bifaces (stone tools)

Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies

Edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble

University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Copyright © 2003By the University of Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology3260 South Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

All Rights Reserved

First Edition

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies / edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-931707-42-1 (alk. paper) 1. Tools, Prehistoric. 2. Stone implements. 3. Projectile points.

4. Paleolithic period. I. Soressi, Marie. II. Dibble,Harold Lewis.

III. University of Pennsylvania. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.GN799.T6 M85 2002 930.1'2--dc21

2002008942

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

This book is dedicated to the memory of

John Desmond Clark

one of the truly great pioneers of world prehistory.

ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1 BIFACE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND VARIABILITY IN THE ACHEULEAN

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN THE MIDDLE AWASH REGION OF THE AFAR RIFT,ETHIOPIA

Kathy Schick and J. Desmond Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 ACHEULEAN BIFACES AND EARLY HUMAN BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS IN EAST

AFRICA AND SOUTH INDIA

Michael P. Noll and Michael D. Petraglia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3 TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN THE BIFACES FROM

TABUN CAVE, ISRAEL

Shannon P. McPherron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4 BIFACIAL TOOLS IN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC OF THE CAUCASUS

AND THEIR CONTEXTS

Vladimir Doronichev and Lubov Golovanova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5 BIFACES AND RAW MATERIALS: FLEXIBLE FLAKING IN THE BRITISH EARLY

PALEOLITHIC

Nick Ashton and Mark White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6 MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORT, AND USE OF MOUSTERIAN BIFACES: A CASE

STUDY FROM THE PÉRIGORD (FRANCE)Marie Soressi and Maureen A. Hays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

CONTENTS

7 FROM BIFACES TO LEAF POINTS

Janusz K. Kozlowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

8 SOLUTREAN LAUREL LEAF POINT PRODUCTION AND RAW MATERIAL

PROCUREMENT DURING THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM IN SOUTHERN

EUROPE: TWO EXAMPLES FROM CENTRAL FRANCE AND PORTUGAL

Thierry Aubry, Miguel Almeida, Maria João Neves, and Bertrand Walter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

9 THE PITFALLS OF USING BIFACES AS CULTURAL MARKERS

Marcel Otte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

10 DEFORMATION MODELING: A METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

HANDAXE MORPHOLOGY AND VARIABILITY

April Nowell, Kyoungju Park, Dimitris Metaxas, and Jinah Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

11 RETHINKING THE ROLE OF BIFACIAL TECHNOLOGY IN PALEOINDIAN

ADAPTATIONS ON THE GREAT PLAINS

Douglas B. Bamforth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

12 TETHERED TO STONE OR FREEDOM TO MOVE: FOLSOM BIFACE TECHNOLOGY

IN REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Jack L. Hofman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

13 TIME AS SEQUENCE,TYPE AS IDEAL: WHOLE-OBJECT MEASUREMENT OF

BIFACE SIZE AND FORM IN MIDWESTERN NORTH AMERICA

Michael J. Shott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

14 AN OVERVIEW, WITH SOME THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY OF BIFACES

Derek A. Roe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

This volume is based on the proceedings of a symposium held in Philadelphia dur-ing the 2000 meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. The symposiumwas entitled “From Coups-de-Poing to Clovis: Multiple Approaches to Biface

Variability”and included most,but not all,of the authors represented here. Unfortunately,some of the presenters to that symposium were unable to contribute their work to thepresent volume.

The reason for organizing this symposium is that bifacial technology represents oneof the most widespread, though highly varied, lithic technologies known. Bifaces havebeen used by archaeologists to document the evolution of human technology and cogni-tion during the Pleistocene and as index fossils for a myriad of cultures in both the Oldand New Worlds.They also provide some of the most convincing dimensions of stylisticvariability observable in stone tool assemblages.

While it could be tempting to treat bifaces as a single technological unity, there isevery reason to think that biface technology is every bit as complex and varied as anyother chipped-stone technology. From the first African industries to the very recent cul-tures of the New World, each bifacial technology deals with some of the same technicalconstraints but at the same time each demonstrates subtle variation in skill and purpose.And, as with every other class of lithic evidence, there are a number of ways to approachthat variability analytically. Up to the present, there has not been any attempt to providea comprehensive overview of bifacial technology, in spite of its importance as a major andwidespread phenomenon.

The contributors to this volume represent several different countries and includesome of the major figures in modern lithic research.Their contributions cover a broadrange of topics, utilizing material from the earliest Acheulian of the Old World to relative-ly recent industries of the New World.

Some of the chapters presented here deal directly with the origin and evolution ofspecific bifacial technologies. These studies range from the contribution by J. DesmondClark and Kathy Schick on early African industries; Vladimir Doronichev and LubovGolovanova on material from the Caucasus; and Janusz Kozlowski on leaf point industriesfrom Central Europe.

The interpretation of biface formal variability is another major theme seen in manychapters, especially those by Nick Ashton and Mark White on British Lower Paleolithicbifaces; Michael Noll and Michael Petraglia, who compare African and Indian early biface

PREFACE

industries; the study by Shannon McPherron of Acheulian bifaces from the Near Easternsite of Tabun; and the chapter by Shott on the nature of variability among hafted projec-tile points from central Illinois. Finally, Marcel Otte presents a broad review of bifacialvariability.

A related issue concerns the adaptive significance of bifacial technology in terms ofmanufacture, function, raw material economy, transport, and group mobility. ThierryAubry and his colleagues compare Portuguese and French Solutrean manufacture, whileDouglas Bamforth and Jack Hofman each present studies of Paleoindian assemblages fromthe Great Plains of North America. Marie Soressi and Maureen Hays provide a detailedfunctional and technological study to a series of Mousterian bifaces from the site ofGrotte XVI in southern France.

While all of the chapters utilize a variety of analytical methods to study bifacial vari-ability, the chapter by April Nowell and her colleagues presents a new and sophisticatedmethod for analyzing morphology. They use this method to address the question of stan-dardization of biface shape.

