mousterian. He did not reject the presence of handaxes in the Mousterian, which he suggested persisted into this epoch from the preceding Acheulean before gradually becoming extinct. He did, however, insist that retouched flake tools did not occur in the Acheulean, on which Table 1. De Mortillet’s 1869 Classification of the Paleolithic

Epoch

Characteristic Tool-Type

La Madeleine

Bone points and harpoons, art

Aurignac

Split-base bone points, bola stones

Solutre´

Finely worked bifacial points, bola stones Almond-shaped handaxes, unifacial points

Moustiers

Representative Sites La Madeleine, Les Eyzies, LaugerieBasse, Bruniquel, Massat Aurignac, Gorged’Enfer, Cro-Magnon, Chaˆtel-Perron, Grotte de la Chaise Solutre´, LaugerieHaute, Pont-a`-Less Grotte du Moustiers, Grotte de Pey-del’Aze´, Grotte de l’Ermitage, ChezPoure´, Quaternary alluvial deposits of the Somme Valley and the Seine Valley

712

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Table 2. De Mortillet’s 1873 Classification of the Paleolithic

Ancient Divisions

Industrial Divisions

Epochs Based on Industry

Polished stone or Neolithic

Polished stone

Robenhausian: polished stone axes and barbed flint arrowheads

Flaked stone, Archeolithic or Paleolithic

Flaked stone with bone tools

Magdalenian: barbed bone arrowheads and flint blades

Flaked stone only

Solutrean: bifacially worked laurel-leaf flint points

Mousterian: unifacially worked flint points and scrapers

Acheulean: large almond-shaped stone tools

point he was challenged by several prehistorians during the discussion following the appearance of his paper (Bourgeois and Frank in Mortillet 1872). The debate regarding handaxes as the sole retouched tool type of the earliest Paleolithic epoch was not resolved, and in 1883, in Le pre´historique, de Mortillet changed the name of the earliest Paleolithic epoch from “Acheulean” to “Chellean” (table 3), identifying as its sole index fossil handaxes. He was apparently convinced by a collector named Ernest d’Acy that the deposits of Saint-Acheul were disturbed (Mortillet 1883) because d’Acy’s collections showed mixing in both the fauna (Elephas antiquus and E. primigenius bones in the same layers) and the artifacts (Mousterian tools and handaxes in the same deposits). Although the integrity of d’Acy’s collections is doubtful today, his arguments at the time were sufficient to persuade de Mortillet to select a “more pure, characteristic locality” to apply to the first Paleolithic epoch: the site of Chelles (Mortillet 1883, 132–33). De Mortillet emphasized, however, that the name “Acheulean” could still be ascribed to what he saw as a transitional phase between the Chellean and the Mousterian (1883, 254), denoting industries which contained a combination of more finely worked, perfected handaxes and some Mousterian tools (see also Mortillet

Principal Sites Robenhausen, Meilen, Mooseedorf, Wangen (lacustrine occupations), Grand Pressigny (workshop), Chastay (camp or oppidum) La Madeleine, Les Eyzies, Laugerie-Basse, Bruniquel, Massat, Montrejeau, Arcy, Schussenried Solutre´, Laugerie-Haute, Badegols, Saint-Martin d’Excideuil

Moustiers, Chez Pourre´, La Martinie`re, L’Ermitage, La Me`re Grand, Buoux, Ne´ron, Grenelle, Levallois, Clichy, Le Pecq, Montguillan Saint-Acheul, Abbeville, Thenne, Sotteville les Rouen, Vaudricourt, San Isidro (Madrid), Tilly, La Ganterie, Sausse and Ceillone Valleys

Geology and Meteorology

Fauna

Current climate

Domesticated animals; human races very mixed, brachycephalic and dolichocephalic, analogous to moderns

Postglacial

Reindeer, aurochs, and bears very abundant; also mammoths, hyenas, large felids Brachycephalic and mesaticephalic man, close to the modern race (La Laisse, Cro-Magnon Laugerie-Basse, Solutre´) Cave bears, rhinoceros: inferior, dolicocephalic man (Engis, Oimo)

Cold and dry climate

Glacial; cold and humid climate

Preglacial temperate climate

Hippopotamus, Elephas antiquus; man the most inferior type (Neanderthal, Eguisheim, La Naulette, Denize)

and Mortillet 1903, pl. 6). Thus, ironically, he rejected SaintAcheul on the grounds that it was mixed but held that industries containing handaxes and Mousterian flake tools did exist. In the third, posthumous edition of Le pre´historique, the “Acheulean” appeared once again in the table, between the Chellean and the Mousterian, but was little discussed in the text (Mortillet and Mortillet 1900). Apparently his son, Adrien de Mortillet, had decided to reinstate it as an autonomous, transitional epoch, as evidenced in other publications of the time (e.g., Mortillet and Mortillet 1903; table 4). De Mortillet identified the Acheulean as a transitional epoch between the Chellean and the Mousterian for two reasons. First, increasing numbers of collections from Quaternary deposits found in the quarries and railroad trenches of northern France revealed industries containing both handaxes and retouched flake tools, and he was forced to incorporate these new data into his scheme. Secondly, one of the dominant themes in the social sciences of his time was that cultures evolved gradually and continuously in a unilinear fashion. This view and the notion that technological development was progressive were the bases of his classifications. Both themes stemmed from the Enlightenment paradigm, which, though developed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

713

Table 3. De Mortillet’s 1883 Classification of the Paleolithic Times Modern

Ages Historic

Periods

Iron Age

Protohistoric Prehistoric

Merovingian Roman Galatian, Etruscan

Bronze Age

Bohemian

Stone Age

Neolithic, polished stone

Quaternary

Paleolithic, flaked stone

Tertiary

Eolithic, fire-split stone

Western Europe, continued to influence scientific thought well into the nineteenth. In fact, some of the major tenets of the Enlightenment, such as that technological as well as cultural progress was a main feature of human development, meshed particularly well with the nineteenth century’s emerging theory of evolution. According to Trigger, these Enlightenment ideals not only were a prerequisite for the acceptance of Darwinian evolution but also were subsequently reinforced by the scientific study of evolution, both in biology and in archaeology, where the latter was seen as demonstrating the reality of progress in prehistoric times (Trigger 1989, 94, 101). Thus, when we place de Mortillet’s classifications of the Paleolithic in this context, it becomes clear that his emphasis on continuous evolution within a framework of technological progress toward perfection was the product of Enlightenment

Epochs Wabennian, Frankish, Burgonde, Germanic Champdolian, Roman decadence Lugdunian, Roman Marnian, Gaulish, 3rd Lacustrian Hallstattian, Tumulus, 1st Iron Larnaudian (du marteleur), 2nd Lacustrian (part) Morgian (du fondeur), 2nd Lacustrian (part) Robenhausian, 1st Lacustrian, Dolmens Magdalenian, Caves, Reindeer (most) Solutrean, Reindeer (part), Mammoth (part) Mousterian, Cave Bear Challean, Acheulean, Mammoth (part), Elephas antiquus Thenaisian

ideals. By placing the industries which contained a mix of Chellean and Mousterian index fossils between these two epochs and labeling them transitional (Acheulean), he was able to accommodate data showing that these index fossils overlapped while adhering to the notion of gradual development and continuity from one epoch to the next. In defining the Mousterian, de Mortillet also emphasized continuity by selecting a type site which “contains Chellean tools which link it to the previous epoch, as well as forms in the upper levels which link it to the subsequent period” (1883, 252). He emphasized technological progress from the Chellean to the Mousterian, claiming that handaxes were “big and heavy” in the Chellean and became “lighter and more finely and elegantly worked” as they approached the Mousterian (p. 254). He saw them as slowly disappearing from the Mous-

Table 4. De Mortillet and de Mortillet’s 1903 Classification of the Paleolithic Times Modern

Ages Historic

Iron Age

Protohistoric

Prehistoric

Periods Merovingian Roman Galatian

Bronze Age

Tsiganian

Stone Age

Neolithic, Polished Stone

Quaternary

Paleolithic, Flaked Stone

Tertiary

Eolithic, Exploded Stone

Epochs Wabenian (Waben) Champdolian (Champdolent) Lugdunian (Lyon) Beuvraysian (Mont Beuvray) Marnian (Marne Department) Hallstattian (Hallstatt) Larnaudian (Larnaud) Morgian (Morges) Robenhausian (Robenhausen) Tardenoisian (Fe`re-en-Tardenois) Tourassian (La Tourasse) Magdalenian (La Madeleine) Solutrean (Solutre´) Mousterian (Le Moustier) Acheulean (Saint-Acheul) Chellean (Chelles) Puycournian (Puy Courny) Thenaysienne (Thenay)

714

terian, to be replaced by more complex, specialized flake tools such as scrapers, points, saws, and blades. De Mortillet linked the Mousterian and the Chellean not only through continuity in handaxes but also by suggesting that the flaking technology of the Mousterian arose in the Chellean: “The Chellean instrument is simply the natural rock perfected by flaking on both sides; it is these flakes that gave rise to the Mousterian industry” (1883, 254). Although he mentioned the presence of Levallois flakes in some Mousterian assemblages, he did not use Levallois technology as an index fossil of the Mousterian. He firmly believed, however, that the Mousterian was primarily a flake-based industry while the Chellean was handaxe-based. De Mortillet’s classification has been revised and modified many times, but it still forms the basis for the scheme we use today. The most lasting impact arose from his choice of handaxes as the index fossil of the earliest stage of the Paleolithic and his insistence that retouched flake tools were not a significant component of those early industries. This choice set up the fundamental handaxe/biface–versus-flake-tool dichotomy that has spurred controversy and debate to this day (e.g., Warren 1926; Breuil 1932a; Movius 1948, 1949; Ohel 1979; Ashton and McNabb 1992; Schick 1994). What is not fully understood is why he persisted in his assertion that the earliest industry, the Chellean, did not contain retouched flake tools. Perhaps it was because this was the simplest way of ordering the Paleolithic record at the time and if he had accepted the co-occurrence of bifacial implements and retouched flake tools in both the Acheulean and the Mousterian, he would have had no other way of distinguishing the two epochs. Victor Commont: First Modification of de Mortillet’s Paleolithic Classification Victor Commont, the first prehistorian to modify de Mortillet’s classification after his death in 1898, developed a method for distinguishing the Mousterian from the Acheulean that did not involve denying the presence of flake tools in the earlier industries. In the early 1900s, Commont traveled extensively throughout the Somme Valley in northern France, investigating excavations, road cuts, and quarries for their artifact contents. He made detailed maps of geological sections and carefully noted which types of artifacts were found in each level in an effort to clarify the river-terrace sequence of the valley and the sequence of industrial types within it. Through these rigorous studies, he gradually developed a geological model of the Somme Valley which divided it into four major terraces and identified the types of artifacts found in various gravel, sand, and loess deposits on each of them. Since Commont’s field methods were much more rigorous than de Mortillet’s, he recognized more variation. First of all, in contrast to de Mortillet, he accepted the presence of retouched flake tools in pre-Mousterian industries such as the Chellean. This is probably because he personally observed excavations and therefore saw what came out of the ground

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

rather than retrieving artifacts from workers later. He himself stated that workers were only looking for belles pie`ces and frequently rejected flakes (Commont 1906). Secondly, he emphasized the fact that handaxes occurred across a very long period of time, from the pre-Chellean all the way into the Mousterian. In other words, he recognized that de Mortillet’s index fossils—handaxes and flake tools—occurred together in all of these industries. Yet, like de Mortillet, he was operating under a paradigm of gradual and progressive cultural evolution and therefore needed a means of differentiating the Paleolithic industries while adhering to this paradigm. This he did by introducing two changes to de Mortillet’s classification. First, he posited that handaxe morphology changed gradually through time, becoming increasingly refined and perfected. Thus his first epoch, the Pre-Chellean, was characterized by crude, partly cortical handaxes and utilized flakes (table 5). The succeeding epoch, the Chellean, was characterized by the ficron: a pointed, elongated bifacial tool with a thick, often cortical butt and sinuous edges. The Acheulean was characterized by the limande, an oval, flat, straight-edged handaxe, more finely flaked and more refined than the ficron (Commont 1908). Finally, the “Acheule´en supe´rieur,” or Upper Acheulean, represented the epitome of the Acheulean; the lanceolate handaxes of this period were so finely worked that flintknappers of his day could not reproduce them (Commont 1906). As did de Mortillet, Commont emphasized gradual progress and continuity, stressing continuous development from one handaxe index fossil to the next and noting that transitional forms were common and occurred between all handaxe types (Commont 1906, 1908, 1913). He also stated that the flake tools accompanying each industry became more finely retouched through time (Commont 1906). The second change that Commont introduced to de Mortillet’s classification was in the definition of the Mousterian. As noted above, he was aware that handaxes were also present in the Mousterian. Thus, the Mousterian contained the same basic tool types—handaxes and retouched flake tools—as earlier industries, and the problem was how it could be distinguished from them. Commont accomplished this objective by introducing a new variable: flake technology. He argued that although Acheulean and Mousterian retouched flake tools resembled each other superficially, they could be distinguished because Mousterian flakes were the product of LeTable 5. Commont’s 1908 Classification of the Paleolithic Epoch Mousterian Upper Acheulean Acheulean Chellean Pre-Chellean

Type Artifacts Levallois technology; numerous retouched flake tools Lanceolate handaxes; flake tools Limande handaxes; flake tools Ficron handaxes; other handaxes, utilized flakes, flake tools Partly cortical handaxes, utilized flakes

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

vallois technology. The term “Levallois” was used as early as the 1860s to refer to large, flat flakes discovered in the Levallois-Perret suburb of Paris and was briefly mentioned by de Mortillet in Le pre´historique (de Mortillet 1883, 256). Commont made Levallois technology the index fossil of the Mousterian, arguing that certain features of the platform and bulb could be used to distinguish Mousterian from Acheulean flakes (Commont 1913, 65). Levallois technology has remained the hallmark of the Mousterian to this day. In sum, Commont’s detailed fieldwork led him to realize that de Mortillet’s index fossils were too broad, and he refined them by introducing two new variables: handaxe morphology and flake technology. He also added a few epochs but did not otherwise alter the framework of de Mortillet’s classification or its fundamental emphasis on handaxes and flake tools. Like his predecessor, he was guided by a paradigm of unilinear cultural evolution and progress. More so than de Mortillet, he emphasized continuity between the successive Paleolithic epochs and the gradual development of stone tools toward perfection over time. He stressed that the transition from Acheulean to Mousterian was slow and gradual, with Levallois technology appearing toward the end of the Acheulean and gradually replacing bifaces during the Mousterian (Commont 1913, 68). He also argued that Levallois technology itself evolved throughout the Mousterian, producing massive flakes in the beginning but gradually yielding flakes that were smaller, thinner, and had a more complex dorsal scar pattern (p. 70). Toward the end of the Mousterian, burins and blades appeared, foreshadowing the Upper Paleolithic (p. 70). Interestingly, although Commont believed that Acheulean populations were descended from Chellean ones, he suggested that the Mousterian population was a separate group which slowly infiltrated the Acheulean population. Perhaps this was the best explanation he could devise to account for increasingly evident variability within the Mousterian, such as the fact that bifaces, having decreased in frequency throughout the Mousterian, sometimes reappeared toward the very end or in Aurignacian deposits (e.g., at Le Moustier, Hauteroche, and Laussel [pp. 129–31]), and discrepancies such as an Acheulean-like industry in the lower Mousterian levels at Montie`res (p. 132). Denis Peyrony: Explaining Variation in Terms of Dual Phyla Denis Peyrony spent much of his career elucidating the problem of Mousterian variation in southwestern France. Though Commont’s contemporary, he lived much longer, and his publications reveal important differences in his views on cultural evolution. Peyrony spent most of his life in the Dordogne Valley, where he excavated many sites, several with his teacher and collaborator of many years, Louis Capitan, himself a student of de Mortillet. Among the Middle Paleolithic sites Peyrony excavated were Le Moustier (Peyrony 1930), La Ferrassie (Peyrony 1934b), Combe-Capelle (Peyrony 1934a, 1943), and La Micoque (Peyrony 1938). Using data from these excava-

