THE MISSING MOUSTERIAN - BY HAROLD L. DIBBLE AND SHANNON P. MCPHERRON
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006 777
The Missing Mousterian
by Harold L. Dibble and Shannon P. McPherron
Data from the Middle Paleolithic site of Pech de l’Azé IV (France) indicate the deliberate production
of small flakes that appear to have been used in an unretouched state. Such materials have not
typically been recognized as being intended end products, though various techniques for their man-
ufacture are present in many Middle Paleolithic industries. This raises not only the question of their
distribution and possible use during that time but also the larger issue of how Paleolithic archaeologists
recognize lithic classes that are both analytically and behaviorally meaningful.
A significant component of Middle Paleolithic industries cance (Debénath and Dibble 1994; cf. Bisson 2000). Thus,
seems to have been overlooked in the current systematics. while most Paleolithic archaeologists are willing to accept that
What we attempt to show here is that during this time there scrapers, for example, were deliberately manufactured, it is
was a deliberate production of very small flakes that were much less certain that all of the some 18 scraper subtypes are
intended for use in their unretouched state. If our findings truly distinct (Dibble 1995a and citations therein) or that
are correct, then it is possible that these flakes represent a other types, such as pseudo-microburins, notched triangles,
significant aspect of Middle Paleolithic industrial variability alternate retouched beaks, rabots, or inverse choppers, were
and behavior even though such artifacts are typically unrec- deliberately manufactured to represent specific kinds of ob-
ognized in Paleolithic assemblages and certainly do not form jects. It is important, therefore, to begin to develop methods
part of standard descriptive analyses. by which evaluations of existing types or artifact classes or
In large part, this study is about more than just small flakes, the proposal of new ones can be made.
since the demonstration of significance raises a larger question
as to how archaeologists recognize and define their basic units Methodological Background: Recognizing
of analysis. This is a serious issue in Middle Paleolithic ar-
chaeology, since many if not most analyses proceed either by
Deliberate Products in Lithic
comparing frequencies of particular classes of objects (in-
Assemblages
cluding named types and other more informal classes) or by Before beginning the presentation of data that suggest the
examining the technological processes underlying the man- deliberate production of small flakes, it is useful to outline
ufacture of certain classes. In either case a beginning as- some of the methodological problems that underlie such a
sumption is that the classes or types under investigation are demonstration.
somehow “real” in the sense of being behaviorally meaningful There are ways to identify deliberately produced end prod-
or otherwise interpretable because the processes underlying ucts in lithic assemblages, but all of them require particular
their production are understood. characteristics or contexts that can be used to set them apart
In Middle Paleolithic archaeology, most of the typological from the general background of knapping debris. For ex-
classes that constitute our basic units of analysis were origi- ample, the presence of retouch strongly suggests that pieces
nally defined in the first half of the twentieth century or even exhibiting it were deliberately selected and their edge(s) mod-
earlier, though it was Bordes (1961a) who standardized many ified in order to perform a specific task. By analyzing what
of their definitions. Unfortunately, however, there have been characteristics particular kinds of retouched pieces have in
only sporadic attempts to examine critically each of the types common and in what ways they differ from nonretouched
to determine whether they have any real behavioral signifi- pieces, it is sometimes possible to arrive at some idea of the
criteria used by prehistoric flintknappers for their selection.
Likewise, the clear and unambiguous presence of use wear on
Harold L. Dibble is Professor of Anthropology at the University of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A. [hdibble@sas.upenn pieces would also argue for deliberate selection for use. Finally,
.edu]). Shannon P. McPherron is Research Scientist in the De- by noting that particular forms are found in specific contexts
partment of Human Evolution of the Max Planck Institute for Evo- (caches or burials, for instance), one can make the argument
lutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The present paper was that they served specific purposes.
submitted 31 III 05 and accepted 16 II 06. All of these approaches, however, especially in the context
䉷 2006 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2006/4705-0003$10.00778 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006
of Middle Paleolithic assemblages, are fraught with problems. inally excavated from 1970 to 1977 by Bordes (1975). Overall
First, knowing that a blank was selected for retouching or for he recovered about 90,000 lithic artifacts and another 30,000
use does not necessarily mean that the original blank was faunal remains (McPherron and Dibble 2000). From 2000 to
purposefully manufactured to have those specific character- 2003 we performed new excavations at the site in an effort
istics—useful flakes can just as easily be selected from a pile to collect fresh dating samples and to study its geological and
of knapping debris long after their original manufacture taphonomic history. A final report on this work, including
(McDonald 1991). It is also recognized now that criteria for dating of the complete sequence, is under way. The data pre-
discard are much more of a factor governing what enters the sented here are based on the combined collections, and the
archaeological record than are criteria for use. This is one of correspondence between the old and new stratigraphic se-
the main lessons from the work of Frison (1968) and sub- quences is shown in table 1 (see Dibble, Raczek, and Mc-
sequent researchers who investigated changes in artifact form Pherron 2005 for a complete discussion of how these two
due to resharpening and rejuvenation. This ultimately led to collections were combined).
