Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:28:46.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retouched Notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the Reduction Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter Hiscock  and
Chris Clarkson
Peter Hiscock
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (peter.hiscock@anu.edu.au)
Chris Clarkson
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (christopher.clarkson@anu.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A detailed attribute analysis of notched flakes from upper layers of Combe Grenal, a key site in the debates about the nature of Middle Paleolithic assemblage variation in France, is used to evaluate the applicability to Combe Grenal of the reduction model offered by Holdaway, McPherron, and Roth as an explanation for morphological and size variation within notched specimens. We conclude that traditional implement types can be viewed as arbitrary divisions in a continuum of size and notch abundance, which can be explained by reference to a model of differential reduction. Specimens with greater numbers of notches are inferred to have been more reduced than specimens with fewer notches. Notch dimensions did not change as more notches were added, but complex notches were more commonly constructed in the middle of the reduction process rather than at the beginning or end. The location and abundance of notches were probably constrained by the size and shape of the flake blank: more notches were added to long flakes and to their distal end, indicating regular patterns of blank selection and treatment. These inferences can be used to suggest that flake blanks may have been an important factor in constraining the position, frequency, and perhaps even kind of notches that were placed on retouched flakes. We discuss implications of this proposition.

Résumé

Résumé

Un análisis detallado del atributo de lascas con muesca de las capas superiores de Combe Grenal, un sitio clave en los debates acerca de la naturaleza de la variación Paleolitica Mediana en Francia, se utiliza para evaluar la aplicabilidad a este sitio del modelo de la reducción ofrecido por Holdaway, McPherron, y Roth, como una explicación para la morfología y variación del tamaño dentro de especimenes con muesca. Concluimos que esos tipos tradicionales de herramienta se pueden ver como divisiones arbitrarias en un continuum de tamaño y abundancia de la muesca quepuede ser explicado en referencia a un modelo de la reducción diferencial. Los especimenes con números mayores de muescas se infieren haber sido más reducido que los especimenes con menos muescas. Las dimensiones de las muescas no cambiaron dependiendo de la cantidad, pew los complejos de muescas fueron mas comúnmente construidos en medio de procesos de reducción, en lugar de al principio ó al final. La localización y abundancia de muescas fueron probablemente constreñidas por el tamaño y la forma del piano de la lasca: se anexaron más muescas a lascas grandes y a sus porciones distales, indicando patrones regulares de selección de pianos y tratamientos. Estas inferencias pueden ser usadas sugerir que los pianos de lasca podrían ser un factor importante reduciendo la posición, frecuencia, y tal vez el tipo de muesca que se ponía en las lascas retocadas. Discutimos las implicaciones de esta propuesta.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 176 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2007

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

Barton, C. Michael 1988 Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior. BAR International Series 408. Oxford.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability—The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, Surrey.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1989 Isolating the Transition to Cultural Adaptations: An Organizational Approach. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene, edited by E. Trinkaus, pp. 18–41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Antiquity 68(2):238–295.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1972 A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 2002 [1961] Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. CNRS Editions, Paris. Original: Mémoires de Flnstitut Préhistoriques de l'Université de Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux, Delmas.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., and de Sonnevilie-Bordes, D. 1970 The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2(1):61–73.Google Scholar
Brezillion, M. 1968 La denomination des objets de Pierre taillée matériaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue francaise. Gallia préhistoire Supplément 4. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C. 2002a Holocene Scraper Reduction, Technological Organization and Landuse at Ingaladdi Rockshelter, Northern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 37(2):79–86.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C. 2002b 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.Google Scholar
Close, Angela 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
Debenath, Andre, and Dibble, Harold L. 1994 Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, vol. 1: 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 11:431–436.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987a The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52(1):109–117.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987b Reduction Sequences in the Manufacture of Mousterian Implements of France. In The Pleistocene Old World Regional Perspectives, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 33–45. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 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 H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 181–194. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1991 Rebuttal to Close. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:264–269.Google 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.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Rolland, N. 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 H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars, pp. 1–28. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul R. 1979 The Interpretative Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Anthropological Research Papers No. 16. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Henry, Donald O. 2003a Behavioural Organization at Tor Faraj. In Neanderthals in the Levant. Behavioural Organization and the Beginnings of Human Modernity, edited by D. O. Henry, pp. 237–269. Continuum, London.Google Scholar
Henry, Donald O. 2003b Human Behaviour and the Stone Tools from Tor Faraj. In Neanderthals in the Levant. Behavioural Organization and the Beginnings of Human Modernity, edited by D. O. Henry, pp. 60–85. Continuum, London.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val 2003 Early Australian Implement Variation: A Reduction Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:239–249.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. Archaeo-press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val 2006 Reduction Continuums and Tool Use. In Rocking the Boat: Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classification, edited by C. Clarkson and L. Lamb. 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.Google Scholar
Holdaway, Simon, McPherron, S., and Roth, Barbara 1996 Notched Tool Reuse and Raw Material Availability in French Middle Paleolithic Sites. American Antiquity 61:377–387.Google Scholar
Jelenik, 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 F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks, pp. 297–315. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–593.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul 1965 Sequence and Development of Mousterian Traditions in South-West France. Nature 205:626–627.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul 1986 A New Chronology for the French Mousterian Period. Nature 322:410–411.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul 1988 The Chronology of the South-West French Mousterian: A Review of the Current Debate. In L'Homme de Néanderthal, vol. 4: La technique, edited by M. Otte, pp. 97–120. Etudes et recherches Archaéologiques de 1'Université de Liège, Liège.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul 1996 The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicholas 1988 Observations on Some Middle Paleolithic Time Series in Southern France. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 161–180. University Museum Monograph 54. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicholas, and Dibble, Harold L. 1990 A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. American Antiquity 55:480–499.Google Scholar