715

tions, he began to refine the Mousterian sequence, doing for the Middle Paleolithic essentially what Commont had done for the Lower Paleolithic in northern France. Initially, Peyrony adhered to the notion of unilinear cultural evolution, as exemplified in a 1912 publication on the excavations at La Ferrassie (Capitan and Peyrony 1912). Capitan and Peyrony emphasized the continuity of occupation from the Acheulean through the Aurignacian and the gradual evolution from one industry to the next, with the Mousterian sequence showing increasing perfection of the retouched tools. This was in keeping with the themes of linear cultural evolution and technological progress through time emphasized by de Mortillet and Commont. Peyrony’s views began to change, however, in his solo publications a few years later. In 1920 he published a short note in which he suggested that the Mousterian was composed of two distinct but contemporaneous facies: (1) the “Classical Mousterian,” characterized by Mousterian points and scrapers with invasive retouch and utilized bone flakes, and (2) the “Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition” (MAT), characterized by numerous handaxes, backed knives, and utilized flakes. This dual-facies model was a radical departure from the unilinear model of cultural evolution, but Peyrony emphasized continuity by proposing that the MAT was derived from the Acheulean and was analogous to the Upper Acheulean found by Commont (1908) at Saint-Acheul. What caused Peyrony to depart from the unilinear cultural evolution model? Along with the prehistorians before him, he seems to have been influenced both by archaeological data and by overarching scientific paradigms. The archaeological record of the time was becoming increasingly detailed as excavation and geological methods were refined. Although his methods were crude by today’s standards, Peyrony generally excavated sites more carefully than his predecessors and paid more attention to the geological formation of the sites. He also tried correlating sites and began building a regional chrono-stratigraphic scheme. These endeavors led him to two conclusions which called unilinear evolution into question. The first was that a Classical Mousterian level (C) at La Ferrassie was contemporaneous (on the basis of stratigraphy, fauna, and lithics) with the MAT deposits (levels F–H) at Le Moustier (Peyrony 1920, Peyrony 1934 table 6). According Table 6. Peyrony’s 1920 Sequence of Industries at La Ferrassie and Le Moustier La Ferrassie Lower Aurignacian Mousterian Classical Mousterian: reindeer, bovids Acheulean: handaxes, utilized flakes, no reindeer

Le Moustier

Mousterian [sand, floods] MTA: reindeer, bovids, Abri Audi forms Utilized flakes, handaxe waste flakes, no reindeer

716

to the existing paradigm, handaxes were an index fossil of the Chellean and Acheulean and were supposed to be replaced by flake tools in the Mousterian. The contemporaneity of a handaxe industry at Le Moustier and a flake tool industry at La Ferrassie was therefore not reconcilable with a unilinear scheme. The second conclusion was that there were “reversals” of the Acheulean-to-Mousterian progression. In 1930, in a reanalysis of the Lower Terrace deposits at Le Moustier, Peyrony realized that level B was more accurately described as Classical Mousterian than as Acheulean (the term he had used in 1920). This meant that the MAT industries at Le Moustier (levels F–H) followed a Classical Mousterian industry (level B). Since Peyrony believed that evolution was progressive, the only way he could explain such a reversal in the normal cultural sequence was by invoking dual phyla. The synchronic variation observed by Peyrony was reinforced by a new paradigm in archaeology. The concept of the archaeological culture arose in the late nineteenth century and resulted in the culture-historical approach to the study of prehistory (Trigger 1989, 161). By the 1920s, Trigger argues, cultural evolutionism had largely been replaced by this new approach, exemplified in the works of V. Gordon Childe (pp. 148–50). Childe’s The Dawn of European Civilization, published in 1925, interpreted European prehistory in terms of a complex mosaic of cultures and forever changed the face of European archaeology (p. 168): “The primary aim of archaeologists who adopted this approach was no longer to interpret the archaeological record as evidence of stages of cultural development. Instead they sought to identify often nameless prehistoric peoples by means of archaeological cultures and to trace their origin, movements, and interaction” (p. 172). Whether Peyrony was directly influenced by Childe’s work is difficult to determine, but he was clearly a part of this new movement. In his writings, unlike those of his predecessors, there are clear references to groups of people—their origins, movements, and interactions with each other (e.g., Peyrony 1930, 43-45). In sum, Peyrony’s archaeological thinking was affected by the general shift in the current intellectual paradigm which marked early-twentieth-century Western European archaeology. He still believed in continuous cultural evolution, as can be seen in his placing the roots of the MAT in the Chellean (Peyrony 1930). However, in proposing multiple facies and in actively attributing them to different populations, he differed greatly from his predecessors (although Commont, for example, had occasionally referred to populations). It is notable that Peyrony’s initial observations regarding the contemporaneity of handaxe- and non-handaxe-based industries did not lead him to question the appropriateness of the index fossils, especially handaxes, but instead led him to propose dual facies so that the existing Paleolithic framework could be retained. While he did introduce some new index fossils, such as backed knives for the MAT and scrapers with invasive retouch for the Classical Mousterian, the presence or absence of handaxes remained one of the most critical factors

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

in assigning an assemblage to one industry rather than another and in fact formed the basis for his dual facies. Henri Breuil: Biface versus Flake Industries The presence or absence of handaxes or bifaces (as they came to be more commonly known) was also the basis for Henri Breuil’s classification of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Abbe´ Henri E´douard Prosper Breuil, one of the most influential figures in the history of Paleolithic archaeology, is known for his synthetic revisions of the entire chronology of the Paleolithic, as well as his worldwide travels documenting parietal art. His studies of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic were published in a series of detailed articles with L. Kozlowski which focused on the stratigraphy of valleys in northern France, Belgium, and England (Breuil and Kozlowski 1931, 1932a, 1932b, 1934a, 1934b). Essentially, as Peyrony envisioned two separate phyla for the Mousterian, Breuil envisioned two separate phyla for the whole of the Lower as well as the Middle Paleolithic. These phyla were based on what he saw as a natural dichotomy in the industries: some contained flake tools and bifaces while others contained flake tools and lacked bifaces (according to Groenen [1994, 199], a similar idea was presented by Hugo Obermaier in his 1925 El hombre fo´sil). This was, to some extent, the basis for Peyrony’s facies, but Breuil went farther by pushing this dichotomy back into the Lower Paleolithic and defining more culture groups along each line. Like Peyrony, he linked each phylum to a distinct population group, but he also linked each to certain climates and regions, postulating that the biface-making population was centered in southwestern Europe while the flake-only population was centered in northeastern Europe. As the climate oscillated, he suggested, these populations migrated south during glacials and north during interglacials (following the fauna), thereby replacing each other in various sites. Finally, they fused during the Middle Paleolithic (Breuil 1932a). Breuil identified two major industrial traditions in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Breuil’s flake sequence (1932a; fig. 1) began with the Ipswichian (defined from sites in the English Crags and characterized by small flakes with irregular retouch and variable platforms) and was followed by the Clactonian (defined by Breuil 1932b), which gave rise to the Levalloisian and the Tayacian, the latter of which culminated in the Mousterian. His biface sequence began with the Chellean, which he renamed “Abbevillian” when the integrity of Chelles was questioned on the discovery of an upper Acheulean assemblage in its lowest layer (Breuil 1932b). The Abbevillian, characterized by massive bifaces and some retouched flakes, was followed by the Acheulean. The sequence culminated with the Micoquian, which Breuil described as a smaller version of the Acheulean with very delicate working and many flake tools such as points and scrapers. Breuil’s scheme was no doubt an attempt, like his predecessors’, to reconcile the archaeological data with the legacy

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

717

Figure 1. Breuil’s correlation of Paleolithic industries with glacial periods.

of an outdated classification. In addition, Breuil, like Peyrony, was a product of the shift from a cultural evolutionary paradigm to a culture-historical one. In fact, culture history’s emphasis on diffusion, migrations, and so forth, provided some convenient ways of making his new scheme work. His use of de Mortillet’s index fossils to structure his scheme led to great difficulties. For example, whereas de Mortillet and Commont had seen bifaces as a perfectly natural component of the Mousterian, Breuil placed the Mousterian in his flakeindustries sequence. However, he was forced to admit that some assemblages contained Mousterian flake tools as well as bifaces. Thus, he suggested that the Mousterian and Levalloisian eventually mixed (interbred) with the Micoquian stage of the biface tradition, producing assemblages which contained both bifaces and flake tools (1932a). Another difficulty arose from his separation of Levalloisian and Mousterian industries, which he portrayed as being derived independently from the Clactonian. In other words, not only did he remove Levallois technology from his definition of the Mousterian but he made it the defining characteristic of a separate industry. However, he also realized that many assemblages contained a combination of Mousterian flake tools and Levallois technology, so he reconciled this fact with his scheme by again proposing that the two industries, though separate, affected each other through time, resulting in increasing proportions

of Levallois debitage in Mousterian assemblages (1932a). His description of material cultures’ blending as a result of contact between separate populations exemplifies the culture-historical approach. In conclusion, Breuil’s bilineal cultural evolutionary scheme had two major difficulties; he had to fit all of the variation into two lines, and the biface/flake dichotomy turned out to be very problematic in that the two variables crosscut culture types (e.g., some Mousterian assemblages had bifaces while others did not). Franc¸ois Bordes: Evolution buissonante and the Quantitative Method Breuil’s parallel-phyla scheme was rejected by Franc¸ois Bordes in his seminal 1950 article “L’evolution buissonante des industries en Europe Occidentale” (Bordes 1950b). In this paper Bordes dismantled the stratigraphical reconstructions of Breuil, pointed out flaws in his reasoning, and refuted the idea of linear cultural evolution, mono- or diphyletic. Instead, he presented detailed arguments and stratigraphic evidence to support his complex “branching evolution” scheme (fig. 2). The basis for this scheme was the construction of a tree of evolutionary relationships between lithic industries classified on the basis of (1) the presence or absence of bifaces, (2) the percentage of Levallois technology, (3) the percentage

718

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Figure 2. Bordes’s “Evolution of Lower and Middle Paleolithic Industries.”

of faceted platforms, and (4) the Levallois typological index. The resulting classes of industries were then arranged in chronological order, with putative evolutionary relationships linking the most similar. Bordes retained many of the terms that Breuil, Peyrony, and other early prehistorians had created to apply to similar types of industries. Throughout the 1950s, Bordes continued elaborating his methodology (Bordes and Bourgon 1951; Bordes 1954; 1961a). He noted that subdivisions of the Mousterian had been recognized but not adequately defined. In addition, he stated that true index fossils were rare and that assemblages should be classified on the basis of many tool types (1961a, 2). Therefore, he introduced a methodology for quantifying assemblage variation based upon relative tool-type frequencies in his newly created typology. This yielded five main Mousterian variants which, he argued, represented separate, contemporaneous cultures that had little interaction with each other (Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970). According to Bordes, each of these Mousterian cultures had evolved through time, with roots in the Lower Paleolithic, and had descendants in the Upper Paleolithic (Bordes 1961b; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970). For example, he frequently stated that the MAT-A was derived from the Upper Acheulean and evolved into the MAT-B and finally the Lower Perigor-

dian. Clearly, then, Bordes, like his predecessors, believed in cultural evolution, though he differed in the sense that he saw it not as mono- or diphyletic but as diversifying through time, branching out (buissonante). In fact, this branching notion, combined with his view that typological or technological characteristics were lost or acquired through time (Bordes 1950b), made his scheme essentially cladistic in structure. The source of this difference from his predecessors, as suggested by Groenen (1994, 140), was that Bordes was a Darwinist, trained by Marcellin Boule, whereas his predecessors were essentially Lamarckian. Thus, rather than envisioning cultures as progressing unilinearly toward perfection, Bordes saw them as diversifying through time, each adapting to the unique constraints imposed by climate, fauna, and the environment. His view of technological progress also differed from that of earlier prehistorians. He did not believe that types evolved toward perfection. Rather, he believed that tools were originally undifferentiated and over time became more and more specialized and standardized (Bordes 1961b, 1970; Bordes, Rigaud, and de Sonneville-Bordes 1972), again an essentially biological evolutionary view. This is the idea of progress which still pervades the field today (e.g., Bosinski 1996, 167; Moncel and Combier 1992a; Tattersall 1995, 244). Bordes clearly showed a great deal more sophistication and

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

detailed knowledge than his predecessors of the variation inherent in the Middle Paleolithic archaeological record. However, when it came to distinguishing between the Lower and the Middle Paleolithic, he used a very standard definition, pointing to the presence or absence of bifaces, faceted platforms, and Levallois debitage (Bordes 1950b). This oversimplification is surprising given that he was clearly aware that Levallois technology could occur in the Lower Paleolithic and bifaces in the Middle Paleolithic. In fact, in the same paper, Bordes described a northern type of Upper Acheulean which contained Levallois debitage (Bordes 1950b), and in other papers he frequently stated that Levallois technology appeared in the Upper or even the Lower Acheulean (Bordes 1961b, 1970). Likewise, he clearly accepted the occurrence of bifaces in some Middle Paleolithic contexts, since one of his Mousterian variants was Peyrony’s MAT. In sum, while Bordes explicitly rejected index fossils and proposed that most lithic variation during the Middle Paleolithic was random and had no chronological significance, when it came to the Lower Paleolithic and the Lower-to-Middle Paleolithic transition his outlook was old-fashioned and involved two index fossils: bifaces and Levallois technology. The Paleolithic Classification since Bordes’s Time Around the time that Bordes began defending his Mousterian cultures against American and British critiques (Binford and Binford 1966; Binford 1973; Collins 1970; Freeman 1966; Mellars 1965, 1969; Bordes 1969, 1970; Bordes and de SonnevilleBordes 1970; Bordes, Rigaud, and de Sonneville-Bordes 1972), Grahame Clark proposed a new scheme for classifying lithic industries based on modes of production (Clark 1969). Thus, Mode 1 industries were defined on the basis of chopper-tools and flakes and corresponded to the Lower Paleolithic as conventionally defined, as did Mode 2 industries, which were characterized by bifaces. Mode 3 industries were defined on the basis of flake tools from prepared cores and corresponded to the Middle Paleolithic. Clark viewed technology as subject to evolutionary forces such as selection and emphasized progress throughout time as new technologies replaced obsolete ones. He stressed that although not all modes of production existed everywhere, their order was inviolable. The strength of Clark’s scheme was that it conceived of each mode of production as independent and allowed for temporal overlap. In addition, by using the modes to signify technologies rather than cultures, his scheme was much more logical when applied throughout the world. Unfortunately, it also reflected the notion of progress which was still characteristic of his time, and his insistence that the order of acquisition of technologies was inviolable was clearly inaccurate—some regions seem to have skipped Mode 2 almost entirely. Shortly after Bordes’s death in 1981, participants in a conference on the Lower/Middle Paleolithic transition organized by Avraham Ronen in Haifa, Israel, agreed that the boundary could no longer be equated with the Riss/Wu¨rm boundary

719

and that the transition was more gradual and continuous than had previously been acknowledged. Many advocated pushing the boundary back into the penultimate glacial (e.g., Bosinski 1982; Laville 1982; Tuffreau 1982; Valoch 1982), and some went farther, arguing that there was no evident cultural break that could be used to divide the two (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1982; Jelinek 1982). Since then, there have been few major revisions of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization. In fact, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed a shift away from questions of culture history and diachronic patterning to interpretations of synchronic variability and cultural explanation driven in large part by the New Archaeology. In continental Europe, the new technological approach based upon Leroi-Gourhan’s work (1943, 1964) began to manifest itself in the late 1980s and became dominant in the 1990s (e.g., Tixier, Inizan, and Roche 1980; Tixier 1984; Boe¨da, Geneste, and Meignen 1990). It also came to be combined with the attribute-analysis approach characteristic of Anglo-American archaeology, creating a new methodology (Tostevin 2003a, 2003b). During this time there have been few studies on diachronic patterning in the Middle and early Upper Pleistocene. One topic of interest has been the timing of the initial colonization of Europe, which has witnessed a debate between long (Bonifay and Vandermeersch 1991) and short (Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten 1995b; Dennell and Roebroeks 1996) chronologies, with a recent compromise which accepts incursions of humans into Europe prior to 500,000 years ago (e.g., Parfitt et al. 2005) but not their permanent occupation (Dennell 2003). Lately, too, a series of workshops sponsored by the European Science Foundation has focused deliberately on issues within each Paleolithic period rather than across transitions (Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten 1995a; Roebroeks and Gamble 1999; Roebroeks and Mussi 2000). Most recently, the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age have become the focus of efforts aimed at identifying the origins of behavioral modernity (McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Henshilwood et a1. 2001; d’Errico 2003). In summary, while the wide overlap between index fossils was known from the very beginning, de Mortillet’s Paleolithic classification, once adopted, assumed an almost tyrannical hold over systematics and became impossible to remove. Every prehistorian who grappled with the Paleolithic record had to modify de Mortillet’s classification in order to accommodate new data within the index-fossil-based framework. This was done by a variety of means, including renaming epochs on the basis of sites whose typological assemblages seemed a better fit with the classification, introducing intermediate epochs and index fossils to emphasize continuity, and creating additional facies. Rather than replace the index-fossilbased definitions, these early prehistorians created increasingly convoluted schemes in order to retain them. Given the persistence of these tool types in the definitions of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the questions facing us today are (1) What is the actual temporal patterning of these tool types? and (2) Does it justify a continued division of the

720

archaeological record into a Lower and a Middle Paleolithic period? These questions could not have been answered until recently because of the lack of an independent means of assessing the chronological patterning of these artifact types. Fortunately, today we have an unprecedented number of absolutely dated sites which can be used to evaluate how well the actual archaeological record agrees with the index-fossilbased definitions of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic.