Finally, we are especially grateful to Derek Roe for providing the concluding chapterto this volume,which includes not only his comments on the individual chapters,but alsoa wealth of personal insights on the study of Paleolithic bifaces.

This book thus presents coverage on most of the major biface technologies known toprehistoric archaeologists. Is the scope too large? What is the point, after all, of compar-ing such disparate things as Mississippian projectile points and Acheulian handaxes?Technologically, morphologically, and functionally, they must represent different thingsmade by two or more different species of hominids. But as important as it is to under-stand differences among different lithic types and industries, it is equally important tounderstand what they have may have in common. The one way to do that is to bringtogether such a wide variety of studies.

We also have tried to bring together scholars who represent different historical andintellectual traditions. Although archaeologists recognize and deal with variability in thearchaeological record, we are less likely to confront variability in terms of how differentspecialists approach their material and what kinds of questions they ask of it. Not manyNorth American archaeologists wonder whether or not the lithic assemblages they workon reflect modern cultural ways of behavior. By the same token, Old World scholars arenot often confronted with arguments concerning resource specialized economy andmobility. Of course we all have a lot in common, but there are a lot of differences too,and much to learn from each other.

We are also hoping to fill an important void in lithic studies in general. As stated ear-lier, there has not been a comprehensive treatment on bifacial technology, in spite of thefact that it is without doubt one of the longest-lived human technologies documented inthe archaeological record. From the very beginning of the discipline, bifaces haveassumed an importance in archaeological inquiry well beyond the proportion of the lith-ic record that they represent. For example, where they exist—even if it is in smallabsolute numbers—bifaces almost automatically become the index fossil of their associ-ated archaeological industry: handaxes in the Acheulian and Mousterian of Acheulian,Laurel leaves in the Solutrean, or Clovis and Folsom points, among others, in thePaleoindian. With such widespread importance given these artifacts, it is time to bringtogether a collection of chapters having them as a common theme.

Preface xiii

By making the scope large, this volume can provide insights that could not be reachedfrom a single temporal or geographical perspective. It presents examples of how bifacialtechnologies changed through time and according to different environments and to theevolution of human cognitive and physical abilities. And it gives an opportunity toaddress the issue of how bifacial technology reflects different technological and socialsystem of past hunters-gatherers.

It is only a start, however, and the reader should be warned that he or she will not fin-ish this book knowing “the answer” about bifacial technology, or more correctly, bifacialtechnologies. We still have a long way to go before we get to that point,but we hope thatthis volume will make a contribution toward it.

We would like to thank the enthusiastic participation of each author to the volume.We all owe a debt of gratitude to F. Clark Howell, Richard R. Davis and Paola Villa, whooffered their insightful comments on the symposium and volume chapters.

Equally, we thank the organizers of the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology for allowing us to hold this symposium. Thanks are also due toMaire Crowley for her help in preparing the manuscripts. Special thanks are due to WaldaMetcalf, Matthew Manieri, Flint Dibble, and everyone in the Publications Department ofthe University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Spring 2003 Marie Soressi

Harold L. Dibble

xiv Preface

Whereas Acheulean handaxes have received much attention in the literature, latePleistocene bifaces have been relatively neglected due to the current focus on Levalloisdebitage. Bifaces are a diagnostic feature of the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, aMousterian facies considered to be a forerunner of industries transitional to the UpperPaleolithic. Based on the analysis of raw material sources, technology, and use-wearof Mousterian bifaces from Grotte XVI, a cave site dated to approximately 65,000years ago, there is strong evidence to suggest that these Mousterian bifaces were care-fully designed and maintained implements that were transported from one locationto another.

Bifaces are a diagnostic feature of the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (Peyrony1920; Bordes 1961).This industry is considered by several authors (Mellars 1969,1988, 1996; Peyrony 1948; Bordes 1972; Harrold 1983, 1989; Pelegrin, 1990,

1995:261–65) as a late Mousterian technocomplex, forerunner to the Châtelperronian, anindustry transitional to the Upper Paleolithic in western Europe. How this changeoccurred is not completely clear. Some believe that the Châtelperronian was the productof acculturation, resulting from contact with the first Aurignacians (Demars and Hublin1989; Mellars, 1989, 1999; Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000). Others see it as an inde-pendent development from the local Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MAT) (Harrold1983, 1989; Pelegrin 1990, 1995; Rigaud 2000; d’Errico et al. 1998; Zilhao and d’Errico1999).The organization and use of the bifacial technology characteristic of the MAT isalso poorly understood (however see Geneste, 1985).An analysis of raw material sources,technology, and use-wear of MAT bifaces dated to approximately 65,000 years ago fromGrotte XVI, a cave site located in southwestern France (Guibert et al. 1999) are presented.

Bifaces from Grotte XVI were analyzed to test a model of expedient tool technology.Binford (1979, 1989) characterized early modern humans as using a poorly organizedtechnology that tends “toward the expedient manufacture, use, and abandonment ofinstrumental items in the immediate context of use” (Binford 1977:34).This idea, in com-bination with an interpretation of faunal remains showing that early modern humans hadlimited predatory abilities (Binford 1981), has been used to argue that Neandertal soci-eties were much less complex than modern ones (Binford 1981,1989;White 1982). Fromthis, it was further concluded that there was a difference, even a clear inferiority, in the

6MANUFACTURE,TRANSPORT,AND USE OF MOUSTERIAN BIFACES:

A CASE STUDY FROM THE PÉRIGORD (FRANCE)

Marie Soressi and Maureen A. Hays

125

126 Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies

cognitive abilities of Neanderthals when compared with early anatomically modernhumans (Binford 1982, 1989; Noble and Davidson 1996; Foley 1995; Stringer and Gamble1993).

