Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:36:17.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Simon Holdaway ,
Shannon McPherron  and
Barbara Roth
Simon Holdaway
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia 3083
Shannon McPherron
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI 96817–0916
Barbara Roth
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331–6403
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on the analysis of assemblages from the French sites of Pech de l'Azé I, La Quina, and Combe-Capelle has, a model of stone-tool resharpening is proposed for Middle Paleolithic notched tools. This model is based on the observation that tools with a larger number of notches have greater mean blank lengths irrespective of their typological designation. This pattern is then used to help investigate the relationship between raw material availability and tool reuse. Our results indicate that the number of notches found on a tool is a function of both the size of the tool blank and the availability of raw material.

Resumen

Resumen

En base al análisis de conjuntos arqueológicas de los sitios franceses Pech de l'Azé I, La Quina, y Combe-Capelle bas, se propone un modelo de reuso de artefactos líticos para herramientas de muesca del Paleolítico Medio. Este modelo se basa en la observación de que herramientas con un número mayor de muescas poseen un tamaño promedio mayor de preformas independientemente de su designación tipológica. Este patrón se utiliza para investigar la relación entre la ocurrencia de materia prima y el reuso de herramientas. Nuestros resultados indican que el número de muescas en una herramienta es una función tanto del tamaño de la preforma como del acceso a materia prima.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 377 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1996

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

References Cited

Anderson-Gerfaud, P. 1990 Aspects of Behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France. In The Emergence of Modern Humans, edited by Mellars, P., pp. 389^118. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bailey, G. 1983 Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 165–192.Google Scholar
Barton, C. M. 1988 Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behaviour. New Evidence from the Iberian Peninsula. BAR International Series 408. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyries, S. 1988 Functional Variability of Lithic Sets in the Middle Paleolithic. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by Dibble, H. and Montet, A.-White, pp. 213–223. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Binford, L., and Binford, S. R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238–295.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51: 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. 1954 Les gisements du Pech de l'Aze (Dordogne). I, Le Mousterien de Tradition Acheuleenne. VAnthropologic 58: 401–432.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1955 Les gisements du Pech de l'Aze, Dordogne. UAnthropologic 59: 1–38.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961 Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Memoires de l'lnstitut Prehistorique de l'Universite de Bordeaux No. 1. Delmas, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1972 A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1988 Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. 5th ed. Presses du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Bordes, E, and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de 1970 The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2: 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezillon, M. 1968 La denomination des objets de pierre taillee. 4th supplement a Gallia Prehistoire. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Bricker, H. 1976 Upper Paleolithic archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 5: 133–148.Google Scholar
Chase, P. 1991 Symbols and Paleolithic Artefacts: Style, Standardization, and the Imposition of Arbitrary Form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 193–214.Google Scholar
Clark, J. D. 1958 Certain Industries of Notched and Strangulated Scrapers in Rhodesia, Their Time Range and Possible Use. South African Archaeological Bulletin 13: 56–66.Google Scholar
Close, A. 1991 On the Validity of Middle Paleolithic Tool Types: A Test Case from the Eastern Sahara. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 256–264.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1984 Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 11–431.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1987a Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene Old World Regional Perspectives, edited by Soffer, O., pp. 33^t5. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1987b The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1988 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, A.-White, pp. 181–194. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1991 Rebuttal to Close. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 264–269.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. 1991 Le Paleolithique Moyen de l'Abri Sous Roche de Warwasi et ses relations avec le Mousterien du Zagros et du Levant. L'Anthropologic 94: 619–642.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. 1995 The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, H., and McPherron, S. 1996 The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). CD-ROM. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Farizy, C. 1988 Presentation du materiel lithique provenant du Gisement Mousterien de Champlost (Yonne) et hypotheses de fonctionnement du site. In Cultures et Industries Paleolithiques en Milieu Loessique, edited by A. Tuffreau. Revue Archeologique de Picardie No. 1-2.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1979 The Interpretative Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Anthropological Research Papers No. 16. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Geneste, J.-M. 1985 Analyse lithique d'industries Mousteriennes du Perigord: Une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paleolithique Moyen. Unpublished thesis, University of Bordeaux I, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Geneste, J.-M. 1989 Economie des resources lithiques dans le Mousterien de sud-ouest de la France. In L'Homme de Neandertal Vol. 6. La Subsistance, edited by Otte, M., pp. 75–97. Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques No. 33. Universite de Liege, Liege, France.Google Scholar
Girard, C. 1978 Les industries Mousteriennes de la Grotte de I'Hyene a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). 11th supplement a Gallia Prehistoire. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Holdaway, S. 1991 Resharpening Reduction and Lithic Assemblage Variability Across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1975 A Preliminary Report on Some Lower and Middle Paleolithic Industries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, edited by Wendorf, F. and Marks, A.E. pp. 297–315. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1988 Technology, Typology, and Culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by Dibble, H. L. and Montet, A.-White, pp. 199–212. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Kuhn, S. 1992 Blank Form and Function as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenoir, M. 1986 Un mode d'obtention de la retouche “Quina” dans le Mousterien de Combe Grenal (Domme, Dordogne). Bulletin de la Societe Anthropologique de la Sud Ouest 21: 153–160.Google Scholar
Meignen, L. 1988 Un example de comportement technologique differential selon les matieres premieres: Marillac, Couches 9 et 10. In L'Homme de Neandertal Vol. 4. La Technique, edited by Otte, M., pp. 71–79. Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques No. 31. Universite de Liege, Liege, France.Google Scholar
Otte, M., and Keeley, L. H. 1990 The Impact of Regionalism on Paleolithic Studies. Current Anthropology 31: 577–582.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J-P., and Simek, J. 1987 Arms too Short to Box with God: Problems and Prospects for Paleolithic Archaeology in Dordogne, France. In The Pleistocene Old World Regional Perspectives, edited by Soffer, O., pp. 47–61. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., and Rensink, E. 1988 Planning Depth, Anticipation and the Organization of Middle Paleolithic Technology: The “Archaic Natives” Meet Eve's Descendants. Helinium 28: 17–34.Google Scholar
Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. 1990 A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.Google Scholar
Verjux, C. 1988 Les denticules Mousteriens. In L'Homme de Neandertal Vol 4. La Technique, edited by Otte, M., pp. 197–204. Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques No. 31. Universite de Liege, Liege, France.Google Scholar