Chronological Patterning of the Index Fossils Assemblage Sampling Strategy In order to investigate the questions listed above, a database of absolutely dated Middle and early Upper Pleistocene assemblages in Western Europe was created. Strict criteria were employed in an effort to produce a database with the greatest possible integrity. Sites and assemblages were included only if they met the following criteria, formulated in order to ensure typology-free dating, statistically valid sample sizes, integral data, and, finally, feasibility: (1) Assemblages had to come from sites dated by absolute (radiometric) methods. (2) The minimum assemblage size required was 100 total lithic pieces. (3) Tool counts had to be published or otherwise accessible. (4) Assemblages had to come from stratified, recently excavated (post–World War II) sites. (5) The geographical limits were Western and Southern Europe. The first criterion was the most important. Investigating the diachronic patterning of tool types required a chronological assessment of assemblages independent of their typological content, and the most reliable and consistent way of achieving this was to restrict the sample to sites dated by absolute (radiometric) methods. It is important to note that the sample is restricted not to absolutely dated assemblages but to absolutely dated sites; if only the former had been used, the sample would have been too small for any meaningful analysis. In addition, probably none of the Middle Pleistocene sites in this study have uncontroversial dating. It is rare for the various methods used to date sites—radiometric, biostratigraphic, geochronological, and the like—to coincide to provide a clear picture of a site’s chronology (for a useful description of some specific issues, see Gamble 1999, 99–110). Undoubtedly the chronological interpretation of some of the assemblages used here will change. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that in selecting assemblages for this study, care was taken to ensure that they came from well-dated sites, meaning sites where various dating techniques (absolute and relative) had been carefully applied in order to obtain the most accurate date possible. In all cases, the final interpretation of the excavator based upon all lines of evidence (not just radiometric dates) was used. The third criterion was a logistical one. Many sites and assemblages could not be included because their tool counts remained unpublished. In many other instances, tool counts

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

were incompletely published and crucial elements such as the Levallois index (IL) were missing (e.g., Roebroeks 1988). Where Bordesian counts had not been used (e.g., Singer, Gladfelter, and Wymer 1993; Conway, McNabb, and Ashton 1996; Darlas 1994; Kuhn 1995; Moncel 1999), the published counts were converted to Bordesian counts as carefully as possible, but their true comparability remains open to question. It is unfortunate that many recent Paleolithic site publications, especially those in which the focus of analysis is primarily technological, no longer report Bordesian counts (e.g., Delagnes 1992; Pelegrin 1995; Carbonell et al. 1999). While Bordesian typology can be criticized in many ways, it is the only framework we have for systematically comparing assemblages on the basis of tool counts and other important measures of variation such as percentages of Levallois flakes. Its continued use as a standard for reporting data is therefore vital. Finally, other aspects of lithic variation which should be reported more consistently include pebble tools, core types, and flake definitions such as minimum size and whether broken or fragmentary flakes are counted separately from complete ones. Most sites included in the database come from France, Britain, Italy, or Spain. There are several reasons for this focus: first, Western Europe is the region where the index fossils were initially defined, and thus the patterning used to define them should be reflected in this region if nowhere else. Second, a restricted geographical area permits a more thorough synthesis of the sites relevant to the research questions. Third, given its long research tradition in this domain, this is one of the best-documented regions of the world for this time period, and the density of sites here is therefore much greater than in most other locations. Methods A literature search using these five criteria yielded 89 assemblages from 26 sites (table 7). Information regarding the context, chronology, and nature of the lithic industries of each assemblage was entered into the database. Then, frequency calculations of the main index fossils were made using total lithic material as a baseline. It was decided that total lithic material (i.e., all the lithic artifacts from an assemblage except for chips [as defined in each publication]) should be used rather than other denominators such as Bordes’s real or essential count, because the research questions in this study required comparisons between assemblages from time periods where amounts of flake versus core tools and retouched versus unretouched tools might be very different. In other words, traditional Bordesian indices, in which frequencies of bifaces, scrapers, and so forth, are calculated as a percentage of the retouched component of flake tools, might not have provided adequate comparability between core-tool-dominated and flake-tool-dominated assemblages. In addition, total lithic material is one of the few quantitative assessments that is always reported, and it is less subject to interpretation than

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

721

Table 7. Sites Included in the Analysis Site Grotte Vaufrey (France) Orgnac 3 (France)

Abri Suard (France)

Abri Bourgeois-Delaunay (France)

Biache-Saint-Vaast (France) Pech de l’Aze´ II (France) Pech de l’Aze´ I (France) Abri des Canalettes (France) Combe-Capelle (France) Fonseigner (France) Grotte du Lazaret (France) Cagny-la-Garenne (France)

Absolute Dates

References

Levels II–X: 74 Ⳳ 18 to 246 Ⳳ 76 kya (Th/U and TL) Level 2: 280–300 kya (ESR); Level 6: 288 ⫹ 82, to 374 ⫹ 165, ⫺ 94 kya (U-series); Level 8: 309 Ⳳ 34 kya (ESR) Travertine 101 Ⳳ 7 kya (Th/U), Level 53
: 245 ⫹ 42, –28 kya (Th/U); Level 51: 126 Ⳳ 15 kya (TL) Level 7: 97 Ⳳ 6, 106 Ⳳ 10 kya (Th/U and TL); Level 11: 151 Ⳳ 15 kya, (bottom) and 112 Ⳳ 5 kya (top) (Th/U), 146 Ⳳ 16 kya (TL) Level IIA: 175 Ⳳ 13 kya (TL) Levels 3–9: 60–162 kya (ESR) Level 4: OIS 3 (ESR) Level 2: 82 kya (TL) Levels I-1B–I-1E: 48–57 kya (TL) Levels Ds, Dmi, E: 50 Ⳳ 5, 53 Ⳳ 6, 56 Ⳳ 7 kya (TL) Level E travertine: 114 Ⳳ 61 kya (U-series) Level I2: 448 Ⳳ 68 kya (ESR/Th/U); alluvium: 443 Ⳳ 53 kya (ESR [Quartz])

Rigaud (1988), Blackwell and Schwarcz (1988), Delpech and Laville (1988) Moncel (1999), Moncel and Combier (1992a, 1992b), Debard (1988), Debard and Pastre (1988), Falgue`res et al. (1988) Debe´nath (1974), Blackwell et al. (1983), Schvoerer et al. (1977), Schwarcz and Debe´nath (1979), Schwarcz et al. (1983) Debe´nath (1974), Blackwell et al. (1983), Schwarcz and Debe´nath (1979), Schwarcz et al. (1983)

Boxgrove (Britain)

Level I1b: 318 Ⳳ 48 to 231 Ⳳ 35 kya (ESR/Th/U); Level H: 253 Ⳳ 38, 260 Ⳳ 40 kya (ESR/Th/U) 175–1350 kya (ESR, OSL, Th/U)

La Cotte de St.-Brelade (Britain) Swanscombe (Britain)

Levels H–5: 190–250 kya Lower Loam: 228 kya (TL)

Hoxne (Britain)

Lower Industry: 319 Ⳳ 38 kya (ESR), 210 Ⳳ 20 kya (TL)

Grotta Guattari (Italy)

Levels 1, 4, 5: 54 Ⳳ 4 to 78 Ⳳ 10 kya (ESR-LU) Levels 1, 2, 3: 43 Ⳳ 9 to 54 Ⳳ 11 kya (ESR-LU) Level 5: 736 Ⳳ 40 kya (K/Ar)

Cagny-l’Epinette (France)

Grotta di San Agostino (Italy) Isernia la Pineta (Italy)

Pen˜a Miel (Spain) Gran Dolina TD6 (Spain)

Maastricht-Belve´de`re (Netherlands)

Level e: 39.9 Ⳳ 11 kya; Level g 14C: 45 Ⳳ 1.4 kya–1.2 kya 1 780 kya (paleomagnetism, ESR, Useries) Unit IV (Sites A–D F–H, K) 270 Ⳳ 22 kya (TL); 220 Ⳳ 40 kya (ESR); site K: 250 Ⳳ 22 kya (TL)

Tuffreau and Somme´ (1988) Gru¨n et al. (1991), Bordes (1972) Bordes (1972), Soressi et al. (2002) Meignen (1993) Dibble and Lenoir (1995), Valladas et al. (2003) Geneste (1985), Valladas et al. (1987) Darlas (1994), Shen (1985) in Darlas (1994) Tuffreau, Lamotte, and Marcy (1997), Tuffreau and Antoine (1995), Bahain et al. (2001), Tuffreau (2001a), Antoine (2001), Lamotte and Tuffreau (2001a) Tuffreau, Lamotte, and Marcy (1997), Tuffreau et al. (1995), Bahain et al. (2001), Tuffreau (2001b), Lamotte and Tuffreau (2001b) Roberts (1986), Roberts et al. (1994), Roberts and Parfitt (1999a, 1999b) Callow and Cornford (1986); Huxtable (1986) Conway (1996), Conway, McNabb, and Ashton (1996), Bridgland et al. (1985), Stringer and Hublin (1999) Singer, Gladfelter, and Wymer (1993), Schwarcz and Gru¨n (1993), Bowman (1993), Wymer and Singer (1993), Wymer et al. (1993) Taschini and Bietti (1979), Schwarcz et al. (1990-91), Kuhn (1995) Tozzi (1970), Schwarcz et al. (1990–91), Kuhn (1995) Anconetani et al. (1992), Cremaschi and Peretto (1988), McPherron and Schmidt (1983), Peretto et al. (1983), Peretto (1991) Utrilla et al. (1987) Carbonell et al. (1999), Falgue`res et al. (1999), Pare´s and Pe´rez-Gonzalez (1999), Carbonell and Rodriguez (1994) Roebroeks (1988)

Note: Th/U, Thorium/uranium; TL, thermoluminescence; U-series, uranium-series; ESR, electron spin resonance; OSL, optimally stimulated luminescence; LU, linear-uptake; 14C, radiocarbon; K/Ar, potassium/argon; kya, thousand of years BP.

other quantitative measures of lithics such as total number of flakes. The Levallois index was used as reported or calculated according to Bordes’s definition (1950a). The typological indices used in this analysis are as follows: (1) total lithic material p all flakes, retouched tools, bifaces, pebble tools, and cores; (2)

biface frequency p bifaces/total lithic material; (3) scraper frequency p scrapers (Bordesian types 9–29)/total lithic material; (4) flake tool frequency p retouched flake tools (Bordes’s “essential count” minus choppers and chopping tools)/ total lithic material; (5) Levallois index (IL) p Levallois blanks/Levallois and non-Levallois blanks.

722

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Once the typological indices were calculated, their chronological patterning throughout the late Middle and early Upper Pleistocene was investigated by plotting average frequencies per oxygen isotope stage for all assemblages. Figures 3–6 show the median, quartile, and extreme value according to oxygen isotope stage for each tool-type frequency as defined above. Medians and quartiles were chosen because means are often skewed by outliers in cases of small sample sizes. However, when statistical tests were conducted, these were based on means and standard deviations (table 8). [All the raw data used in this study are listed in an appendix in the electronic edition of this issue on the journal’s web page.] The oxygen isotope stages (OIS) represented are 3–9, calculated separately, 12–14 (combined), and 17⫹ (there are no assemblages dated to 15 and 16). While the length of time spanned by oxygen isotope stages varies and therefore might be argued to represent inadequately the pace of change through time, the greatest difference between time spans— OIS 4, which lasts approximately 10,000 years, and OIS 6, which lasts for about 60,000 years—is still less than one order of magnitude. The only exceptions are the oldest segments, OIS 12–14 and 17⫹, in which several stages had to be combined because of small sample sizes. However, these combined stages still showed strong patterning for most of the variables examined. The following assessment examines each of the three main index fossil tool types individually in order to determine (1)

its chronological patterning and (2) whether, by itself, it provides support for the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization. Subsequently, the three tool types are considered together in order to determine the existence of any concordances between the three patterns which would justify a division between the two periods.

Results Bifaces Figure 7, created using the database described above, shows the temporal patterning of assemblages in which at least one biface is present and those lacking bifaces. The earliest assemblages, older than ∼600,000 years (only four are represented here: Gran Dolina TD6 and Isernia La Pineta I-3a, I3c, and II-3a), do not contain bifaces. From ∼500,000 to ∼300,000 years ago, almost all of the assemblages in the sample (15 out of 16; the exception is the Lower Loam at Swanscombe) contain bifaces. Finally, from 300,000 to 35,000 years ago, there is a continued occurrence of both assemblages with bifaces and those lacking bifaces. Boxplots of biface frequency in figure 3 (data in table 8) support these presence/ absence data: median biface frequencies are 0 in OIS 17⫹, rise to 1.13 and 1.70 in OIS 12–14 and 9, respectively, and then decrease in OIS 8 and remain low (but greater than 0) through OIS 3. These patterns seem to confirm the notions

Table 8. Tool-Type Frequencies by Oxygen Isotope Stage Oxygen Isotope Stage Tool Type Biface N Median Mean s.d. Flake tool N Median Mean s.d. Scraper N Median Mean s.d. Levallois N Median Mean s.d. Chopper N Median Mean s.d.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12–14

17⫹

14 0.00 0.11 0.21

12 0.00 0.12 0.28

7 0.18 0.17 0.16

15 0.17 0.44 0.85

8 0.00 0.03 0.05

11 0.32 0.38 0.36

11 1.70 1.89 1.36

7 1.13 1.21 0.72

14 15.29 15.59 10.72

11 12.82 13.13 7.56

7 12.68 12.55 2.36

15 12.72 14.33 7.62

8 7.58 7.56 1.05

11 10.71 9.59 6.60

11 6.73 8.91 6.51

7 5.19 4.63 4.69

4 27.49 30.26 19.54

14 7.60 9.92 8.28

11 7.26 8.80 6.71

7 6.14 5.87 1.40

15 7.81 7.71 3.07

8 3.57 3.27 1.28

10 3.93 3.83 2.37

11 1.35 2.62 3.38

7 0.42 0.78 1.03

4 2.65 2.35 1.03

14 0.32 6.67 10.00

12 9.71 8.35 6.23

7 8.32 9.53 3.82

15 19.35 15.40 11.50

8 3.09 5.67 5.52

8 2.40 4.21 4.31

11 0.00 0.04 0.14

7 0.24 0.49 0.64

4 0 0 0

14 0.21 0.50 0.91

12 0.09 0.97 1.76

7 0.00 0.07 0.09

15 0.18 0.58 0.71

8 0.01 0.03 0.04

11 0.31 0.30 0.24

11 0.28 0.45 0.59

7 0.16 0.31 0.35

4 0 0 0

4 0.88 5.75 10.35

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

723

Figure 3. Biface frequency by oxygen isotope stage (lower and upper edges of boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; bold horizontal lines inside boxes indicate the statistical median; asterisks indicate outliers, circles indicate extreme cases; boxplot widths reflect relative counts).

that (1) the earliest European industries do not contain bifaces (e.g., Villa 1991) and (2) biface assemblages are most frequent between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, the time span most often equated with the Acheulean. The data show a statistically significant drop in biface frequency from OIS 9 to 8, from a median of 1.70 in OIS 9 to 0.32 in OIS 8 (a T-test on mean biface frequencies between

OIS 9 and OIS 8 yields a P p .004, N p 22, d.f p 11.4). The timing of this event, ca. 300,000 years ago, agrees with most current definitions of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic boundary. However, there are several problems with using this event to justify a division into two phases. First, bifaces do not disappear after this drop in frequency. They continue to occur, albeit in lower frequencies, throughout the archaeological rec-

Figure 4. Flake tool frequency by oxygen isotope stage (lower and upper edges of boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; bold horizontal lines inside boxes indicate the statistical median; asterisks indicate outliers, circles indicate extreme cases; boxplot widths reflect relative counts).

724

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Figure 5. Scraper tool frequency by oxygen isotope stage (lower and upper edges of boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; bold horizontal lines inside boxes indicate the statistical median; asterisks indicate outliers, circles indicate extreme cases; boxplot widths reflect relative counts).

ord until at least 35,000 years ago. Second, overall biface frequencies are extremely low: the highest frequency in a single assemblage in this sample is 4.93%, occurring in Level I of Cagny l’Epinette. Median biface frequencies for each oxygen isotope stage never rise above 2%. This lack of numerical importance calls into question the significance of bifaces. Are they really such an important aspect of Paleolithic variability, or is our continued emphasis on them the result of historical

bias? Further analysis shows that, from a sample of 126 Middle and early Upper Pleistocene assemblages (including some excluded from the database because of a lack of absolute dates but meeting all other criteria), 49% of them contain no bifaces while 51% contain at least one biface. In other words, half of the assemblages from this time period contain one or more bifaces. The third problem with using the decrease in biface frequency between OIS 9 and 8 to support a division into a

Figure 6. Levallois index frequency by oxygen isotope stage (lower and upper edges of boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; bold horizontal lines inside boxes indicate the statistical median; asterisks indicate outliers, circles indicate extreme cases; boxplot widths reflect relative counts).

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

725

Figure 7. Biface presence/absence through time.