According to Binford (Binford 1977, 1979, 1989), an expedient technology implies:

a. A unity of location “the debris from manufacture, and the by-products of activitiesin which tools were used should be spatially associated” (Binford 1977: 34),

b. A unity of time: stone tools were quickly manufactured to satisfy an immediate need, and were quickly discarded after the task was accomplished.

c. A lack of standardization: tools are not characterized by any consistent mor-photechnical features.

Figure 6.1 Location of Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France). Santonian, Campanianand Chalcedony are different sources of flint. A and B show variations in heightfrom Grotte XVI to the nearest possible outcrops of Campanian andChalcedonious flint.

Grotte XVI Assemblage

Grotte XVI (Figure 6.1) is a large karstic cavity located in the Le Conte Cliffs of theDordogne region of southwest France. Located near the better-known Vaufrey Cave (orGrotte XV, Rigaud 1988), the site is 120 meters above the valley floor of the Céou, a smalltributary that flows into the Dordogne river. Excavations began at Grotte XVI in 1985,and continued through the summer excavations of 2001, under the direction of Jean-Philippe Rigaud and Jan Simek, as a cooperative venture of the Institut de Préhistoire etde Géologie du Quaternaire at the University of Bordeaux and the Department ofAnthropology at the University of Tennessee.

There are several Middle and Upper Paleolithic levels preserved in the Grotte XVIstratigraphy. These include: various Mousterian, MAT, Châtelperronian, Aurignacian,Gravettian, Solutrean, and final Magdalenian levels (Rigaud 1998, Rigaud et al. 2002).TheMAT level studied here is located in and around a remarkably well-preserved combustionarea (Rigaud et al., 1995; Karkanas et al. 2002). The heated sediment from this area hasbeen dated to approximately 64,600 ± 3,100 years BP (weighted average) by thermolu-minescence dating (Guibert et al. 1999). Thirty seven one-meter squares have been exca-vated, and yielded approximately 2500 lithic pieces larger than 1.5 cm. Nineteen bifaceswere recovered, 13 of which were complete. These 19 bifaces are the focus of this study.

A Multi-Disciplinary MethodologyIn order to test a model of expedient tool technology using the Mousterian bifaces, a

multi-disciplinary approach was applied to understand: raw material type and origin,technology, and use-wear features.

Raw Material AnalysisThe analysis to determine the geographic origin of the raw materials has benefited

from the years of research that have been conducted in this area (Demars 1982; Rigaud1982; Morala 1984; Geneste 1985; Séronie-Vivien and Séronie-Vivien 1987; Turq 2000).We employed both macroscopic and microscopic observations in this characterization.Macroscopic observations aimed to describe color, zonation, texture (using Dunham’s1962 classification), cortex (color, thickness, internal contact with the silicified zone, ero-sion), and give a preliminary description of the fossils visible to the naked eye.Microscopic observations using 10x to 70x magnifications allowed a precise analysis ofthe texture and the paleontological content. Using these criteria, combined with knowl-edge of flint formations in the area, we were able to determine the geological level orstrata of origin. The nearest possible outcrop for the raw material was then located, andthe distance to the site was calculated.

Technological AnalysisTechnological procedures described here are based on knowledge of conchoidal frac-

ture properties. Curvature of ripples on the removals, hackle marks, orientation of thetrapezoidal microremovals, and observations of scar ridges were used to ascertain the

Manufacture,Transport, and Use of Mousterian Bifaces 127

removal direction and chronology (Dauvois 1976:165–193; see also Cotterell andKamminga 1979: 106–111):

• The ripples or undulations follow the direction of the fracture front initiated at theimpact point.• Hackle fractures or “lances” are perpendicular to the tangent of the front fracture curvature.• The orientation of trapezoidal microremovals is the same as that of the initial frac-ture; the microremoval origination is narrower than the termination.• Hackle fracture glaze and chains of trapezoidal microremovals on the limits of ascar indicate which scar was the last produced.• When hackle marks or trapezoidal microremovals are absent on a scar ridge, thetermination of the last scar is abruptly curved just before the separating ridge.

Previous experimental work was used to define the morphometric characteristics of bifa-cial technology debris (e.g., Newcomer 1971; Callahan 1979; Crabtree 1972; Wittaker1994).

Use-wear Analysis

This study utilized the high-magnification approach to microwear analysis, oftenreferred to as the Keeley method, after the work done by Lawrence Keeley (1980). High-magnification microwear analysis involves the optical microscopic study at a wide rangeof magnifications (up to 500X) of polishes and striations that develop on the edges ofstone tools as the direct result of use. High-magnification microwear analysis comple-ments, rather than replaces low-magnification microwear analysis. It emphasizes theassessment of use polishes and striations but does not overlook the interpretive potentialof the microscars and edge rounding, that are the foci of low-magnification studies.

The bifaces were cleaned in a dilute NaOH solution.A metallurgical binocular micro-scope, with an incident-light attachment, and 5x, 10x, 20x, and 50x objectives with a 10xoculars was employed to assess use-wear damage. Attributes such as scar type and edgerounding were first viewed at 50x magnification. The entire piece was then scanned forpolish and striations. These were generally located on the implement edge using 100xmagnification. After the polish was located, magnifications up to 200x were used to eval-uate the polish type and to interpret function. The identification of microtraces wasmade with reference to an experimental collection (Hays 1998). Experiments focusedon general prehistoric activities: projection, cutting, scraping, graving, boring, and wedg-ing of various materials.

ResultsTo investigate the expedient technology model, the concepts of “unity of location”

and “unity of time” were addressed. Did manufacture, use, and abandonment of thebifaces take place at the same location? And, were the bifaces manufactured quickly tofulfill an immediate need, and then abandoned after the task was accomplished?

First,“unity of location”was assessed using the raw material analyses.Proximity to thesite and availability of raw material were determined. Next, the manufacture locationwas determined through an analysis of the flaking debris. “Unity of time” was addressedby an analysis conducted to determine episodes of sharpening and use.


