Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T12:58:29.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Construction of Morphological Diversity: A Study of Mousterian Implement Retouching at Combe Grenal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In this chapter we present a study of flake retouching on one level of the Combe Grenal, located in the Black Perigord of France. We use the results to reflect on existing explanations of Middle Paleolithic tool production and diversity. Our evidence indicates the nonstaged and multilinear character of implement production and the apparent importance of blank form in influencing the pattern of retouch distribution and intensity. This inference implies that models of the implement classes, as stages of reduction, are not a viable depiction of the retouching technology represented in Layer 21. Instead, our reconstruction of scraper retouching demonstrated that each of Bordes's implement types has multiple histories of retouching. Some implements received little retouch, whereas others were intensively retouched; retouch sometimes changed a specimen to such an extent that the type into which it was classified was altered, whereas other specimens remained typologically stable even though they received additional retouch. The possibility that different specimens belonging to a type had different histories is a reason that typological groups may make poor analytical units for many technological questions.

INTRODUCTION

Questions of artifact reduction have been central to a number of high-level debates in Paleolithic archaeology. In particular, there have been extensive discussions about whether the traditional practice of analyzing retouched flakes by classifying them into a number of normative categories, called implement types, is valid or problematic, and whether those types represent tools of distinctly different designs or arbitrary divisions in sets of morphologically variable objects.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
, pp. 106 - 135
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binford, Lewis R. 1973. Interassemblage Variability – The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–54. Duckworth, Surrey.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R.. 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Antiquity 68(2):238-95.Google Scholar
Bisson, M. S. 2001. Interview with a Neanderthal: An Experimental Approach for Reconstructing Scraper Production Rules, and Their Implications for Imposed Form in Middle Palaeolithic Tools. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11(2):165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. 1968. The Old Stone Age. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, L. 1997. Le Moustérien de type Quina : Définition d'une nou-velle entité technique. Thèse de Doctorat de l'Université de Paris X, Nanterre.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., and Turq, A.. 2004. Ramification des chaînes opératoires: Une spécificité du Moustérien?Paleo 16:37–48.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Chris. 2002. An Index of Invasiveness for the Measurement of Unifacial and Bifacial Retouch: A Theoretical, Experimental and Archaeological Verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debenath, A., and Dibble, H. L.. 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Volume One. Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1984. Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction?Journal of Field Archaeology 11:431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987a. Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, edited by Soffer, O., pp. 33–45. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987b. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52(1):109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1988a. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction Patterns. In L'Homme de Néandertal, vol 4, La Technique, Actes du Colloque International de Liége, L'Homme de Neandertal, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1988b. Typological Aspects of Reduction and Intensity of Utilization of Lithic Resources in the French Mousterian. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by Dibble, H. and Montet-White, A., pp. 181–94. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1991. Rebuttal to Close. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:264–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1995. Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, Harold L.., and Rolland, Nicholas. 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, edited by Dibble, H. L. and Mellars, P., pp. 1–28. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. 1993. Mousterian Tool Selection, Reduction and Discard at Ghar, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:205–18.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter. 1994. The End of Points. In Archaeology in the North, edited by Sullivan, M., Brockwell, S., and Webb, A., pp. 72–83. North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val. 2005. Australia's Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. British Archaeological Reports. International Monograph Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of Kuhn's Geometric Index of Reduction and the Flat-Flake Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1015–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Clarkson, Chris. 2007. Retouched Notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the Reduction Hypothesis. American Antiquity 72:176–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdaway, S., McPherron, S., and Roth, B.. 1996. Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites. American Antiquity 61:377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990. A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1992. Blank Morphology and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57:115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, Paul. 1992. Technological Change in the Mousterian of Southwest France. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by Dibble, H. L. and Mellars, P., pp. 29–43. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, Nicholas. 1981. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Variability. Man 16:15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, Nicholas, and Dibble, Harold L.. 1990. A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. American Antiquity 55:480–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiébaut, C. 2003. L'industrie lithique de la couche III du Roc de Marsal: Le probléme de l'attribution d'une série lithique au Moustérien à Denticulés. Paléo 15:141–68.Google Scholar
Turq, A. 1989. Approche technologique et économique du facies Moustérien de type Quina: Etude préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86:244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turq, A. 1992. Raw Material and Technological Studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by Dibble, H. L. and Mellars, P., pp. 75–85. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Verjux, C. 1988. Les Denticules Mousteriens. In L'Homme de Néandertal, Vol 4., La Technique, Actes du Colloque International de Liége, L'Homme de Neandertal, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Verjux, C., and Rousseau, D.-D.. 1986. La retouche Quina: Une mise au point. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 11–12:404–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×