Lower and a Middle Paleolithic is the number of outliers in assemblages postdating this period. According to the boxplots in figure 3, there are seven outliers dating to OIS 6 or younger.1 Some of these outliers fall within the frequency range seen in OIS 9 and 12–14. This means that, while biface frequencies are on average lower after OIS 8, there are situations in which 1. Interestingly, of the seven outlier assemblages with unusually high biface frequencies which date to OIS 6 or younger, only two are considered MAT: Fonseigner ABC (combined), and Pech I level 4. Levels 8 and 9 of Pech II, which contain some of the higher frequencies on the plot, were labeled Acheulean by Bordes. The other outliers are considered Mousterian (Vaufrey Level 1 and Bourgeois-Delaunay Level 9
) or Quina (Pen˜a Miel Level e).

biface frequencies rise again to levels more common before OIS 8. These three observations suggest that bifaces, far from being a useful chronological marker, are in fact scattered in very low frequencies across the entire European Paleolithic landscape from 500,000 years ago onwards, occurring in roughly half of the assemblages and achieving peaks of 3–5% frequency in only a tiny fraction of these (fig. 8). Scrapers and Flake Tools The presence of retouched flake tools from the earliest assemblages on is an obvious and indisputable fact today (fig. 4), contrary to what de Mortillet argued when he created the

Figure 8. Biface percentage frequencies. Mean p 0.43, s.d. p 0.91, n p 126.

726

Chellean. The question remains, however, what is the actual temporal patterning of this tool type? Figure 4 (based on data in table 8) shows that there is a widely fluctuating but gradual increase in percentage of flake tools through time, from a median of 5.19 in OIS 12–14 to a median of 15.29 in OIS 3 (the extremely high median flake tool frequency in OIS 17⫹ is skewed by three assemblages from Isernia la Pineta and should probably be treated as an outlier). Interestingly, a median of 12.72 is attained in OIS 6 and remains constant through OIS 4. A similar but slightly less fluctuating chronological pattern emerges when median scraper frequencies are plotted through time (see fig. 5). This subset of flake tools initially exhibits very low frequencies in OIS 17⫹ and especially 12–14 which gradually rise through time, although they dip fairly strongly in OIS 7 and 5 (as do flake tool frequencies; the significance of these dips will be explored below). The more restricted variability in scraper tool frequencies probably reflects the narrower range of types included in the former category. It will be interesting to explore the chronological patterning of other tool types, such as denticulates (which are included in the flake tool category here), individually. The wide fluctuation of these retouched flake tool frequencies provides no support for a division of this time period into a Lower and a Middle Paleolithic.

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

of all blanks are typologically Levallois during OIS 7 and 8, a percentage which many would interpret as too low to be the product of Levallois technology. The final observation is that, while some assemblages (such as levels V–VIII of the Grotte Vaufrey) achieve extremely high values for the Levallois index, many assemblages between 300,000 and 35,000 years ago do not contain Levallois flakes at all. This is especially true in OIS 3, where some assemblages have a Levallois index as high as 20 (e.g., Fonseigner Levels D supe´rieur and D milieu) but most have an index of less than 1. This reduction in the Levallois index at the end of the Middle Paleolithic has previously been noted (Rolland 1988; Mellars 1969; 1996, 185–86), and it would be interesting to determine what exactly is replacing it and why this technological shift occurred. In sum, Levallois technology is absent before OIS 8, becomes full-blown in OIS 6, and then disappears from many assemblages by OIS 3 although it remains quite high in a few sites. The most widely used current boundary for the Lower to Middle Paleolithic division is 300,000 years ago, or the OIS 9/8 boundary. The change in Levallois flake frequencies across these two periods is, in fact, statistically significant (P p .029, N p 19, d.f p 7.0). However, as noted above, the evidence for Levallois technology during OIS 8 is limited. A more convincing transition is the dramatic rise in the Levallois index from OIS 7 to 6, which is also statistically significant (Ttests yield a P p .012, N p 23, d.f. p 20.9).

Levallois Technology A plot of median Levallois index by oxygen isotope stage (fig. 6, based on data in table 8) shows that Levallois technology is almost entirely absent until OIS 8 (traces of Levallois technology have been claimed to occur at Cagny la Garenne and Cagny l’Epinette, dated to OIS 12 and 9, respectively). After OIS 8, the Levallois index increases, peaking in OIS 6 with a median of 19.35 before decreasing to a median of 0.32 in OIS 3. Interestingly, although median Levallois frequency in OIS 3 is very low, the range of values remains large. Several important observations emerge from these data. First, it is notable that most of the data for OIS 8 come from one site, Orgnac 3. Most of Orgnac 3’s sequence has been placed in OIS 8 (Moncel 1999). However, it is possible that a portion of the sequence may be younger than that, since the absolute dates come only from the bottom of the sequence, and the standard deviations for the Th/U dates are very large (Falgue`res et al. 1988). The dating is key to establishing Orgnac 3 as the earliest locale where Levallois technology was used on a regular basis, and full publication of the dates is awaited. Evidence for the next-earliest significant appearance of Levallois technology occurs only toward the end of OIS 7, at Biache-Saint-Vaast II and Maastricht-Belve´de`re (Levallois frequencies from Maastricht-Belve´de`re are not published, however). The second observation of note is that Levallois technology becomes full-blown only in OIS 6, where the median Levallois index is 19.35. In OIS 7 and 8 the medians are only 3.09 and 2.40, respectively. This means that only 2–4%

Concordance of Chronological Patterning across the Three Artifact Types When the chronological patterning of all three of the tool types traditionally used as index fossils for the Lower and the Middle Paleolithic is examined, what kind of support is generated for a Lower/Middle Paleolithic division? Two important chronological events have been identified in the previous descriptions of the patterning of individual tool types. The first is the drop in median biface frequency from OIS 9 to 8. The second is the rise in median Levallois frequency from OIS 7 to 6. To what extent are these events supported by the patterning of the other tool types? There are no statistically significant changes in frequencies of retouched flake tools and scrapers across the OIS 9/8 boundary, but there is a statistically significant increase in Levallois flake frequencies. In fact, Levallois index and biface frequency are inversely correlated (P ! .005, N p 115, Pearson’s R p ⫺.344). This intriguing relationship raises further questions. Do Levallois technology and bifaces form end points of a single axis of variation? Does Levallois technology originate in biface technology and eventually replace it, as some have suggested (e.g., Leroi-Gourhan 1966 in Rolland 1988; Tuffreau, Lamotte, and Marcy 1997)? Further work will be needed to confirm and elucidate this inverse relationship. The second important chronological event identified above is the increase in Levallois flake frequency from OIS 7 to OIS 6. Interestingly, biface frequencies also rise across this tran-

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

sition, though not statistically significantly. Finally, there is a statistically significant rise in scraper frequencies from OIS 7 to 6 (T-tests yield a P p .000, N p 23, d.f. p 20.3). In fact, OIS 6 contains the highest median Levallois and scraper frequencies in the sample. Do these patterns signal a major transition, or was OIS 6 simply a period that witnessed unusually high frequencies of these tool types for some unknown (possibly climate-related) reason? In sum, equally significant typological changes occur across both OIS 9/8 and OIS 7/6, although the earlier event better agrees with the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization. What other trends occur across the Middle and early Upper Pleistocene among these tool types in this region? One pattern that emerges is that many tool-type frequencies are higher during cold periods (OIS 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) than during temperate periods (OIS 5, 7, 9; see table 9 and fig. 9; the pattern is reversed for bifaces). T-tests comparing mean tool-type frequencies between cold and temperate periods are significant for bifaces (P p .039), Levallois index (P p .011), scrapers (P p .000), flake tools (P p .018), and “chopper/choppingtools” (P p .022). The pattern is especially clear for flake tool, scraper, and chopper frequencies (see figs. 4, 5, and 10). The most logical explanation for this trend is the scraper reduction model (Dibble 1987, 1995). Specifically, measures of scraper reduction are greater when access to raw material is diminished (Dibble 1991). During cold periods, access to raw material was presumably diminished by snow or ice cover. Therefore, scrapers were resharpened more, and available blanks were transformed into scrapers at a greater rate than during warm periods (Rolland 1981; Rolland and Dibble 1990). This pattern was observed by Laville (1973), who noted that Denticulate Mousterian industries characterize temperate periods whereas Quina industries are most common in cold periods. Diminished access to raw material during cold periods may also be the best explanation for higher chopper frequencies, although it is also possible that certain functions existed during cold periods (e.g., disarticulating large mammals or frozen carcasses) that required more heavy-duty tools. Mauran, a specialized open-air, bovidhunting site dated to OIS 3 whose lithics are dominated by denticulates and chopper/chopping-tools (Jaubert et al. 1990; Jaubert 1993), provides evidence for such a scenario. The high frequencies of Levallois flakes, scrapers, and bifaces during OIS 6 may also partly reflect the climatic rigors of that time period. Many OIS 6 assemblages, such as those from Abri Suard, Grotte du Lazaret, and Pech II, used to be labeled “Acheulean.” This was probably because of the presence of bifaces and the often rough appearance of the retouched flake tool component. For example, Bordes described the flakes and tools from Layer 9 of Pech II as “often battered by cryoturbation and difficult to characterize. . . . Side scrapers were not very numerous (SI p 20) and usually rather poor . . . . There were 10 handaxes (HI p 9.1), rather crude” (Bordes 1972, 56). The extremely cold climate of OIS 6 may have increased intensity of occupation and, hence, use of raw ma-

727

Table 9. Mean Tool Frequencies by Cold (3, 4, 6, 8, 12) or Temperate (5, 7, 9) stage

% bifaces IL % scrapers % flake tools % choppers

Climate

N

Mean

S.D.

Std. Error Mean

Warm Cold Warm Cold Warm Cold Warm Cold Warm Cold

26 56 26 53 26 54 26 55 26 56

.8565 .3046 4.3292 8.7081 3.6968 7.3117 9.4750 13.0018 .2162 .5867

1.25303 .53831 5.32049 9.65978 2.71919 6.01765 4.74862 8.27035 .42705 1.00265

.24574 .07193 1.04343 1.32687 .53328 .81890 .93128 1.11517 .08375 .13399

terials and may also have reduced raw-material quality (by resulting in frost fractures) or availability. Another interesting diachronic pattern evident in these data is the gradual increase in scraper frequencies through time (see fig. 5). The preferred explanation here also involves intensity of raw-material utilization. It is quite possible that over this immensely long span of time, raw materials in the vicinity of sites were exhausted because of intense, long-term occupation of sites (perhaps related to a shift from open-air to sheltered sites), increasing population densities, or a combination of these factors. Decreased raw-material availability would have resulted in greater frequencies of retouched tools, since the supply of blanks would have diminished (Dibble 1991; Dibble and Rolland 1992). Alternatively, but more difficult to prove, the trend of increased scraper frequencies through time could reflect technological or cultural factors such as new uses or changing cultural norms surrounding the production, use, and curation of stone tools. Finally, there are diachronic trends in the patterning of site types and geographical distribution. Most sites which predate OIS 8 are open-air, whereas most of the younger ones are sheltered. In addition, the earliest sites (earlier than 650,000 years ago) are Mediterranean, those dated to 550,000 to 300,000 years ago come from northern France and Britain, and those younger than 300,000 years ago come mostly from southwestern France, Spain, and Italy. This patterning may tell us something about the nature of the Lower and Middle Pleistocene occupation of Europe, but it may also bias the results of this study in unintended ways (although no correlations were found between any of the three artifact types and site type [open versus sheltered]). In summary, there are a number of temporal trends which crosscut the broad Lower/ Middle Paleolithic scheme and deserve further investigation. These trends represent only the tip of the iceberg; there are doubtless many other trends reflecting different aspects of lithic variability besides those included here which deserve further study.

Conclusions Two questions have been asked in this paper. The first is how

728

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Figure 9. Tool frequency by temperate versus cold periods (diagonal stripes, bifaces; black, choppers; white, scrapers; horizontal stripes, flake tools; vertical stripes, Levallois index).

archaeologists have justified retaining the original index-fossilbased definitions of the Lower and the Middle Paleolithic despite increasing evidence of their widespread overlapping temporal distributions. We have seen that early prehistorians added industries and facies to accommodate this overlap, creating increasingly convoluted frameworks in an attempt to reconcile the data with de Mortillet’s classification. Bordes was the first to reject index fossils when he redefined the Mousterian facies

on the basis of type frequencies, but even he retained them to contrast the Lower and the Middle Paleolithic. The second question is whether the diachronic patterning of these artifact types supports the traditional Lower/Middle Paleolithic division. This study shows that between OIS 9 and OIS 8, biface frequencies drop while Levallois flake frequencies rise; the timing of this event agrees with the current Lower/ Middle Paleolithic periodization. However, and equally sig-

Figure 10. Chopper frequency by oxygen isotope stage (lower and upper edges of boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; bold horizontal lines inside boxes indicate the statistical median; asterisks indicate outliers, circles indicate extreme cases; boxplot widths reflect relative counts).

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

nificant, between OIS 7 and OIS 6 Levallois, scraper, and biface frequencies rise. Both events are important; how shall we privilege one over the other to divide the period into two phases? Conversely, are they an adequate basis for a periodization? Other diachronic trends have also been identified, such as the drop in Levallois frequency from OIS 6 to OIS 3 and the higher frequencies of most types during cold periods. These observations suggest that much temporal variation during the Middle and early Upper Pleistocene remains to be discovered. In sum, it is clear from the history of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization that we have known from the beginning that these three artifact types do not pattern into a two-phase periodization. The analysis of current data confirms this beyond a doubt. Bifaces are useless as chronological or cultural markers; they are spread across the European landscape in 51% of assemblages in very low frequencies from 500,000 years ago to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. Scrapers and other retouched flake tools are not useful in distinguishing the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic because they occur in the earliest sites and their frequencies gradually rise through time, with no clear breaks. Although they are frequently claimed to be more “standardized” in later periods (Tuffreau 1982; Valoch 1982; Roe 1982; Moncel and Combier 1992a; Hayden 1993; Gamble and Roebroeks 1999), evidence for this has so far been lacking (Monnier 2006). Finally, the appearance of Levallois technology could be used to distinguish the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic, but then this boundary would have to be moved to the beginning of OIS 6 or somewhere within OIS 7, when Levallois technology becomes numerically significant. We must now define a behaviorally meaningful periodization of the archaeological record of the Pleistocene occupation of Europe. The first step in this process has been accomplished here by demonstrating that the current system is flawed; the index-fossil-based definitions of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic should be abandoned. It is time for a comprehensive revision of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization based upon a synthesis of multiple aspects of the archaeological record, including climate, subsistence, landscape use, mobility and exchange, symbol use, cognition, and biological evolution, in order to determine whether we should maintain a two-phase system and, if so, how it should be defined.

Acknowledgments The core of the research presented here was originally carried out as part of a Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania (Monnier 2000), and I thank the members of my committee, Harold Dibble, Philip Chase, and Robert Preucel, for their guidance during that process. In addition, I acknowledge the financial assistance during my graduate studies provided by a William Penn Fellowship and a Traveling Fellowship from the French Institute for Culture and Technology

729

at the University of Pennsylvania. Much of the historical research presented here was carried out at the Museum Library at the University of Pennsylvania and especially at the Tozzer Library at Harvard University. The excellent collections housed by both these institutions and the kind assistance of the librarians made this study possible. Finally, I thank Harold Dibble, Sally Kohlstedt, Greg Laden, Shannon McPherron, Martha Tappen, Gilbert Tostevin, and four anonymous reviewers for providing useful comments and suggestions for improving the paper and Nick Ashton for supplying some tool counts from Swanscombe.