“Unity of Location”

Biface Raw Material Type and Origin

Flint is available around the site in Coniacian strata (Rigaud 1982; Astruc 1990;Turqet al. 1999. It is blond in color (2.5 Y 5/2 on the Munsell chart), with a matte glitter, andit is found in small (<25 cm), oval or oblong nodules. It has an isometric cortex (1–5 mm)with a sharp inferior limit. The siliceous matrix is often homogeneous and has a mud-stone texture. Sponge spicules, bryozoaires, and a scarcity of foraminifer are the princi-pal paleontologic characteristics of this local flint (Séronie-Vivien and Séronie-Vivien1987:74).

An important source of chalcedonious flint is located on the Dome plateau 6 km awayfrom the site (Rigaud 1982; Astruc 1990; Figure 6.1). This lacustrine Oligocen depositwas formed in a specific location (Salomon and Astruc 1992). These silicifications arepresent in tabular form ranging from 0.70 to 2.5 meters thick. The color (from white andto red, often translucent), as well as the texture, and the homogeneity are highly vari-able. The cortex, when it is present, is very fine and irregular (Turq 2000). Its lacustrineorigin has a most recognizable feature: the presence of Charophyte oogone and lacustrinesnails (Demars 1994). Because this chalcedonious flint outcrop is upstream on theDordogne river from Grotte XVI, blocks could have been picked up in the river 2 kmaway from the site.

An outcrop of Campanian flint is located 7 km from the site in the Belvès area(Dubreuilh et al. 1988; Turq 2000;Figure 6.1). This brown flint (10 YR 3/1 on the Munsellchart), with a greasy glitter, is found in oval, oblong, or twisted nodules between 10 and30 cm long. The cortex is friable, generally less than 1-cm thick, with a contorted (“foam-flecked”) inferior limit. The homogeneity is variable, and the texture is wakestone topackstone. Large foraminifera such as Subalveolina dordonica major or Orbitoides tis-soti, are characteristics of this outcrop (Séronie-Vivien and Séronie-Vivien 1987:76–77).

Raw material analysis of the Grotte XVI bifaces (Table 6.1) indicates that four of thebifaces were made out of chalcedonious flint;of these, two have cortex. Because this cor-tex is fresh, we conclude that they were manufactured from a raw material located atleast 6 km away. The raw material used to produce two other bifaces, for which we haveno indication of cortex erosion, may have been gathered from the Dordogne river, just 2km from the site. Campanian flint was used to produce an additional six bifaces. Theflint used to make the last seven bifaces is different from the raw materials previouslydescribed. Its origin is still unknown. It may be a Santonian flint for which the nearestoutcrops are located on the other bank of the Dordogne, 3 km to the north (Figure 6.1).Two bifaces were manufactured on the local Coniacian flint. Therefore, 16 of the 18bifaces studied were manufactured from raw materials not found at the site or in theimmediate vicinity of the site.

Biface Location of Manufacture

To determine if these bifaces were manufactured at the site, or were instead import-ed in finished form into the site, the artifact assemblage was analyzed to identify manu-facturing debris. If these bifaces were produced on site, the characteristic debris (fromthe same raw material) should:

Manufacture, Transport, and Use of Mousterian Bifaces 129


• be knapped with soft-hammer percussion (Ohnuma & Bergman, 1982;Wenban-Smith, 1989, 2000; Pelegrin, 1995:20–3),

• possess curvature indicative of bifacial thinning flakes (Newcomer 1971; Geneste 1985:244-245 ; Callahan 1979; Crabtree 1972).

Two characteristic bifacial thinning flakes are present in the assemblage. One waspossibly made of Campanien flint, the other one of chalcedonious flint. However, bothare too large to be from the manufacture of even the largest biface in the assemblage.They are almost as long as the longest bifaces (2 mm and 6 mm difference;see Figure 6.2).These large biface thinning flakes were probably imported separately, and are not evi-dence of biface manufacture at the site. It is also the case that few retouch flakes are pres-ent in the assemblage. They are small relative to the biface dimensions. It is difficult todistinguish biface retouch flakes from scraper retouch flakes; therefore, these retouchflakes could have been produced during biface as well as during scraper retouch. In sum,the Grotte XVI bifaces were made on non-local raw materials, and they were manufac-tured away from the location where they were abandoned. However, biface edges couldhave been retouched at the site.

“Unity of Time”

The second part of this analysis,“unity of time,”examined whether Mousterian bifaceswere manufactured and used to satisfy immediate needs,and then once the task was com-pleted, abandoned (Binford 1977, 1979, 1989). To investigate the expedience of bifaceuse, evidence for episodes of re-sharpening and use was analyzed.

Patterns of Re-SharpeningTo assess patterns of re-sharpening, a study of use-wear location was combined with

an analysis of the chronology of the scars that shaped the edges.Three bifaces (K11-550,I14-741, and J13-976) exhibit evidence that the piece was reshaped after it was used. Atleast one, (K11-550) was used again after a reshaping episode.The right edge (Figure 6.3)was shaped by removal series number 2, and was then used to scrape wood.The polish

Table 6.1 Biface Raw Material and Location (n = 18)

Figure 6.2 Grotte XVI, couche C. Biface thinning flake J11-597 and biface K17-855.Arrows indicate grounded zones. (Drawings by J.-G. Marcillaud)

Figu

re 6

.3

Gro

tte

XV

I,co

uch

e C

.Bif

ace

K1

1-7

77

sh

owin

g tr

ace

s of

use

on

wood (

1),

re-s

ha

rpen

ing

(sca

rs s

erie

s n

um

ber

3)

an

da

ddit

ion

al

use

on

wood (

2).

Ph

oto

mic

rogr

aph

s ta

ken

at

20

0x.