Comments Michael S. Bisson Department of Anthropology, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7 ([email protected]). 22 IV 06 In arguing for a reevaluation of the concepts of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Monnier joins a growing list of scholars who are questioning the analytical paradigms that paleoanthropologists have inherited from nineteenth-century biology, paleontology, and geology. As someone who has recently advocated a replacement of the Bordes Middle Paleolithic artifact typology with a less ambiguous attributebased system of artifact description (Bisson 2000), I am entirely sympathetic with her goals. As Monnier notes, the periodization of the Paleolithic coalesced in the 1960s and has not changed appreciably since, and the creation of these periods during the culture-historical phase of archaeology has imposed an arbitrary boundary that implies a “transition” between the two whereas the course of technological evolution was undoubtedly more complex. This is a timely reminder for professionals, and the historical analysis will be a useful synthesis for students. The diachronic quantitative analysis of the major “index fossil” types is also a useful contribution, but it is subject to some important flaws in the nature of the samples chosen and in the assumptions that potentially undermine one of its key conclusions. These flaws all stem from a failure to distinguish between typology and technology and to take into account the inherent differences in the ratios of “finished products” to unmodified flakes produced by different toolmaking strategies. These problems do not undermine the overall conclusion that differentiating between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic on the basis of the presence or absence of artifact “index fossils” is a bad idea, but they do obscure some patterns that are evident in these data. Although the criteria applied to assemblages for inclusion in the quantitative analysis are generally good, assemblage size is potentially an issue. The appendix in the electronic version

730

omits the total number of specimens in each assemblage, making assessment of sample-size effects impossible. More important is the choice to base these comparisons on the percentage of retouched (or technological, in the case of the Levallois index) pieces in the total of lithic artifacts, including unmodified pieces. Monnier admits that there may be interclassifier variability in what is listed in artifact inventories. Did each source list every tiny retouch flake, or did it fail to count pieces below an arbitrary size requirement (2 cm maximum dimension)? This is possibly significant because different technologies and different end products have the potential of producing significantly different numbers of unmodified flakes or flake fragments per “formal” tool category. My impression as a flint knapper is that creating an oval handaxe will produce more debris over 2 cm than producing a retouched uniface such as a scraper, point, or denticulate. As a quick check, I inspected five Acheulean biface forms (oval, subtriangular, lanceolate, Micoquian, and ficron) from France, ranging in length from 9 to 18 cm. Counts of scars over 2 cm averaged ca. 20 per specimen, whereas an average of scars over 2 cm on five large French Middle Paleolithic scrapers was only 3.9. Differences such as these could account for the fact that bifaces always make up a small proportion of the total artifact inventory compared with unifaces. Thus the statement that the “lack of numeric importance calls into question the significance of bifaces” needs rethinking. Monnier seems to be trapped by typological categories rather than thinking of the complex interrelationship between typology and technology in assemblage composition. It is clearly true that when presence/absence is used, bifaces are indeed “useless as chronological or cultural markers,” but presence/absence is an extremely crude analytical tool. A more appropriate comparison would be the ratio of bifaces to other retouched pieces, a comparison that could be made independent of the constraints inherent in the specific flake-tool categories of Bordes. This criticism notwithstanding, I think that this paper is a useful step in revising how we conceive of cultural processes in early prehistory and how they are described. Categorization is inherent in human thought and language. It is not surprising that categories defined more than a century ago on incomplete data need to be revised. Abandoning the terms “Lower” and “Middle” Paleolithic probably won’t do much good, but the overlapping typological contents of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic illustrated here show that typologically based definitions will never be adequate. If we are to use any archaeological criteria, they should probably be technological, but given the changing definition of techniques that we have seen over the last 30 years even this may be problematic. Perhaps we should arbitrarily rely on chronology. Defining the “Lower Paleolithic” as anything dated to OIS 9 and older, with perhaps an “Intermediate” period of OIS 8 and 7, and then the “Middle Paleolithic” proper as beginning at OIS 6 would free us from the typological straitjacket and allow us

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

to concentrate on the important questions of explaining the considerable variability in the Paleolithic archaeological record in terms of charging behavior and adaptation.

Richard G. Klein Program in Human Biology, Bldg. 80, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A. ([email protected]).25 IV 06 I agree with Monnier that neither flake tool typology nor Levallois technology separates the Acheulean from the Mousterian, but I believe that biface forms commonly do. The Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition is named for its bifaces, but these tend to be triangular and heart-shaped handaxes that can usually be distinguished from the often larger, more variably shaped handaxes that characterize Acheulean assemblages (Bordes 1961a). Its assemblages also usually lack other kinds of Acheulean bifaces, particularly cleavers. A problem arises mainly because Acheulean people need not have left bifaces at every site and some of their contemporaries never produced them. In regions that the Acheulean Tradition never penetrated, including east-central and eastern Europe (Bosinski 1995), it is harder to separate the Lower and Middle Paleolithic on typology alone. Although Monnier focuses on France and neighboring countries, her argument raises the broader question whether we can recognize culture-stratigraphic units anywhere before the Upper Paleolithic. At least in Africa, western Asia, and Europe, I think we can, and the key issues are how abruptly these units succeeded one another and what relation they had to human biological evolution. As a working hypothesis, I offer the following outline: The oldest stone artifact tradition, the Oldowan, appeared suddenly about 2.6 million years ago (Semaw et al. 1997), and it was largely if not exclusively confined to Africa. Oldowan assemblages consisted mainly of sharp-edged flakes and the cores from which they came. Homo habilis (or one of the variants into which it may be split) is usually assumed to have made Oldowan tools. The Acheulean Tradition was established in eastern Africa by 1.65 million years ago (Quade et al. 2004; Roche et al. 2003), and it was distinguished from the Oldowan by the presence of bifaces and of large flakes that were often made into bifaces. H. ergaster (or African H. erectus) probably invented the Acheulean, and future research may show that H. ergaster and the Acheulean emerged abruptly together 1.8–1.7 million years ago. It remains possible, however, that H. ergaster appeared first and that the Oldowan continued alongside the Acheulean for hundreds of thousands of years. Numeric ages and biostratigraphy show that the African Acheulean may be divided into early and late stages (Clark and Schick 2000; Isaac 1975; Schick and Clark 2000; Wynn 2002). Late Acheulean bifaces were often thinner, more extensively trimmed, and more symmetrical than their early Acheulean predecessors, and they were accompanied by a

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

wider range of well-made flake tools. Late Acheulean assemblages also varied more through time and space, and it was late Acheulean people who devised Levallois technology. The transition from early to late occurred sometime between 1 million and 500,000 years ago, and future research may fix it near 600,000 years ago, perhaps at the same time as the increase in encephalization that ushered in H. heidelbergensis (or “archaic” H. sapiens). H. heidelbergensis took late Acheulean artifacts to Europe 600,000–500,000 years ago, and late Acheulean technology may partly explain how H. heidelbergensis and its descendants became the first permanent Europeans. The late Acheulean differed from the early more than it did from the industries that succeeded it—the Mousterian (or Middle Paleolithic) in Europe and western Asia and the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa. The European Acheulean is all “late,” and Monnier could cite this to buttress her argument for substantial similarity to the Mousterian. The Middle Paleolithic/MSA may have supplanted the late Acheulean at different times in different places, but the available dates suggest that both were in place everywhere by 250,000–200,000 years ago (Bar-Yosef 1995; Conard and Fischer 2000; Tryon and McBrearty 2002). Assemblage variation is greater within the Middle Paleolithic and the MSA than between them, and their separation depends mainly on scholarly tradition and geographic distance. They both differed from the late Acheulean primarily in the absence of large Acheulean bifaces, and they shared an emphasis on refined flake tools and often but not always on Levallois technology. If all we had were the artifacts, we might infer that Middle Paleolithic and MSA people were physically the same. However, by 160,000 years ago MSA people in Africa were anatomically modern or near modern and their European Middle Paleolithic contemporaries were Neanderthals. About 50,000 years ago, the Later Stone Age (LSA) descendants of MSA people expanded rapidly from Africa to swamp or replace the Neanderthals and other nonmodern Eurasians. LSA people were fully modern in both anatomy and behavior, but specialists disagree about whether the LSA appeared abruptly about 50,000 years ago (Klein and Edgar 2002) or developed gradually over a long period within the MSA (McBrearty and Brooks 2000).

John McNabb and Hannah Fluck Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, Department of Archaeology, Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK (j.mcnabb@ soton.ac.uk). 25 IV 06 Monnier’s use of the Bordes (1961a) system concerns us, though her defence that it allows site comparison over large distances will strike a chord with most researchers. One of us (JM) has been analysing British Lower Palaeolithic assemblages for nearly 25 years and has repeatedly found that the system’s complexity fails to describe the conservative nature

731

of these assemblages. Moreover, it does not address multiple tools, flaked flakes (only some of which are typologically Clactonian notches) (Ashton, Dean, and McNabb 1991), or wedges and nondiagnostic forms, which should not be conveniently buried in the miscellaneous categories. We recognize the problems of comparability, but for the British data the system is irrelevant. Similarly, Monnier’s inclusion of debitage in calculations of indices and percentages, even for the sake of comparability, is inappropriate. Frequencies of flakes (broken or otherwise) reflect site function, hominin transport behaviour, excavation history, resharpening and reuse, and many other factors. With intersite debitage frequencies being so variable, it would be possible artificially to inflate or depress the true statistical importance of significant tool types. This highlights another failing of the Bordes system. Its application requires an assemblage to include at least 50 tools and preferably more than 100. In Britain it is rare to have even 50, and most are flaked flakes (Ashton, Dean, and McNabb 1991). It would be better to have calculated the indices on the basis of all the shaped and modified pieces. Monnier’s list of criteria for site inclusion is laudable, but employed in the cause of comparability it has led to some serious errors. A combined mammal (Schreve 2001) and geological (Bridgland 1994) signal places Swanscombe in OIS 11, not 9. Radiometric age determinations have consistently underestimated the age of the Barnfield Pit sequence. Hoxne is also an OIS 11 site (Schreve 2000, contra Bowen et al. 1989), and so are the Clacton Golf Course site (Singer et al. 1973) and the West Cliff sections at Clacton (Bridgland et al. 1999). We could add Barnham (Ashton, Lewis, and Parfitt 1998), High Lodge in OIS 13 (Ashton, Cook, and Rose 1992), Pontnewydd in OIS 7 and 6 (Aldhouse-Green 1998, 2001), and even the recently published sites at Foxhall Road (White and Plunkett 2004) and Elveden (Ashton et al. 2005), both OIS 11. Omitting sites such as these because they do not match the check-list for consistency is a reflection of the weakness of some of the selection criteria rather than the sites. From the above it might be supposed that we dispute Monnier’s findings. We do not. We believe her conclusions are valid; indeed, she provides empirical data supporting a pattern that has often appeared in the literature only in anecdotal form—that bifaces decrease in frequency over time as scrapers, other flake tools, and Levallois increase. In the British sequence the patterning in Levallois first appears at the end of OIS 9 at sites like Purfleet (Schreve et al. 2002), where both Levallois (White in Schreve et al. 2002) and the simple prepared-core variant (White and Ashton 2003) are present. It is seen again in late OIS 8 and OIS 7 contexts (e.g., West Thurrock, Bakers Hole, and Crayford [see Bridgland 1994 for summaries]). The key point here is the presence of a persistent prepared-core-technology/Levallois signal from the northwestern limit of the hominin world prior to the OIS 6 takeoff seen in Monnier’s data. It does not invalidate Monnier’s interpretation, but it must be taken into account.

732

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Figure 1. A reworking of Monnier’s data. (Hoxne and Swanscombe have been placed in OIS 11.) Solid line, percentage scrapers; dotted line, percentage bifaces; broken line, percentage flake tools. The apparent crash in OIS 10 reflects the absence of data from that period.

The decrease in bifaces and increase in flake tool and scraper frequencies from OIS 6 onwards seems a reasonable result given what we know about these assemblages. The link between increase in flake tool frequency and the necessity of utilizing more blanks from pre-existing debitage on cave floors and resharpening as raw material becomes scarcer during glaciations is not in itself unreasonable. We are concerned, however, by Monnier’s use of the OIS curve. OIS 3 and OIS sub-stages 5.1–5.4 are not interglacials; to compare data from them with those from OIS 5.5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 is wholly inappropriate (see our fig. 1). We agree with Monnier that the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic boundary is an anachronism that is no longer helpful, but we would caution against downgrading the significance of the transition to Levallois/prepared-core-technology-dominated assemblages, which represents a significant component of a multidisciplinary definition of assemblage character that tracks genuine changes in behaviour.

Marie-He´le`ne Moncel Institut de Pale´ontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene´ Panhard, 75013 Paris, France ([email protected]). 20 IV 06 The transition between Lower and Middle Palaeolithic raises questions about what criteria best characterize them when only preserved lithic assemblages are available to our understanding. What indicators are relevant to describing the beginning of the technical world linked with the Pre-Neander-

thals? Should we focus on the shift to flake production as the major knapping activity and the diversification of core reduction methods or on bifaces, which may be missing from some Lower Palaeolithic assemblages? The earliest bifaces of Western Europe date from more than 0.6 million years ago (Despriee et al. 2005). Though tool kits are common, the assemblages display wide variation that certainly reflects a variety of environments and activities. For example, raw materials distinguish the great northern plains, with large tools, bifaces, and hand-axes/cleavers shaped on flint nodules, from southern Europe, with large flakes. Central European assemblages follow another trend, resulting in traditions such as the Micoquian at about OIS 6 at least. Southeastern French sites provide significant examples of what happened during the second part of the Middle Pleistocene. Monnier suggests two phases of transition dated to the OIS 9/8 and OIS 7/6. At the site of Orgnac 3, the Levallois method was the main one in use from OIS 8 onwards. Bifaces are rare throughout the sequence and all but disappear in the latest occupations. The Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition does not occur in this part of France. The Levallois method appears at Baume Bonne at the end of OIS 8, but its main development took place in the second half of OIS 6 (Gagnepain and 2005). In all the layers of these two sites, the main activity was flake production. The development of long, complex, and varied core reduction sequences is suggested to be the best indicator of changes in the relationship between humans and raw materials, and these changes are considered

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

the best criteria for describing a gradual transition rooted in the oldest flaking traditions (e.g., at Orce, dated to 1.2 million years). However, at Payre, dated to OIS 7 and 5, and in the lower levels of Abri Moula (OIS 5) the processing system is discoid. The increasingly numerous sites around the Rhoˆne Valley during OIS 4 and the beginning of OIS 3 provide evidence for the simultaneous use of Levallois, discoid, and laminar methods (the laminar method is first attested during OIS 4 in southern Europe). The Levallois method was still being employed during the late Middle Palaeolithic, for example, at Abri Moula and Abri du Maras (Moncel 2003). Flake tool frequency does not seem to be the right criterion in southeastern France, since it is related more to activities than to settlement age. Since retouches are not often invasive, Dibble’s model cannot be applied in this case. Is the low frequency of flake tools in the upper level of Orgnac 3 linked with the extensive use of the Levallois method, providing flakes which did not need retouching or resharpening, and perhaps to the kinds of activities involved and the duration of use of the cutting edges? The technical behaviours in the Middle Rhoˆne Valley show great variability through time, and their meaning remains to be interpreted precisely. Levallois flaking seems to be related to cold periods (Orgnac 3 OIS 8, Maras laminar method OIS 4) and the discoid method with temperate ones (Payre OIS 7-5, Saint-Marcel OIS 3). However, at sites such as Le Figuier (Quina) and Abri des Peˆcheurs a discoid method was used in a cold context (OIS 4). Even though one method was preferentially applied, others were also employed in all occupations. At any given site, traditions and activities were probably mixed rather than time-related. Nevertheless, in this area, the cold climate opened up the landscape and made flint outcrops more available. Severe conditions certainly influenced human mobility and subsistence activities and consequently technical choices. In southeastern France, the transition toward Middle Palaeolithic behavior in the form of long and controlled flake processing systems and standardized production appeared at the OIS 9/8 border. The precocious disappearance of bifaces is assumed to indicate a slow process which began before OIS 8 and ended around OIS 7-6-5. In all of western Europe, as at the southeastern French sites, artifacts such as bifaces and pebble tools are few; from the beginning, the tool kit is composed mainly of flake tools. When pebble tools are more numerous, the assemblages are related neither to a specific period nor to a particular climatic context (Payre OIS 7-5, Abri des Peˆcheurs OIS 5-4), instead corresponding to specific activities and needs. In short, there are still many questions open for debate. Does site scarcity influence our interpretation of this period? Are our observations biased by the comparison with openair sites on the great North European plains while southern sites were in caves in narrow basins and valleys? The transition appears to have depended upon the geographic setting.