(Dra

win

g by

J.-G

.Ma

rcil

lau

d.)


is very bright, smooth, and domed. It appears mainly on the high points of the piece.What is noteworthy is that the use-wear on removal series number 2 is truncated at eachof its extremities by the next series of scars shaping the edge.This third series was thenitself used to scrape wood. Here we have evidence that the biface was shaped, used, re-shaped, and used again. On the two other bifaces (I14-741 and J13-976), there is only evi-dence for a reshaping episode after use. Use-wear areas are truncated by the reshapingscars; however, no use-wear is visible after the final reshaping (Figure 6.4).

This pattern invloving use and reshaping is visible on only a few bifaces. This is prob-ably due to the fact that this evidence requires a precise determination of scar chronolo-gy (which is not always possible) in combination with use-wear observations (which arenot always preserved) on key locations.

Biface Use on Different Materials

In addition to the bifaces previously described, ten other bifaces exhibit diagnosticmicrowear patterns. In total, five bifaces were used to work wood, four were used forbutchery, and two bifaces exhibit evidence of multiple uses, these are described below.Except for these two bifaces exhibiting multiple uses, the use-wear on these additionalbifaces is not critical to the arguments presented here (however, see Table 6.2 and Figure6.5 for descriptions of use wear features and locations).

Biface Use on Multiple Contact Materials

Two bifaces were used on two different contact materials. One biface (Figure 6.6)exhibits two separate polishes that are characteristic of bone and wood. The bone pol-ish is located on both sides of each of the edges on the area closest to the tip of thebiface. It is not continuous, which may be a factor of how polish develops on bifacialscars. The bone polish is slightly pitted and somewhat grainy in texture. It is concentrat-ed on the high points and near the edge for the most part. Occasional striations, which

Table 6.2 Angle Variation Along Each Used Edge

(2 measurements done on each edge, 3 for edges used on bone)


run parallel to the edge and may indicate a cutting motion, are associated with this pol-ish. Given the noncontinuous nature of the polish and the direction of the striations, thisbiface may have been used in butchery. The wood polish is located near the base of thebiface, but does not appear to be evidence of hafting. Given the directionality of the pol-ish, which is perpendicular to the edge, this area of the biface appears to have been usedto scrape wood. The chronology of these use events is unresolved.

On the thinner edge of the second biface, there appears to be polish characteristic ofhide or meat processing (Figure 6.5). In archaeological contexts, meat polish is oftenquite indistinguishable from hide polish. Here, the polish is relatively dull, somewhat

Figure 6.4 Grotte XVI, couche C. Biface J13-976 and I14-741 showing traces of use to scrape wood fol-lowed by resharpening on area A and B. Arrow indicates grounded zone.(Drawings by J.-G.Marcillaud.)

Figu

re 6

.5

Gro

tte

XV

I,co

uch

e C

.Bif

ace

I1

4-6

78

use

d o

n w

ood (

W)

an

d b

on

e (B

).P

hoto

mic

rogr

aph

s ta

ken

at

20

0x.

(Dra

win

g by

J.-G

.M

arc

illa

ud)


greasy in appearance, with a rough and bumpy topography.The entire surface has beenaltered, and thus there is little contrast between the polished area and the unaltered sur-face of the flint. For this reason, it was impossible to capture as a digital image. On thethicker portion of the biface, where the edge angles are much steeper, the contact mate-rial was wood. Similar to the first biface, this polish also had directionality on a slightangle perpendicular to the edge. This steep edge angle, in combination with the direc-tion of the polish, indicates a scraping motion was used. Again, the order of these useevents remains unresolved. The evidence indicates that some of these bifaces wereshaped, used, resharpened, and used again, and that a single tool might be used to worktwo different materials. This contradicts a hypothesis of expedient uses.

Biface Design The final point to be considered concerns formal tool design and whether these tools

were manufactured according to standardized morphotechnical features. This question isexamined by looking at the location of use-wear traces and the specificity of edge mor-phology.

Figure 6.6 Grotte XVI, couche C. Biface I14-550 used on hide or meat (HM) and wood (W).(Drawing by J.-G. Marcillaud)


Location and Sharpness of Used Edges Versus Unused Edges

In eight out of ten cases, use-wear traces appear on each side of the biface point; notraces were observed on the base. On nine out of ten bifaces, this use location occursopposite a thick “edge.” This edge has a flat fracture surface, so that the edge is U-shaped(see Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.4), or a steep angle greater than 75 degrees (Figure 6.4 andFigure 6.5). Additionally, on four bifaces, part of the lateral edge had been crushed orground (Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.4). Moreover, two of the bifaces have relief on a sectionof one or two faces that have also been ground (Figure 6.6). The area that was groundand the thick edge are always opposite the point where use-wear is located.

We interpret this repetitive pattern of a dulled or abraded zone without visible use-wear, opposite a sharp use zone, as a prehensile zone opposite an active zone. There isno evidence, macroscopic or microscopic, for hafting. Therefore, this pattern is interpret-ed as a hand held prehensile zone. This is similar to the pattern Hughes Plisson (Veil etal. 1994) observed on backed bifaces and scraper bifaces (keilmesser and blattförmigerschaber) from the Middle Paleolithic site of Lichtenberg in Germany.

Morphology of Used Edges

The delineation of used edges is regular, straight or convex in plan and profile view.The angles are fairly constant on each edge, and from one biface to the next, by task.Angles were measured on each used edge where lengths were greater than 30 mm. Thiswas accomplished by taking two measurements at each of the extremities,4 mm from theedge, using a caliper (Dibble & Bernard 1980).An additional measurement was taken inthe mid section of an edge when the tool was used on bone.The standard deviation forused edges over 30 mm is approximately 3°. This is relatively low given the angle values(Table 6.2). Moreover, biface edge angles are not highly variable, with a standard devia-tion within each activity varying from 4° to 8° (Table 6.3). Nonetheless, the relationshipbetween angle value and activity is highly significant according to the ANOVA test (Table6.3).