733

Lawrence Guy Straus Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A. ([email protected]). 30 III 06 For a long time, most Paleolithic specialists have realized that the hoary nineteenth-century subdivisions of the Old Stone Age have unraveled even if many of the terms continue to serve as shorthand indicators of the approximate temporal placement and broad technological characteristics of artifact assemblages. This is a very sensible and well-supported discussion of diachronic change and synchronic variability within the “Early [Lower and Middle] Paleolithic.” Monnier is to be applauded for going back to unresolved issues of systematics and nomenclature in “paleo-lithic” studies—even resurrecting application of the now-out-of-favor Bordesian method of assemblage description. Monnier is correct to insist on the use of dating methods independent of the artifacts themselves; circularity must be avoided if at all possible, even if the “dates” are imprecise. This is the same argument that some (mostly Americans and Britons) made for the application of radiocarbon dating with regard to the Upper Paleolithic and even the so-called Middle/ Upper Paleolithic transition decades ago, while the traditional French view was to rely on lithic and osseous fossiles directeurs and sedimentological correlations tied to the modified Alpine glacial chronostratigraphic framework (see Straus 1975, 1987, 1991; Straus and Clark 1986). Freed from the slavish reliance on artifacts and artifact manufacturing techniques as essentially time-markers, we can approach an understanding of interassemblage variability in terms of raw-material availability, site-specific place, and occupation function, as well as site formation/disturbance and archeological sampling effects. (Monnier hints at this in her perceptive comment on the unusually “crude” lithic assemblages associated with masses of bison bones at late Middle Paleolithic Le Mauran. We are finally coming to grips with the consequences of our profession’s longtime fealty to the restrictive and misleading de Mortilletian stages. Monnier does an excellent job of explaining how these stage names persisted across changes in paradigms and in leading French prehistorians. Once it became clear, for example, that small bifacial handaxes could be found in the Mousterian, that many Acheulean-age assemblages lack classic handaxes, and that the Levallois technique was invented in the Upper Acheulean, a simple bipartite division of the European Early Paleolithic into Acheulean and Mousterian became untenable, but much of the profession chose to ignore the fact. The increasing behavioral and technical complexity of some Acheulean sites (e.g., the Scho¨ningen wooden spears, the Bilzingsleben engraved bones) makes it clear that cultural variability and change were just as “mosaic” in the early–mid-Middle Pleistocene as they were during the mid-Upper Pleistocene (see Straus 2005). True blade tech-

734

nology and bone points and even ritual or artistic expression are now all acknowledged to be occasional aspects of the Middle Paleolithic in Europe and in Africa, but we continue to think in terms of de Mortilletian stages as if the differences between them constituted chasms between prehuman incompetence and human genius. With little time in introductory courses to devote to the vast span of early human evolution or to nuanced explanations, we often find it necessary to resort to simplifications. Thus we fall into the trap of talking about the characteristics of the Acheulean, the Mousterian, and the Upper Paleolithic even if we know how faulty such shortcuts actually are. We see how problematic the use of cultural “boxes” is when serious specialists talk of an Oldowan settlement of southern Europe long after the invention of the bifacial handaxe in Africa some 1.6 million years ago, even as we know that chopper/chopping tool assemblages (a` la Breuil’s parallel, nonbiface phylum) continue to pop up in the record throughout much of the Middle Pleistocene and beyond. Although Monnier detects some new patterns that run counter to the classic definitions of major periods in Homo heidelbergensis and H. sapiens neanderthalensis cultural development, we should be cautious about adopting them as normative characterizations, since the sample of “well”-dated, recently excavated, and systematically analyzed sites used in this study is rather small and may be unrepresentative of the full range of human sites and activities in these vast spans of time. As a “spoiler” argument, however, the case she makes is impressive. Monnier’s excellent description of the de Mortillet-Commont-Breuil-Peyrony periodization schemes brings me back memories of the artifact collection cabinet of my grandfather, Guy Magnant, in Bordeaux, the lower drawers of which are labeled “Chele´en” and “Acheule´en” (Straus 1985). In the early years of the discipline of prehistory, an instrument like the de Mortillet framework was necessary to bring some semblance of order to a confusing situation. Trading artifacts from “type sites” as they did, these early prehistorians had to “know” into which ´etage and literally which ´etage`re to put their precious artifacts. But the idea of a rigid scheme of stages has long since lost its utility with the development of chronometric dating methods and the increase in well-excavated sites. It takes time to turn the Leviathan, but with careful, deliberate steering by helmsmen such as Monnier, the great ship does seem to be rounding a crucial buoy.

Alain Tuffreau Laboratoire de Pre´histoire et Quaternaire, Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, F-59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq cedex, France ([email protected]). 4 V 06 The periodization of the Paleolithic into three phases—Lower, Middle, and Upper—has regularly been called into question. Fundamentally, it depends upon the inclusion or absence of

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

specific characteristics of important lithic industries that have gradually appeared in the course of at least tens of thousands of years. This does not, however, apply to the Upper Paleolithic, which developed rather rapidly after a period of transition of some thousands of years. In the identification of the Upper Paleolithic, other characteristics are taken into consideration, especially stylistic features, a bone industry, and art. Following a well-documented historical analysis of the periodization of the Lower/Middle Paleolithic, Monnier examines whether the characteristics of tools justify a division between the two. Her sample consists of 89 assemblages dated by radiometric methods to between OIS 17 and OIS 3. The 29 layers from which the lithic assemblages originate are located in Western Europe. The purpose of the study is to prove that, although evolutionary tendencies are present, it is impossible to determine a precise chronological boundary based on the presence or absence of features or variations in their frequencies. Thus the percentage of bifaces tends to diminish after OIS 8, whereas a significant presence of the Levallois technique is later (OIS 7) and retouched flakes are found in great quantities during the colder periods (OIS 6 and OIS 3). My observations will focus on the sample selected and the criteria employed to differentiate the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic. The sample consists entirely of assemblages organized chronologically according to radiometric dates. The undertaking is fully justified for the karstic regions of southwestern Europe, where it is impossible to use chronostratigraphy to date lithic industries. In the north of France the data have been considerably augmented in the past 30 years because of the study of open-air deposits excavated during salvage operations. The lack of preservation of bone remains and the rarity of burnt flint are responsible for the scarcity of radiometric dates for these deposits. Because they are found in a loess environment, however, they benefit from an excellent chronostratigraphic framework, one which, for the last glacial (OIS 5 to OIS 3), for example, allows them to be placed within a 10,000-year range (in other words, offers as much precision as radiometric dates). Including these lithic industries (Le Pucheuil and Etoutteville for OIS 8 to 6 and Bennecourt-Saint-Ouen, Riencourt-les-Bapaume, Seclin, and the deposits in Senonais for OIS 5 to OIS 3) would certainly have helped, as Monnier stresses, to reduce the overrepresentation of lithic industries from southwestern France as far as the more recent periods of time are concerned. Central Europe is not included in the scope of this study, and, as a result, the Micoquian, a Middle Paleolithic industry rich in bifaces, has been all but ignored. These tools, like most bifaces starting with OIS 8, are not comparable to Acheulean bifaces sensu stricto, which tend to vanish in Western Europe around 280,000 BP. Many of them have retouched edges similar to those of flake tools. This means that they served as blanks and their function differed from that of Acheulean bifaces. The bifacial tools of the Micoquian, similarly to those

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

from the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, also have obvious stylistic features. Finally, another characteristic that escapes a study based entirely on deductions from index fossils in terms of the Bordes method is the greater diversity of methods of knapping after OIS 7. These comments do not in any way diminish the importance of Monnier’s study. As she points out, the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization is even more complex than her article shows.1

Reply I thank all of the commentators for the time and effort they have spent reading this article and commenting on it. They make important observations and critiques that I am happy to have a chance to address. I hope that the following response will clarify some misunderstandings related to the goals of this study and illuminate the complexity of many of the issues I faced. Tuffreau mentions that I should have included sites from northern France such as Le Pucheuil, Etoutteville, Riencourtles-Bapaume, and Seclin, which do not have absolute dates (because of a lack of suitable dating material) but have excellent chronostratigraphic control because of their preservation in loess sediments. McNabb and Fluck argue that I should have included Barnham (which has problematic absolute dates and is assigned to OIS 11 on the basis of sedimentology and biostratigraphy [Ashton, Lewis, and Parfitt 1998]), High Lodge (which does not have absolute dates), and Pontnewydd (which does not meet the criterion for minimum assemblage size), among others. As I explained, the main objective of my study was to test whether the diachronic patterning of the tool types originally used to define the Lower and Middle Paleolithic (bifaces, Levallois technology, and retouched flake tools) still supports the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization. In order to achieve this objective, it was imperative that the dating of the assemblages I used be independent of artifact typology. Biostratigraphy and geochronology are not entirely independent of typology (e.g., some mammalian species are dated on the basis of the typological composition of key sites). Absolute dates may be “imprecise,” in Straus’s words, but they should, in theory, be independent of artifact typology. Therefore, while I would have liked to augment my sample by including sites such as High Lodge, for which convincing geological arguments are made that it is pre-Anglian (the Anglian is correlated with OIS 12), I had to be consistent in my application of selection criteria or risk losing objectivity. As regards the geographic boundaries of the study, I agree with Tuffreau that the inclusion of Micoquian and other 1. Translated by Simone Monnier Clay.

735

industries from Central Europe would be a valuable addition to this study. However, Central and Eastern Europe were beyond the purview of this work, though they will certainly be included in the future, along with the Near East and, eventually, Africa. McNabb and Fluck point out that the dating of Hoxne and Swanscombe have been updated as a result of biostratigraphical and sedimentological studies which place it in OIS 11 rather than OIS 9 (Schreve 2001 and Bridgland 1994). However, this would not substantially alter the results of my analysis. As can be seen in table 8, I currently have no data from either OIS 10 or 11. I would therefore update Hoxne and Swanscombe by changing the category currently listed as “OIS 9” to a new one consisting of “OIS 9 through 11.” While a higher degree of chronological resolution is desirable, at the present time there are simply too few well-dated sites from this time period. The next few years may see a resolution of the dating problems surrounding these sites. Finally, regarding figure 9, McNabb and Fluck mistakenly state that I include OIS 3 along with OIS 5.5, 7, 9, 11, 13. OIS 3 is included with OIS 4, 6, 8, and 12 and contrasted with data from OIS 5, 7, and 9. In addition, they state that OIS stages 5.1–5.4 are not interglacials and should not be compared with OIS 7 and 9; however, they do not represent the extreme glacial conditions of OIS 4–2, either. Bisson and McNabb and Fluck object to my calculation of artifact type frequencies relative to the total lithic material of each assemblage. They would prefer that I calculate them in the traditional (Bordesian) way, which is relative to the retouched flake component only. As I have said, I used total lithic material as the denominator for several reasons. First of all, since the objective of the study was to trace the diachronic patterning of bifaces, retouched flake tools, and Levallois technology across the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, it was essential that any variation in flake tool versus core tool frequencies across this transition not confound the issues being addressed. Second, the historic focus on certain artifact types and the neglect of others have reified the periodization scheme and ignored other aspects of variability. For example, debitage, which is now known to contain valuable technological data, was ignored for decades. What other aspects of the archaeological record do we continue to ignore? Manuports? Broken cores? Shatter? Calculating artifact type frequencies relative to the total lithic assemblage shows us the true frequencies of some supposedly key types (such as bifaces). Of course, taphonomic factors such as breakage will have had an effect on the number of lithic pieces in a given assemblage. Thus, it would be more accurate to calculate artifact frequencies on the basis of weights rather than counts. Unfortunately, data on weights are rarely available in the literature. Third, there is little consistency among researchers when it comes to reporting artifact counts (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of broken implements), but they do all report total lithic materials. Fourth, McNabb and Fluck are concerned that “site function, hominin transport behavior, excavation

736

history, resharpening and reuse” will affect debitage frequencies. They forget that the same factors also affect retouched tool frequencies. Finally, inherent in McNabb and Fluck’s arguments that variable debitage frequencies can affect the “true statistical importance of significant tool types” (my italics) and Bisson’s statement that there are “inherent differences in the ratios of ‘finished products’ to unmodified flakes produced by different tool-making strategies” is the assumption that twenty-firstcentury archaeologists are able to identify which tool types are “significant” and “finished.” Davidson and Noble (1993, 365) refer to this as the “finished artifact fallacy”—the “belief that the final form of flaked stone artefacts as found by archaeologists was the intended shape of a ‘tool.”’ However, retouched flake tools are not necessarily finished, nor are they necessarily more significant than unretouched blanks. Their perceived significance is merely the product of an arbitrary, historical focus on certain retouched tools. Bisson argues that biface frequencies should not be calculated relative to total lithic material, stating that the manufacture of a biface produces more debitage than the manufacture of a unifacial flake tool such as a scraper. As an example, he calculates that French Acheulean bifaces have an average of 20 flake scars each [over 2 cm], while French Middle Paleolithic scrapers have an average of only 3.9 scars each. Bifaces, however, are core tools; therefore, they will surely have many more flake removals than flake tools, only the edges of which are retouched. Furthermore, bifaces have two faces, which approximately doubles the number of flake scars relative to unifacial retouched flake tools. A more appropriate comparison would be the number of flakes created during the manufacture of a biface versus the number of flakes created during the reduction of a core from which a flake was then selected and retouched. McNabb and Fluck are concerned by my use of Bordesian typology, which they say does not apply to Britain, and Straus remarks that I “even resurrect application of the now-out-offavor Bordesian method of assemblage description.” Tuffreau suggests that I should have taken into account the greater diversity of knapping methods after OIS 7. Moncel provides a useful summary of technological trends in southeastern France from OIS 8 to OIS 3, concluding that while some climatic trends may be present, traditions and activities transcend chronology. I agree with these commentators that the Bordes method of assemblage analysis is old-fashioned (although not useless, by any means) and that studies of lithic technology, specifically core reduction sequences, are valuable sources of information for answering many questions in Paleolithic studies, not least of which are those regarding changes through time. However, the objective of my study was not to explore all aspects of change in lithic assemblages throughout the Lower and Middle Paleolithic; it was merely to test the diachronic patterning of the index fossils defined over a century ago and still used to characterize the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Since my focus was on traditional tool types (bifaces, flake tools, Levallois flakes), I decided to use Bordes’s

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

typology, which was designed for western Europe and has been widely used there for decades. I agree with McNabb and Fluck that there may be tool types unique to the British Lower Paleolithic that deserve special treatment, but the categories I used, such as “retouched flake tools” and “bifaces,” were purposefully designed to be broad and to address the specific questions of the study, not to document the idiosyncratic nature of each regional sequence. Regarding core reduction methods, I believe that syntheses of the diachronic patterning of debitage methods such as Levallois, discoidal, laminar, etc., will be very valuable once questions regarding methodology (see, e.g., Tostevin 1996) have been addressed. —Gilliane Monnier

References Cited Aldhouse-Green, S. 1998. The archaeology of distance: Perspectives from the Welsh Palaeolithic. In Stone Age archaeology: Essays in honour of John Wymer, ed. N. Ashton, F. Healy, and P. Pettitt, 137–415. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 6. [JM, HF] ———. 2001. The colonisations and visitations of Wales by Neanderhals and modern humans in the Later Pleistocene. In Histories of old ages: Essays in honour of Rhys Jones, ed. A. Anderson, I. Lilley, and S. O’Connor, 225–35. Canberra: Pandus Books. [JM, HF] Anconetani, P., C. Crovetto, M. Ferrari, G. Giusberti, L. Longo, C. Peretto, and F. Vianello. 1992. Nuove ricerche nel giacimento di Isernia La Pineta (Molise). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 44. Antoine, Pierre. 2001. La stratigraphie de la se´quence fluviatile de Cagny-la-Garenne II (Somme). In L’Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau, 45–50. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. Ashton, N., J. Cook, and J. Rose, eds. 1992. High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–1968 and J. Cook 1988. London: British Museum Press. [JM, HF] Ashton, N., P. Dean, and J. McNabb. 1991. Flaked flakes: What, where, when and why? Lithics 12:1–11. [JM, HF] Ashton, Nick, Brian Irving, Simon Lewis, Simon Parfitt, and John McNabb. 1994. Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk. Antiquity 68:585–89. Ashton, N., S. G. Lewis, and S. Parfitt, eds. 1998. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barnham, 1989–1994. British Museum Occasional Paper 125 [JM, HF] Ashton, N., S. G. Lewis, S. Parfitt, I. Candy, D. H. Keen, R. Kemp, K. Penckman, G. Thomas, J. Whittaker, and M. J. White. 2005. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at Elveden, Suffolk, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71:1–61. [JM, HF] Ashton, Nick, and John McNabb. 1992. The interpretation and context of the High Lodge industries. In High Lodge:

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–8 and J. Cook 1988, ed. N. Ashton, J. Cook, S. G. Lewis, and J. Rose, 164–68. London: British Museum Press. ———. 1996. The flint industries from the Waechter excavations. In Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968–72, ed. B. Conway, J. McNabb, and N. Ashton, 201–36. British Museum Occasional Paper 94. Bahain, Jean-Jacques, Christophe Falgue`res, and Michel Laurent. 2001. Datation par re´sonance paramagne´tique e´lectronique (RPE) de se´diments et par combination des me´thodes RPE/U-Th de restes pale´ontologiques (provenant des sites pale´olithiques de Cagny). In L’Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau, 37–40. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1982. Some remarks on the nature of transitions in prehistory. In The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 29–33. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. ———. 1995. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Mediterranean Levant: Chronology and cultural entities. In Man and environment in the Palaeolithic, ed. H. Ullrich, 246–63. Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. [RGK] Bisson, Michael S. 2000. Nineteenth-century tools for twentyfirst century archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic typology of Franc¸ois Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(1):1–48. [MSB] Binford, Lewis. 1973. Interassemblage variability: The Mousterian and the functional argument. In The explanation of culture change, ed. C. Renfrew, 227–54. London: Duckworth. Binford, Lewis, and Sally Binford. 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–95. Blackwell, Bonnie, and Henry Schwarcz. 1988. Datations des spe´le´othems de la grotte Vaufrey par la famille de l’uranium. In La Grotte Vaufrey: Pale´oenvironnement, chronologie, activite´s humaines, ed. Jean-Philippe Rigaud, 365–80. Me´moires de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 19. Blackwell, Bonnie, Henry Schwarcz, and Andre´ Debe´nath. 1983. Absolute dating of hominids and Paleolithic artefacts of the cave of La Chaise-de-Vouthon (Charente), France. Journal of Archeological Science 10:493–513. Boe¨da, Eric, Jean-Michel Geneste, and Lilianne Meignen. 1990. Identification de chaıˆnes ope´ratoires lithiques du Pale´olithique ancien et moyen. Pale´o 2:43–80. Bonifay, E., and B. Vandermeersch. 1991. Les pre´miers Europe´ens. Paris: Editions du Comite´ des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques. Bordes, Francois. 1950a. Principes d’une me´thode d’e´tude des techniques de de´bitage et de la typologie du Pale´olithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54:19–34. ———. 1950b. L’e´volution buissonnante des industries en Europe Occidentale: Conside´rations the´oriques sur le Pale´olithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54:393–420.