DiscussionOur analysis shows that the Grotte XVI bifaces were not manufactured at the site and thatthe raw materials used were not picked up in situ. The minimum distance from the rawmaterial outcrops to the abandonment location is rather short,but we must keep in mindthat this is a minimum distance in a straight line from the site and that the area is rich inhigh quality raw material. This last point probably implies that long distance transport ofraw material was not essential. Other neighboring sites provide evidence of transport of

Table 6.3 Edge Angles and Functional Interpretations

Figu

re 6

.7 G

rott

e X

VI,

cou

che

C.B

ifa

ce J

12

-36

use

d o

n w

ood (

use

-wea

r a

re p

rese

rved

on

ly o

n o

ne

face

).(D

raw

ing

by

J.-G

.Ma

rcil

lau

d)

MAT bifaces more than 60 km (Abri Brouillaud - Geneste 1985:357, 363; Pech-de-l’Azé I -Soressi, unpublished).Moreover, these bifaces were not discarded immediately after theirinitial use as illustrated by successive stages of re-shaping and use on the edges; and somewere used successively on two different materials. Finally, their edge morphologyappears to be standardized. Technological and use-wear analyses indicate that the bifaceshave a cutting edge with a continuous regular angle opposite to a thick and groundedzone without evidence of use-wear. There may be a consistent pattern involving an activesharp edge opposite a dull prehensile edge.

Grotte XVI bifaces do not possess any of the requisite factors that would suggest anexpedient technology. An alternative to an expedient technology is a curated technolo-gy (Binford 1973, 1977, 1979). If the biface technology used at Grotte XVI was a curatedone, what may have prompted the use of this technology by these Neandertals?

The use of one or another technology may have been directly related to global sub-sistence settlement systems (Binford 1979; see also Bettinger 1987:126-127) and timescheduling (Torrence 1983:11–13). However, maintenance and recycling can also beclosely related to raw material availability (Bamforth 1986; Dibble 1995; Khun 1991;Marks et al. 1991; Andresfsky 1994; Odell 1996). Odell (1996:53) proposed ways to “dis-criminate between the effects of raw material availability and the forces of curation.”These criterion include shattered cores and high levels of tool breakage as a means toeconomize raw materials. Grotte XVI shows none of these. In contrast, there is evidencefor the transport of tools from their manufacture location to another location for use andabandonment. In addition, occasionally single tools may have been used for multipletasks. These features are characteristic of tool curation related to mobility (Odell 1996).

ConclusionExamined in light of the criteria used to categorize assemblages as being either expe-

dient or curated (Binford 1973, 1977, 1979), the Grotte XVI Mousterian of AcheuleanTradition bifaces show evidence of having been curated, as do a number of other MiddlePaleolithic stone tools assemblages (Geneste 1985, 1989, 1990; Callow 1986:374–75;Roebroeks et al. 1988; Marks 1988; Meignen 1988; Henry 1992; Nash 1996; Conard andAdler 1997). However, it is probably not justifiable to treat expedience and curation asmutually exclusive systems (cf.Nash 1996;Shott 1996:268) primarily because both behav-iors occur in contexts associated with modern humans and also in contexts associatedwith archaic humans. Secondarily, when associated with modern humans, expedienceand curation are just planning options (Nelson 1991:65). In fact, we should be cautiousabout debating the cognitive implications for the use of either technology (see Toth 1985;Khun 1992).As Lévi-Strauss (1952:chapter 6) outlined, the definition of an “archaic” cul-ture versus a “modern”culture is situationally dependent and the observer influences thediagnostics. We may define a culture developed in a way similar to our own, i.e. signifi-cant to our system of reference, as modern.Thus, to interpret Neandertal behavior, wemust take care to explore its originalities and try to understand them in their own con-text (Liolios 1995). Future research on MAT assemblages in the same geographical con-texts with different site uses (i.e., in-situ manufacture and use) should help clarifyNeandertal regional organization of bifacial technology.

The importance of integrating different methods of analysis is worth reiteration. Thecombination of analytical techniques designed to investigate raw materials, technology,


and use provide insights into Mousterian behavior (e.g., tool mobility and re-sharpeningpatterns) that could not have been reached by one approach alone.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank the Ministry of Culture of France, the Department of the

Dordogne, and the College of Charleston Research and Development Program for con-tributing funding to this project.We would also like to thank Jean-Philippe Rigaud and JanSimek for their insights and support through each stage of this research. Additionally, wethank Marie-Roger Séronie-Vivien, Pierre-Yves Demars,André Morala and Alain Turq whoshared with us their knowledge of raw-material determination. M. Soressi equally thanksPaola Villa for her comments on early drafts of this paper. In the end, none of these analy-ses could have taken place without all of the dedicated volunteers who excavated GrotteXVI. Among those, we remember our dear friend Tomo Adachi.

ReferencesAndrefsky,W.1998 Lithics. Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Astruc, J.G.1990 Carte Géologique France (1/50 000), Feuille Gourdon (832) et Notice

Explicative. Orleans: Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minière.

Bamforth, D.1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38–50.

Bettinger, R. L.1987 Archaeological Approaches to Hunter-Gathers. Annual Review of

Anthropology 16:121–42.

Binford, L. R.1973 Interassemblage Variability:The Mousterian and the Functional Argument. In The

Explanation of Culture Change, C. Renfrew, ed. Pp. 227–54.London: Duckworth.

1977 Forty-seven Trips. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, R.V. S.Wright, ed. Pp.24–36. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies.Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–73.

1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York:Academic Press.1982 Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5–31.1989 Isolating the Transition to Cultural Adaptations: An Organizational Approach. In

The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. E.Trinkaus, ed. Pp. 18–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., and P. –Y. Demars2000 Neanderthal Contraction and Modern Human Colonization of Europe.

Antiquity 74:544–52.

Bordes, F.1961 Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134:803–10.1972 Du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieur, continuité ou discontinuité?

In Actes du Colloque Origine de l’Homme Moderne Organisé par l’UNESCO encoll. avec l’Union Internationale pour l’Étude du Quaternaire (INQUA),Paris, 2–5: 211–18.

Callahan, E.1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping: A Manual for Flint Knappers and Lithic Analysis.

Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1–79.

Callow, P.1986 Pleistocene Landscapes and the Palaeolithic Economy. In La Cotte de St.Brelade

1961–1978 Excavations by C. B. M. McBurney. P. Callow and J. Conford, eds.Pp. 365–376. Norwich: Geo Books.

Cornford, J., eds.La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961-–978 Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney.Norwich: Geo Books.

Conard, N. J., and D. S.Adler1997 Lithic Reduction and Hominids Behavior in the Middle Paleolithic of the

Rhineland. Journal of Anthropological Research 53:147–75.

Crabtree, D.1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers 28. Pocatello: Idaho State

University Museum.

Dauvois, M.1976 Précis de Dessin Dynamique et Structural des Industries Lithiques

Préhistoriques. Fanlac: CNRS.

D’errico, F., J. Zilhao, M. Julien, D. Baffier, and J. Pelegrin1998 Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence

and Its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39:S1–S44.

Demars, P. Y.1982 L’Utilisation du silex au Paléolithique Supérieur: Choix,Approvisionnement,

Circulation. L’exemple du Bassin de Brive. Cahiers du Quaternaire 5. Paris:CNRS.


1994 L’Économie du Silex au Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Nord de l’Aquitaine.Thèse de Doctorat d’État en Sciences Naturelles de l’Université de Bordeaux I.

Demars, P.Y. and Hublin, J. J.1989 La Transition Néandertaliens/Hommes de Type Modernes en Europe

Occidentale, In L’Homme de Néandertal, vol.7: l’extinction. B.Vandermeersch,B., ed. Pp. 23–38.Liège: Liège: Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de

l’Universite de Liège.

Dibble, H. L.1995 Raw Material Availability, Intensity of Utilization, and Middle Paleolithic

Assemblage Variability. In The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). H. L. Dibble and M. Lenoir, eds. Pp. 289–315. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Dibble, H. L., and M. Bernard1980 A Comparison of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques. American

Antiquity 45:857–65.

Dubreuilh J., J.-P. Capdeville, J.-P. Platel, B. Kervazo, A.Turq, J.-P. Ruhard, and A. Bambier1988 Carte Géologique France (1/50 000), Feuille Belvès (831) et Notice

Explicative. Orleans: Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières.

Dunham, R.J.1962 Classification of Carbonate Rocks According to Depositional Textures. In

Classification of Carbonates Rocks. W. E. Ham, ed. Memoire 1:108–121.Tulsa, OK: American Association Petroleum Geologists.

Foley, R.1997 Humans Before Humanity: An Evolutionary Perspective. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Geneste, J.M.1985 Analyse Lithique d’industries Moustériennes du Périgord: Une Approche

Technologique du Comportement des Groupes Humains au Paléolithique Moyen. Thèse de l’Université de Bordeaux I.

1989 Economie Des ressources Lithiques dans le Moustérien du Sud-Ouest de la France. In L’Homme de Néandertal, Vol.6 La Subsistence. M. Otte, ed.Pp.75–98. Liège: Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de l’Universite de Liège.

1990 Développement des Systèmes de Production Lithique au cours du PaléolithiqueMoyen en Aquitaine septentrionale. In Paléolithique Moyen Récent et Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien en Europe. C. Farizy, ed. Pp. 203–13. Mém. duMusée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France.

Guibert, P., F. Bechtel, M. Schvoerer, J. P. Rigaud, and J. F. Simek1999 Datations par Thermoluminescence de Sédiments Chauffés Provenant

d’une iaire de Combustion Moustérienne (Grotte XVI, Cénac et St-Julien,Dordogne, France). Revue d’Archéométrie 23:163–75.


Harrold, F. B.1983 The Châtelperroniean and the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition. In The

Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene,E.Trinkaus, ed. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series.

1989 Mousterian, Châtelperronian and Early Aurignacian in Western Europe:Continuity or Discontinuity? In The Human Revolution. Mellars, P. and C.Stringer, eds. Pp. 677–713. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hays, M.1998 A Functional Analysis of the Magdalenian Assemblage From Grotte XVI

(Dordogne, France). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Henry, D. O.1992 Transhumance During the Late Levantine Mousterian. In The Middle

Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars,eds., Pp. 143–62. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Karkanas P., J.-Ph. Rigaud, J. F. Simek, R. M.Albert, and S.Weine2002 Ash Bones and Guano: A Study of the Minerals and Phytoliths in the Sediments

of Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 29,7:721–32.

Keeley, L. H.1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use: A Microwear Analysis.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, S. L.1991 ‘Unpacking’ Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-

Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106.1992 On Planning and Curated Technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of

Anthropological Research 48:185–214.

Lévi-Strauss, C.1952 Race et Histoire. Paris: UNESCO

Liolios, D.1995 Neandertal et Sapiens Sapiens: Présupposés et Obstacles. Acta Mus. Moraviae,

Sci. Soc. 80: 3–28.

Marks,A. E.1988 The Curation of Stone Tools during the Upper Pleistocene:A View from the

Central Negev, Israel. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia.H. L. Dibble and A. Montet-White, eds., Pp. 275–286. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.


Marks,A. E., J. Shokler, and J. Zilhão1991 Raw Material Usage in the Paleolithic:The Effects of Local Availability on

Selection and Economy. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. A. Montet-White, and S. Holen, eds. Pp. 127–40. Lawrence:University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19.

Meignen, L.1988 Un exemple de comportement technologique différentiel selon les matières

premières: Marillac, couches 9 et 10. In L’Homme de Neandertal, Vol. 4, La Technique. L. Binford and J. -Ph. Rigaud, eds. Pp. 71–80. Liège: Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de l’Université de Liège.