737

———. 1954. Notules de typologie pale´olithique. 3. Pointes mouste´riennes, racloirs convergents et de´jete´s, limaces. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 51:336–39. ———. 1961a. Typologie du Pale´olithique ancien et moyen. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. ———. 1961b Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134: 803–10. ———. 1969. Reflections on typology and techniques in the Paleolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:1–29. ———. 1970. Re´flexions sur l’outil au Pale´olithique. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 67:199–202. ———. 1972. A tale of two caves. New York: Harper and Row. Bordes, Franc¸ois, and Maurice Bourgon. 1951. Le complexe mouste´rien: Mouste´riens, levalloisien et tayacien. L’Anthropologie 55:1–23. Bordes, Franc¸ois, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, and Denise de Sonneville-Bordes. 1972. Des buts, proble`mes et limites de l’arche´ologie pale´olithique. Quaternaria 16:15–34. Bordes, Franc¸ois, and Denise de Sonneville-Bordes. 1970. The significance of variability in Paleolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73. Bosinski, Gerhardt. 1982. The transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in northwestern Germany. In The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 165–175. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. ———. 1995. Stone artefacts of the European Lower Palaeolithic: A short note. In The earliest occupation of Europe, ed. Wil Roebroeks and Thijs van Kolfschoten, 263–68. Leiden: University of Leiden. ———. 1996. Atlas des sites du Pale´olithique infe´rieur. Paris: Errance. Bowen, D. Q., S. Hughes, G. A. Sykes, and G. H. Miller. 1989. Land-sea correlations in the Pleistocene based on isoleucine epimerization in non-marine molluscs. Nature 340:49–51. [JM, HF] Bowman, Sheridan. 1993. Themoluminescence dating of the Lower Industry. In The Lower Paleolithic site at Hoxne, England, ed. R. Singer, B. G. Gladfelter, and J. J. Wymer, 208–10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Breuil, Henri. 1932a Le pale´olithique ancien en Europe occidentale et sa chronologie. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 29:570–78. ———. 1932b. Les industries a` e´clat du Pale´olithique ancien. 1. Le Clactonien. Pre´histoire 1:125–90. Breuil, Henri, and L. Koslowski. 1931. E´tudes de stratigraphie pale´olithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. L’Anthropologie 41:449–88. ———. 1932a. E´tudes de stratigraphie pale´olithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique, et l’Angleterre. L’Anthropologie 42:27–47. ———. 1932b. E´tudes de stratigraphie pale´olithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. L’Anthropologie 42:291–314. ———. 1934a. E´tudes de stratigraphie pale´olithique dans le

738

nord de la France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. L’Anthropologie 44:249–90. ———. 1934b. E´tudes de stratigraphie pale´olithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique, et l’Angleterre. L’Anthropologie 44:449–88. Bridgland, D. R. 1994. Quaternary of the Thames. London: Chapman and Hall. [JM, HF] Bridgland, D. R., M. H. Field, J. A. Holmes, J. McNabb, R. C. Preece, I. Selby, J. Wymer, S. Boreham, B. Irving, S. A. Parfitt, and A. J. Stuart. 1999. Middle Pleistocene interglacial Thames-Medway deposits at Clacton-on-Sea, England: Reconsideration of the biostratigraphical and environmental context of the type Clactonian Palaeolithic Industry. Quaternary Science Reviews 18:109–46. [JM, HF] Bridgland, D., P. Gibbard, P. Harding, R. A. Kemp, and G. Southgate. 1985. New information and results from recent excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. Quaternary Newsletter 46:25–39. Callow, Paul, and J. Cornford, eds. 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961–1978: Excavations by C. B. M. McBurney. Norwich: Geo Books. Capitan, L., and Denis Peyrony. 1912. Station pre´historique de la Ferrassie, commune de Savignac-du-Bugue (Dordogne). Revue Anthropologique 22:29–50, 76–99. Carboneı´l, Eudald, M. Garcla-Anto´n, Carolina Mallol, M. Mosquera, A. Olle´, X. P. Rodrı´guez, Mohamed Sahnouni, Robert Sala, and J. M. Verge`s. 1999. The TD6 level lithic industry from Gran Dolina, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): Production and use. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 653–93. Carbonell, Eudald, and X. Rodriguez. 1994. Early Middle Pleistocene deposits and artefacts in the Gran Dolina Site (TD4) of the “Sierra de Atapuerca” (Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 26:291–312. Clark, Grahame. 1969. World prehistory: A new outline. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, J. D., and K. B. Schick. 2000. Overview and conclusion on the Middle Awash Acheulean. In The Acheulean and the Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia, ed. J. de Heinzelin, J. D. Clark, K. B. Schick, and H. Gilbert, 193–202. Tervuren: Muse´e Royal de l’Afrique Centrale. [RGK] Collins, Desmond. 1970. Stone artefact analysis and the recognition of culture traditions. World Archaeology 2:17–27. Commont, Victor. 1906. Les de´couvertes re´centes a` SaintAcheul: L’Acheule´en. Revue de l’E´cole d’Anthropologie de Paris 16:228–41. ———. 1908. Les industries de l’ancien Saint-Acheul. L’Anthropologie 19:527–72. ———. 1913. Les hommes contemporains du Renne dans la valle´e de la Somme. Amiens: Imprimerie Yvert and Tellier. Conard, N. J., and B. Fischer. 2000. Are there recognizable cultural entities in the German Middle Palaeolithic? In Toward modern humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400–50 k years ago, ed. A. Ronen and M. Weinstein-Evron, 7–24.

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

British Archaeological Reports International Series S850. [RGK] Conway, Bernard. 1995. Bifaces in a Clactonian context at Little Thurrock, Grays, Essex. Lithics 16:41–46. ———. 1996. The stratigraphy and chronology of the Pleistocene deposits of Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. In Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968–72, ed. B. Conway, J. McNabb, and N. Ashton, 117–36. British Museum Occasional Papers 94. Conway, Bernard, John McNabb, and Nick Ashton, eds. 1996. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968–72. British Museum Occasional Papers 94. Cremaschi, M., and C. Peretto. 1988. Les sols d’habitat du site pale´olithique d’Isernia la Pineta (Molise, Italie centrale). L’Anthropologie 92:1017–40. Darlas, H. 1994. L’Acheuleen final des couches supe´rieures de la grotte du Lazaret (Nice-Alpes-Maritimes). L’Anthropologie 92:267–304. Davidson, Ian, and William Noble. 1993. Tools and language in human evolution. In Tools, language, and cognition in human evolution, ed. K. Gibson and T. Ingold, 363–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Debard, E. 1988. Le Quaternaire du Bas-Vivarais: Dynamique se´dimentaire, pale´oclimatique et chronologie des remplissages d’avens, de porches, de grottes et d’abris sous roche; comparaisons avec le Velay oriental. Lyon: Laboratoire de Ge´ologie de Lyon. Debard, E., and J. F. Pastre. 1988. Un marqueur chronostratigraphique du Ple´istoce`ne moyen a` la pe´riphe´rie du Massif Central: La retombe´e a` clinopyroxe`ne vert du Sancy dans le site acheule´en d’Orgnac III (Bas-Vivarais-S.-E. France). Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Sciences 306:1515–20. Debe´nath, Andre´. 1974. Recherches sur les terrains Quaternaires charentais et les industries qui leur sont associe´es. Ph.D. diss., Universite´ de Bordeaux. Delagnes, Anne. 1992. L’organisation de la production lithique au Pale´olithique Moyen: Approche technologique a` partir de l’e´tude des industries de la Chaise-de-Vouthon (Charente). Ph.D., diss., Universite´ de Paris X. Delpech, Franc¸oise, and Henri Laville. 1988. Climatologie et chronologie de la grotte Vaufrey: Confrontation des hypothe`ses et implications. In La Grotte Vaufrey: Pale´oenvironnement, chronologie, activite´s humaines, ed. J.-Ph. Rigaud, 381-88. Me´moires de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 19. Dennell, Robin. 2003. Dispersal and colonisation, long and short chronologies: How continuous is the Early Pleistocene record for hominids outside East Africa? Journal of Human Evolution 45:421–40. Dennell, Robin, and Wil Roebroeks. 1996. The earliest colonization of Europe: The short chronology revisited. Antiquity 70:535–42. d’Errico, Francesco. 2003. The invisible frontier:A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:188–202.

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

d’Errico, Francesco, J. Zilha˜o, D. Baffier, M. Julien, and J. Pelegrin. 1998. Neandertal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39:S1–S44. Despriee, J., R. Gageonnet, P. Voinchet, J.-J. Bahain, C. Falgue`res, and J. Depont. 2005. Les industries a` bifaces dans les formations fluviatiles du bassin de la Loire (Re´gion Centre, France). In Les premiers peuplements en Europe (Rennes, 22–25 septembre 2003), ed. N. Molines, M-H. Moncel, and J-L. Monnier, 431–44. British Archaeological Reports International Series S1364. [MHM] Dibble, Harold L. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–17. ———. 1991. Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In Raw material economies among prehistoric hunter-gatherers, ed. A. Montet-White and S. Holen, 33–48. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19. ———. 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of evidence to data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368. Dibble, Harold L., and Michel Lenoir, eds. 1995. The Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). Philadelphia: University Museum Press. Dibble, Harold L., and Nicolas Rolland. 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe: History, perspectives, and a new synthesis. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, behavior, and variability, ed. H. Dibble and P. Me1lars, 1–20. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. Falgue`res, C., J. J. Bahain, Y. Yokoyama, J. L. Arsuaga, J. M. Bermudez de Castro, Eudald Carbonell, J. L. Bischoff, and J. M. Dolo. 1999. Earliest humans in Europe: The age of TD6 Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 37:343–52. Falgue`res, C., G. Shen, and Y. Yokoyama. 1988. Datation de l’aven d’Orgnac III: Comparaison par les me´thodes de la re´sonnance de spin e´lectronique (ESR) et du de´sequilibre des familles de l’uranium. L’Anthropologie 92:727–30. Freeman, Leslie G. 1996. The nature of Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain. In Recent studies in paleoanthropology, ed. J. D Clark and F. C. Howell, 230–37. American Anthropologist n.s., 68, no. 2, p. 2. Gagnepain, J., and C. Gaillard. 2005. La grotte de la Baume Bonne (Quinson, Alpes de Haute-Provence): Synthe`se chronostratigraphique et se´quence culturelle d’apre`s les fouilles re´centes (1988–1997). In Les premiers peuplements en Europe (Rennes, 22–25 septembre 2003), ed. N. Molines, M-H. Moncel, and J-L. Monnier, 73–87. British Archaeological Reports International Series S1364. [MHM] Gamble, Clive. 1999. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gamble, Clive, and Gilbert Marshall. 2001. The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world. In A very remote period indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to

739

Derek Roe, ed. Sarah Milliken and Jill Cook. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gamble, Clive, and Wil Roebroeks. 1999. The Middle Paleolithic: A point of inflection. In The Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Europe, ed. W. Roebroeks and C. Gamble, 3–22. Leiden: University of Leiden. Gao, Xing, and Christopher J. Norton. 2002. A critique of the Chinese “Middle Paleolithic.” Antiquity 76:397–412. Geneste, Jean-Michel. 1985. Analyse d’industries mouste´riennes du Pe´rigord: Une approche technologique da comportement des groupes humains au Pale´olithique moyen. Ph.D. diss., Universite´ de Bordeaux. Groenen, Marc. 1994. Pour une histoire de la pre´histoire. Grenoble: Je´roˆme Millon. Gru¨n, Rainer, Paul Mellars, and Henri Laville. 1991. ESR chronology of a 100,000-year archaeological sequence at Pech de l’Aze II, France. Antiquity 65:544–51. Hayden, B. 1993. The cultural capacities of Neandertals: A review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 113–46. Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, C. W. Marean, R G. Milo, and R. Yates. 2001. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism, and language. Journal of Human Evolution 41:63178. Hovers, Erella, and Steven L. Kuhn, eds. 2005. Transitions before the transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. New York: Kluwer Press. Huxtable, J. 1986. The thermoluminescence dates. In La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961–1978: Excavations by C. B. M. McBurney, ed. P. Callow and J. Cornford, 145–49. Norwich: Geo Books. Isaac, G. L. 1975. Stratigraphy and cultural patterns in East Africa during the middle ranges of Pleistocene time. In After the australopithecines, ed. K. W. Butzer and G. L. Isaac, 543–69. The Hague: Mouton. [RGK] Jaubert, Jacques. 1993. Le gisement pale´olithique moyen de Mauran (Haute-Garonne): Techno-e´conomie des industries lithiques. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 90:328–35. Jaubert, Jacques, M. Lorblanchet, Henri Laville, R. SlottMoller, Alain Turq, and Jean-Philippe Brugal. 1990. Les chasseurs d’aurochs de La Borde: Un site du Pale´olithique Moyen (Livernon, Lot). Paris: Editions de 1a Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Jelinek, Arthur J. 1977. The Lower Paleolithic: Current evidence and interpretations. Annual Review of Anthropology 6:11–32. ———. 1982. The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant, with comments on the appearance of modern Homo sapiens. In The transition from the Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 57–101. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Klein, Richard G. 1999. The human career: Human biological

740

and cultural origins. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, R. G., and B. Edgar. 2002. The dawn of human culture. New York: Wiley. [RGK] Kuhn, Steven L. 1995. Mousterian lithic technology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kuhn, Steven L., and Erella Hovers. 2005. General introduction. In Transitions before the transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, ed. E. Hovers and S. Kuhn. New York: Kluwer Press. Lamotte, Agne`s, and Alain Tuffreau. 2001a. Le gisement de Cagny-la-Garenne (Somme, France): Les industries lithiques de Cagny-la-Garenne II (Somme, France). In L’Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau, 59–90. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. ———. 2001b. Les industries lithiques de la sequence fluviatile fine de Cagny-l’Epinette (Somme). In L’Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau, 113–34. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. Lartet, E., and H. Christy. 1865–75. Reliquiae Aquitanicae, being contributions to the archaeology and palaeontology of Pe´rigord and the adjoining provinces of southern France. London: Williams and Norgate. Laville, Henri. 1973. The relative position of Mousterian industries in the climatic chronology of the early Wu¨rm in the Perigord. World Archaeology 4:321–29. ———. 1982. On the transition from “Lower” to “Middle” Palaeolithic in south-west France. In The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 131–35. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. E´volution et techniques: L’homme et la matie`re. Paris: Albin Michel. ———. 1964. Le geste et la parole. Vol. 1. Techniques et langage. Paris: Albin Michel. Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern savages. London: Williams and Norgate. McBrearty, Sally, and Alison S. Brooks. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563. McNabb, John. 1996. More from the cutting edge: Further discoveries of Clactonian bifaces. Antiquity 70:428–36. McPherron, A., and V. Schmidt. 1983. Paleomagnetic dating at Isernia la Pineta. In Isernia La Pineta, un accampamento piu` antico di 700,000 anni, ed. C. Peretto, C. Terzani, and M Cremaschi, 67–69. Bologna: Calderini. McPherron, Shannon. 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:655–63. Meignen, Liliane. 1993. L’Abri des Canalettes: Un habitat mouste´rien sur les Grands Causses (Nant, Aveyron), fouilles

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

1980–1986. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Mellars, Paul. 1965. Sequence and devlopment of the Mousterian traditions in southwestern France. Nature 205: 626–27. ———. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Perigord region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35:134–71. ———. 1996. The Neanderthal legacy. An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Milliken, Sarah. 2001. Acheulian handaxe variability in Middle Pleistocene Italy: A case study. In A very remote period indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe, ed. Sarah Milliken and Jill Cook, 160–73. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Moncel, Marie-He´le`ne. 1999. Les assemblages lithiques du site pleistoce`ne moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Arde`che, Moyenne Valle´e du Rhone, France). Lie`ge: E´tudes et Recherches Arche´ologiques de l’Universite´ de Lie`ge. ———. 2003. L’exploitation de l’espace et la mobilite´ des groupes humains au travers des assemblages lithiques a` la fin du Ple´istoce`ne moyen et au de´but du Ple´istoce`ne supe´rieur: La moyenne valle´e du Rhoˆne entre Droˆme et Arde`che. British Archeological Repots International Series S1184. [MHM] Moncel, Marie-He´le`ne, and Jean Combier. 1992a. Industrie lithique du site pleı´stoce`ne moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Ardeche). Gallia Pre´histoire 34:1–55. ———. 1992b. Outillage sur e´clat dans l’industrie lithique du site pleistoce`ne moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Arde`che, France). L’Anthropologie 96:5–48. Monnier, Gilliane. 2000. A re-evaluation of the archaeological evidence for a Lower/Middle Paleolithic division in Western Europe. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2006. Testing retouched flake tool standardization during the Middle Paleolithic: Patterns and implications. In Transitions before the transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, ed. E. Hovers and S. L. Kuhn. New York: Kluwer Press. Mortillet, Gabriel de. 1867. Promenades pre´historiques a` l’exposition universelle. Mate´riaux pour Servir a` l’Histoire Positive et Philosophique de l’Homme 3:181–283, 285–368. ———. 1869. Essai d’une classification des cavernes et des stations sous abri, fonde´e sur les produits de l’industrie humaine. Mate´riaux pour Servir a` l’Histoire Primitive de l’Homme 5:172–79. ———. 1873. Classification des diverses pe´riodes de l’Aˆge de la Pierre. In Congre`s International d’Anthropologie et d’Arche´ologie Pre´historiques, 6e`me session, 432–59. ——— 1883. Le pre´historique: Antiquite´ de l’homme. Paris: C. Reinwald. Mortillet, Gabriel de, and Adrien de Mortillet. 1900. Le pre´historique: Origine et antiquite´ de l’homme. 3d ed. Paris: C. Reinwald, Schleicher Fre`res.