Mellars, P1969 The Chronology of Mousterian Industries in the Périgord Region of Southwest

France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35:134–71.1988 The Chronology of the South-West French Mousterian :A Review of the Current

Debate. In L’Homme de Neandertal, Vol. 4, La Technique, L. Binford and J.-Ph. Rigaud, eds. Pp. 97–119. Liège: Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de l’Université de Liège.

1989 Technological Changes across the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition:Economic, Social and Cognitive Perspectives. In The Human Revolution, Mellars,P.and C.Stringer, eds. Princeton:Princeton University Press,pp.339–65.

1996 The Neanderthal Legacy. An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1999 The Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40:341–50.

Morala,A.1984 Périgordien et Aurignacien en Haut-Agenais. Etude D’ensembles Lithiques.

Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique, École des hautes Études en Sciences Sociales de Toulouse, n. 7.

Nash, S. E.1996 Is Curation a Useful Heuristic? In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human

Prehistory, G. Odell, ed. Pp. 81–99. New York: Plenum Press.

Nelson, M. C.1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and

Theory,Vol. 3, M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 57–100.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Newcomer, M.1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology

3:85–94.

Noble,W,. and I. Davidson1996 Human Evolution, Language and Mind:A Psychological and Archaeological

Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Odell, G. H.1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools:

Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, G. Odell, ed. Pp. 51–80.New York: Plenum Press.

Ohnuma, K., and C. Bergman1982 Experimental Studies in the Determination of Flaking Mode. Bulletin of the

Institute of Archaeology 19:161–70.

Pelegrin, J.1990 Observations Technologiques sur Quelques Séries du Châtelperronien et du

MTA B du sud-ouest de la France: Une Hypothèse d’Évolution. In Paléolithique Moyen Récent et Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien en Europe.Farizy, C., ed. Pp. 195–202 Paris: CNRS.

1995 Technologie Lithique, le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Côte (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire, 20. Paris : CNRS.

Peyrony, D.1920 Le Moustérien ses faciès. Association Française pour l’avancement des

Sciences 44th session, Strasbourg, Pp. 1–2.1948 Une Mise au Point au Sujet de L’industrie de L’abri Audit et de Celle de

Châtelperron, Bulletins de la Société Préhistorique Française 45:34–5.

Rigaud, J.-P.1982 Le Paléolithique en Périgord : Les Données du Sud-Ouest Sarladais et Leurs

Implication.Thèse de Doctorat d’état es Sciences, Université de Bordeaux.2000 Late Neandertals in the Southwest of France and the Emergence of the Upper

Paleolithic. In Neanderthals on the Edge. C. B. Stringer, R. N. Barton, and J. C. C.Finlayson, eds. Pp. 27–31. London: Oxbow Books.

Rigaud, J.-P., G. Lucas, and J. Simek1998 Cénac-et-Saint-Julien. Grotte XVI. In Bilan Scientifique de la Région Aquitaine

1998. Direction régionale des Affaires culturelles d’Aquitaine, Service Régionalde l’Archéologie, ed. Pp. 21. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.

Rigaud J.Ph, J. F. Simek, and M.A. Hays2000 The Magdalenian of the Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France) and Regional

Approaches to Magdalenian Settlement and Economy. In Regional Approachesto Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe. G. Peterkin and H.Aiken,eds. Pp. 9–24. Oxford: British Archaological Report International Series 896.

Rigaud, J.-P., J. F. Simek, and G. Thierry1995 Mousterian Fires from Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France). Antiquity 266:902–12.

Roebroeks,W., J. Kolen, and E. Rensink1988 Planning Depth,Anticipation, and the Organization of Middle Paleolithic

Technology:The ‘Archaic Natives’ Meet Eve’s Descendants. Helinium 28:17–34.


Salomon, J. N., and J. G.Astruc1992 Exemple en Zone Tempérée d’un Paléocryptokarst Tropical Exhumé (La Cuvette

du Sarladais, Dordogne). In Karst et évolutions climatiques. J. N. Salomon and R. Maire, eds. Pp. 431–47. Talence: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.

Séronie-Vivien, M., and M. R. Séronie-Vivien1987 Les Silex du Mésozoïque Nord-aquitain.Approche Géologique de l’Étude du

Silex Pour Servir à la Recherche Préhistorique. Suppl. au Tome XV du Bulletin de la Société Linéenne de Bordeaux.

Shott, M. J.1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research

52:259–80.

Stringer, C., and C. Gamble1993 In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins. London:

Thames and Hudson.

Toth, N.1985 The Oldowan Reassessed:A Close Look at Early Stone Artefacts. Journal of

Archaeological Science 12:101–21.

Torrence, R.1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy

in Prehistory. G.Bailey, ed. Pp.11–22. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Turq,A.2000 Paléolithique inférieur et moyen entre Dordogne et Lot. Paléo,

Supplément 2.

Turq,A., G.Antignac, and P. Rousel, P.1999 Les Silicifications Conianciennes du Sarladais et du Gourdonnais: Inventaire et

Implications Archéologiques. Paléo 11:145–60.

Veil, S., K. Breest, H. C. Höfle, H. H. Meyer, H. Plisson, B. Urban-Kütel, G.A.Wagner, andL. Zöller1994 Ein Mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz aus der Weichsel-Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg,

Lkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Germania 72, 1: 1–66.

Wenban-Smith, F. F.1989 The Use of Canonical Variates for Determination of Biface Manufacturing

Technology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic Site and the Behavioural Implications of this Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:17–26.

1999 Knapping Technology. In Boxgrove:A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. M. B. Roberts and S.A. Parfitt, eds.Pp. 384–95. London: English Heritage.Archaeological Report 17.


White, R.1982 Rethinking the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition. Current Anthropology

23(2):169–92.

Whittaker, J.1994 Flintknapping. Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of

Texas Press.

Zilhão, J., and F. D’errico1999 The Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian and Its Implication

for the Understanding of Neandertal Extinction. Journal of World Prehistory13:1–68.


bifaces (stone tools)

Documents