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

———. 1903. Muse´e pre´historique. 2d ed. Paris: Reinwald, Schleicher Fre`res. Movius, Hallam. 1948. The Lower Pa1eolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38:329–420. ———. 1949. Lower Paleolithic archaeology in southern and eastern Asia. Studies in Physical Anthropology 1:17–81. Mussi, Margherita. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: Italy. In The earliest occupation of Europe, ed. W. Roebroeks and T. van Kolfschoten, 27–49. Leiden: University of Leiden. Ohel, Milia Y. 1979. The Clactonian: An independent complex or an integral part of the Acheulean? Current Anthropology 20:685–726. Pare´s, J. M., and A. Pe´rez-Gonza´lez. 1999. Magnetochronology and stratigraphy at Gran Dolina section, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:325–42. Parfitt, S. et al. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. Nature 438:1008–12. Pelegrin, J. 1995. Technologie lithique: Le Chaˆtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de la Coˆte (Dordogne). Paris: CNRS. Peretto, C., ed. 1991 Isernia la Pineta, nuovi contributi scientifici. Isernia: Instituto Regionale per gli Storici del Molise “V. Cuoco.” Peretto, C., C. Terzani, and M Cremaschi, eds. 1983. Isernia La Pineta, un accampamento piu` antico di 700.000 anni. Bologna: Calderini. Peyrony, Denis. 1920. Le Mouste´rien—ses facie`s. Association Franc¸aise pour l’Avancement des Sciences 44:496–97. ———. 1930. Le Moustier: Ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches ge´ologiques. Revue Anthropologique 40:1–50. ———. 1934a. Stratigraphie du gisement pre´historique de Combe-Capelle, Dordogne. In Congre`s Pre´historique de France, 2e`me session, Pe´rigueux, 418–20. ———. 1934b. La Ferrassie: Mouste´rien, Pe´rigordien, Aurignacian. Pre´histoire 3:1–92. ———. 1938. La Micoque, les fouilles re´centes, leurs significations. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique de Franc¸aise 6: 257–88. ———. 1943. Combe-Capelle. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´histique Franc¸aise 40:243–55. Quade, J., N. Levin, S. Semaw, D. Stout, P. R. Renne, M. J. Rogers, and S. W. Simpson. 2004. Paleoenvironments of the earliest stone toolmakers, Gona, Ethiopia. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 116:1529–44. [RGK] Rigaud, Jean-Philippe, ed. 1988. La Grotte Vaufrey: Pale´oenvironnement chronologie, activite´s humaines. Me´moires de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 19. Roberts, Mark B. 1986. Excavation of the Lower Paleolithic site at Amey’s Eartham Pit, Boxgrove, West Sussex: A preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 215–45. Roberts, Mark B., Clive S. Gamble, and David R. Bridgland. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: The British Isles. In The earliest occupalion of Europe, ed. Wil Roebroeks and

741

Thijs van Kolfschoten, 165–92. Leiden: University of Leiden. Roberts, Mark B., and Simon A. Parfitt, eds. 1999a. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage Archaeological Report 17. ———. 1999b. Biostratigraphy and summary. In Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, ed. M. B. Roberts and S. A. Parfitt, 303–8. English Heritage Archaeological Report 17. Roberts, Mark, Christopher Stringer, and S. Parfitt. 1994. A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature 369:311–13. Roche, H., J.-P. Brugal, A. Delagnes, C. S. Feibel, S. Harmand, M. Kibunjia, S. Prat, and P.-J. Texier. 2003. Les sites arche´ologiques plio-ple´istoce`nes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya: Bilan synthe´tique 1997–2001. Comptes Rendus Paleovol 2:663–73. [RGK] Roe, D. A. 1982. Transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic, with particular reference to Britain. In The transition from Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the origin of modern humans, ed. A. Ronen, 177–90. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Roebroeks, Wil. 1988. From find scatters to early hominid behaviour: A study of Middle Palaeolithic riverside settlements at Maastricht-Belvedere, The Netherlands. Leiden: University of Leiden. Roebroeks, Wil, and Raymond Corbey. 2001. Biases and double standards in palaeoanthropology. In Studying human origins: Disciplinary history and epistemology, ed. Raymond Corbey and Wil Roebroeks, 67–76. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Roebroeks, Wil, and Clive Gamble, eds. 1999. The Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Europe. Leiden: Universlty of Leiden. Roebroeks, Wil, and M. Mussi. 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 Bp. Leiden: University of Leiden. Roebroeks, Wil, and Alain Tuffreau. 1999. Palaeoenvironment and settlement patterns of the Northwest European Middle Paleolithic. In The Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Europe, ed. W. Roebroeks and C. Gamble, 3–22. Leiden: University of Leiden. Roebroeks, Wil, and Thijs van Kolfschoten, ed. 1995a. The earliest occupation of Europe: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993. Leiden: Univerity of Leiden. ———. 1995b. The earliest occupation of Europe: A reappraisal of artefactual and chronological evidence. In The earliest occupation of Europe, ed. Wil Roebroeks and Thijs van Kolfschoten, 297–315. Leiden: University of Leiden. Rolland, Nicolas. 1981. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability. Man 16:15–42. ———. 1988. Observations on some Middle Paleolithic time series in southern France. In Upper Pleistocene prehistory

742

of western Eurasia, ed. H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, 161–80. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, University Monograph 54. Rolland, Nicolas, and Harold L. Dibble. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–99. Ronen, Avraham, ed. 1982a. The transition from Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the origin of modern man. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. ———. 1982b. Concluding discussion. In The transition from Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 320–30. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Sackett, James R. 1981. From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French Paleolithic research. In Towards a history of archaeology, ed. G. Daniel, 85–99. London: Thames and Hudson. ———. 1991. Straight archaeology French-style: The phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective. In Perspectives on the past: Theoretical biases in Mediterranean hunter-gatherer research, ed. G. A. Clark, 109–39. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schick, Kathy D. 1994. The Movius Line reconsidered: Perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of eastern Asia. In Integrative paths to the past: Paleoanthropological advances in honor of F. Clark Howell, ed. R. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Schick, K. B., and J. D. Clark. 2000. The Acheulean and the Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. In The Acheulean and the Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia, ed. J. de Heinzelin, J. D. Clark, K. B. Schick, and H. Gilbert, 123–81. Tervuren: Muse´e Royal de l’Afrique Centrale. [RGK] Schreve, D. C. 2000. The vertebrate assemblage from Hoxne, Suffolk. In The Quaternary of Norfolk and Suffolk: Field guide, ed. S. G. Lewis, C. A. Whiteman, and R. C. Preece, 155–63. London: Quaternary Research Association. [JM, HF] ———. 2001. Differentiation of the British Late Middle Pleistocene interglacials: The evidence from mammal biostratigraphy. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:1577–82. [JM, HF] Schreve, D. C., D. R. Bridgland, P. Allen, J. J. Blackford, C. P. Gleed-Owen, H. I. Griffiths, D. H. Keen, and M. J. White. 2002. Sedimentology, palaeontology, and archaeology of Late Middle Pleistocene River Thames terrace deposits at Purfleet, Essex, UK. Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 1423–64. [JM, HF] Schvoerer, M., J. Rouanet, H. Navailles, and A. Debe´nath. 1977. Datation absolue par thermoluminescence de restes ante´wu¨rmiens de l’Abri Suard a La Chaise-de-Vouthon (Charente). Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Sciences, Paris 284:1979–82. Schwarcz, Henry, Bonnie Blackwell, and Andre´ Debe´nath. 1983. Absolute dating of hominids and Paleolithic artefacts

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

of the cave of La Chaise de Vouthon (Charente), France. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:4–513. Schwarcz, Henry, W. Buhay, Rainer Gru¨n, Mary C. Stiner, Steven L. Kuhn, and G. H. Miller. 1990–91. Absolute dating of sites in coastal Lazio. Quaternaria Nova 1:51–68. Schwarcz, Henry, and Andre´ Debe´nath. 1979. Datation absolue de restes humains de La Chaise-de-Vouthon (Charente), au moyen du de´s-equilibre des se´ries d’uranium. Compte Rendu de l’Acade´mie des Sciences, Paris 288: 1155–57. Schwarcz, Henry, and Rainer Gru¨n. 1993: Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of the Lower Industry. In The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England, ed. R. Singer, B. Gladfelter, and J. Wymer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Semaw, S., P. Renne, J. W. K. Harris, C. S. Feibel, R. L. Bernor, N. Fesseha, and K. Mowbray. 1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385:333–36. [RGK] Singer, Ronald, Bruce G. Gladfelter, and John J. Wymer, eds. 1993. The Lower Paleolithic site at Hoxne, England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Singer, R., J. Wymer, B. G. Gladfelter, and R. G. Wolff. 1973. Excavation of the Clactonian industry at the Golf Course, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39:6–74. [JM, HF] Soressi, Marie, D. Armand, F. d’Errico, H. L. Jones, E. Pubert, W. J. Rink, J.-P. Texier, and D. Vivent. 2002. Pech-de-l’Aze´ I (Carsac, Dordogne): Nouveaux travaux sur le Mouste´rien de tradition acheule´enne. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 99:1–7. Straus, L. G. 1975. A study of the Solutrean in Vasco-Cantabrian Spain. Ph.D.diss., University of Chicago. [LGS] ———. 1983. From Mousterian to Magdalenian: Cultural evolution viewed from Vasco-Cantabrian Spain and Pyrenean France. British Archaeological Reports International Series 164. ———. 1985. La collection Magnant: Un te´moin de la pre´histoire charentaise. Bulletins et Me´moires de la Socie´te´ Arche´ologique et Historique de la Charente 1985(1):21–34. [LGS] ———. 1987. Paradigm lost: A personal view of the current state of Upper Paleolithic research. Helinium 27:157–71. [LGS] ———. 1991. Paradigm found? A research agenda for the study of the Upper and Post-Paleolithic in Southwest Europe. In Perspectives on the past, ed. G. A. Clark, 56–78. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [LGS] ———. 2005. A mosaic of change: The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition as viewed from New Mexico and Iberia. In Armageddon or entente? ed. L. G. Straus, 47–67. Oxford: Quaternary International 137/Elsevier. [LGS] Straus, L. G., and G. A. Clark. 1986. La Riera Cave. Anthropological Research Papers 36. [LGS] Stringer, Christopher, and J-J. Hublin. 1999. New age esti-

Monnier The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization

mates for the Swanscombe hominid and their significance for human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 873–77. Taschini, M., and Amilcare Bietti. 1979. L’industrie lithique de Grotta Guattari au Mont Circe (Latium): Definition culturelle, typologique et chronologique du Pontinien. Quaternaria 21: 179–247. Tattersall, Ian. 1995. The fossil trail. New York: Oxford University Press. Tixier, Jacques. 1984. Pre´histoire de la pierre taille´e. 2. E´conomie du de´bitage laminaire. Paris: Cercle de Recherches et d’E´tudes Pre´historiques. Tixier, J., M.-L. Inizan, and H. Roche. 1980. Pre´histoire de la pierre taille´e. 1. Terminologie et technologie. Paris: Cercle de Recherches et d’E´tudes Pre´historiques. Tostevin, Gilbert B. 1996. Core reduction, chaıˆne ope´ratoire, and other methods: The epistemologies of different approaches to lithic analysis. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Anthropology, San Juan, P.R. ———. 2003a. A quest for antecedents: A comparison of the Terminal Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of the Levant. In More than meets the eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East, ed. Nigel GoringMorris and Anna Belfer-Cohen, 54–67. Oxford: Oxbow Press. ———. 2003b. Attribute analysis of the lithic technologies of Stra´nska´ ska´la II-III in their regional and inter-regional context. In Stra´nska´ ska´la: Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, ed. Jirˇi Svoboda and Ofer Bar-Yosef, 77–118. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Tozzi, C. 1970. La Grotta di S. Agostino (Gaeta). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 25:3–87. Trigger, B. G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tryon, C. A., and S. McBrearty. 2002. Tephrostratigraphy and the Acheulean to Middle Stone Age transition in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 42: 211–35. [RGK] Tuffreau, Alain. 1982. The transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in northern France. In The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 137–49. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. ———. 1996. Avant-propos. In L’Acheule´en dans l’Ouest de l’Europe: Actes du Colloque de Saint-Riquier, ed. Alain Tuffreau. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. ———. 2001a. Le gisement de Cagny-la-Garenne II (Somme): Introduction. In L’Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. ———. 2001b. Le gisement de Cagny-l’Epinette: Introduction. In L. Acheule´en dans la valle´e de la Somme: Donne´es

743

re´centes, ed. A. Tuffreau. Lille: Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. Tuffreau, Alain, and Pierre Antoine. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: Continental Northwestern Europe. In The earliest occupation of Europe: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), ed. W. Roebroeks and T. van Kolfschoten, 147–64. Leiden: University of Leiden. Tuffreau, Alain, Pierre Antoine, Philip G. Chase, Harold L. Dibble, Brooks Ellwood, Thijs van Kolfschoten, Agnes Lamotte, Michel Laurent, Shannon McPherron, Anne-Marie Moigne, and Andre´ V. Munaut. 1995. Le gisement acheule´en de Cagny-l’Epinette (Somme). Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Franc¸aise 92:169–91. Tuffreau, Alain, Agnes Lamotte, and Jean-Luc Marcy. 1997. Land-use and site function in Acheulean complexes of the Somme Valley. World Archaeology 29:225–41. Tuffreau, Alain, and Jean Somme´. 1988. Le gisement pale´olithique moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais): Stratigraphie, environnement, ´etudes arche´ologiques. Me´moires de 1a Socie´te´ Pre´historique de France 21. Utrilla, Pilar, Juan Vı´lchez, Lourdes Montes, Ignacio Barandiara´n, Jesu´s Altuna, Enrique Gil, and Pilar Lo´pez. 1987. La cueva de Pen˜a Miel, Nieva de Cameros, La Rioja. Excavaciones Arqueolo´gicas en Espan˜a 154. Valladas, He´le`ne, J. P. Chadelle, Jean-Michel Geneste, J. Joron, Lilianne Meignen, and Pierre-Jean Texier. 1987. Datations par la thermoluminescence de gisements mouste´riens du Sud de la France. L’Anthropologie 91:211–26. Valladas, He´le`ne, Norbert Mercier, Jean Louis Joron, Shannon P. McPherron, Harold L. Dibble, and Michel Lenoir. 2003. TL dates for the Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:144–50. Valoch, Karel. 1982. The Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition in Czechoslovakia. In The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern man, ed. A. Ronen, 193–201. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Vega Toscano, L. G., L Raposo, and Manuel Santonja. 1999. Environments and settlement in the Middle Paleolithic of the Iberian peninsula. In The Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Europe, ed. W. Roebroeks and C. Gamble, 23–48. Leiden: University of Leiden. Villa, Paola. 1991. Middle Pleistocene prehistory in southwestern Europe: The state of our knowledge and ignorance. Journal of Anthropological Research 47:193–218. Warren, S. Hazzledine. 1926. The classification of the Lower Paleolithic with special reference to Essex. Transactions of the Southeast Union of the Scientific Society 31:38–50. White, M. J., and N. Ashton. 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in north-western Europe. Current Anthropology 44:598–609. [JM, HF]

744

White, M. J., and S. Plunkett, eds. 2004. Miss Layard excavates: A Palaeolithic site at Foxhall Road, Ipswich, 1903–1905. Liverpool: Western Academic and Specialist Press. [JM, HF] Wymer, John, and Ronald Singer. 1993. Flint industries and human activity. In The Lower Paleolithic site at Hoxne, England, ed. R. Singer, B. Gladfelter, and J. Wymer, 74–128. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006

Wymer, John J., Bruce G. Gladfelter, and Ronald Singer. 1993. The industries at Hoxne and the Lower Paleolithic of Britain. In The Lower Paleolithic site at Hoxne, England, ed. R. Singer, B. Gladfelter, and J. Wymer, 218–24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wynn, T. 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:389–438. [RGK]