the recognition of the “finished artifact fallacy” (Davidson One of the more interesting assemblages to come from this
and Noble 1993), which basically refers to the fact that what site is one that Bordes named the “Asinipodian” (fig. 1), defined
we find in the ground is not so much what the prehistoric originally (Bordes 1975) by the presence of very small Levallois
knappers wanted as what they wanted to throw away. cores and Kombewa cores (flakes whose bulb of percussion has
Even objects found in special contexts have to be treated been removed [see Brézillon 1968; Debénath and Dibble 1994])
with some skepticism. For example, at the site of Fonté- and the general absence of retouched tools. From our own
chevade (France), the original excavator found many quartzite analysis of the two collections it is apparent that a third class
cobbles in the sediments of the cave. Because these cobbles of object, truncated-faceted pieces (Schroeder 1969), can also
could not have originated in the surrounding limestone, she be considered a significant element in this assemblage. Al-
concluded that they must have been deliberately imported to though, to the best of our knowledge, the term “Asinipodian”
serve as hammerstones (Henri-Martin 1957). Subsequent has never been applied to any other assemblage, all of the
analyses have shown that they washed into the cave naturally elements that make up this particular industry are known to-
through a chimney in the back (Dibble et al. 2006). gether or singly in many other Middle Paleolithic contexts.
The goal here is to demonstrate that the production of a There are several lines of evidence that suggest that all three of
particular class of objects—small flakes—was an intentional these classes—Levallois cores, Kombewa cores, and truncated-
and deliberate result and not simply an unintended by-prod- faceted pieces—were used to produce very small flakes, al-
uct of the knapping of other products. This demonstration though the specific techniques differed considerably.
is admittedly much harder than the examples given above. In Two technologies characteristic of the Asinipodian—Le-
the first place, all chipped stone technologies result in flakes vallois and Kombewa—are critical for this demonstration. By
of all sizes, and a major proportion are relatively small because its very definition (Debénath and Dibble 1994), Levallois is
of processes that include the preparation of platforms on cores seen, at least in part, as a way of predetermining, through
and the retouching of tools. Therefore, the simple presence preparation of the core surface, both the size and shape of
of small flakes, in any frequency, cannot be used to dem- the resulting flake. Thus, when we find unmistakable Levallois
onstrate that they represent, in themselves, desired end prod- flakes or cores that are exceptionally small, it is difficult to
ucts. Another problem, as described below, is that the small
flakes discussed here are not retouched and do not show any Table 1. Stratigraphic Correlations between Bordes’s and
obvious signs of having been used. Moreover, they occur spa- McPherron/Dibble’s Excavations
tially throughout the assemblage, and a large number of them
are identical to typical knapping by-products. Thus, the ar- Dibble/McPherron’s
gument to be presented here that they were intentionally pro- Bordes’s Level Level Global Level
duced will be based on analyses not of these small flakes
F1-F3 3A I-A
themselves but of the pieces from which they were struck. F4 3B I-B
G, H1-H2 4A II-A
I1 4B II-B
Small Flakes as Desired End Products: I2 4C II-C
Data from Pech de l’Azé IV J1 5A III-A
J2-J3 5B III-B
The present study is based on analysis of material from the J3A-J3B 6A IV-A
site of Pech de l’Azé IV, a Middle Paleolithic site located in J3C 6B IV-B
southwestern France in the department of the Dordogne. Pech X N/A –
IV, one of a series of Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites located N/A 7 –
Y-Z 8 V
close to one another that have been excavated since the mid-
nineteenth century (see McPherron and Dibble 2000; Mc- Note: Global Level IV-A corresponds to the Asinipodian as described by
Pherron, Soressi, and Dibble 2001), is a collapsed cave orig- Bordes.Dibble and McPherron The Missing Mousterian 779
Figure 1. Examples from Pech de l’Azé IV of the lithic classes described
in the text. 1–4, Levallois cores (2 and 3 made from a small knob of raw
material); 5–7, truncated-faceted pieces; 8–10, Levallois flakes; 11, Kom-
bewa core, 12, Kombewa flake. All objects from Level IV-A.
argue that, despite their size, their production was anything to have two “interior” surfaces, one being the interior surface
other than deliberate. Likewise, Kombewa technology is de- of the flake used as a core.
scribed (Brézillon 1968; Tixier, Inizan, and Roche 1980) as a Truncated-faceted pieces have achieved recognition only
deliberate method of flake production in which the naturally relatively recently and have previously gone under a number
convex surface of the flake’s interior surface at the bulbar end of different names (Dibble 1984; Nishiaki 1985). They are
was exploited as a surface for the removal of a small flake. flakes that exhibit a truncation on one edge which in turn
The resulting flakes are clearly identifiable because they appear served as a platform for the removal of even smaller flakes780 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006
cores suggests that the same goal could be ascribed to the
latter classes as well.
Further evidence for a functional relationship among these
classes is the fact that in the stratigraphic sequence of Pech
IV, the percentage of Kombewa, truncated-faceted pieces, and
small (less than 30 mm in maximum dimension) cores, in-
cluding Levallois cores, show the same spike in occurrence
in the Asinipodian (fig. 3). It could be that these classes pos-
sessed complementary functions during the time of that oc-
cupation (small flakes from Levallois cores being used for one
thing while Kombewa cores or flakes and truncated-faceted
pieces were used for others). However, what these elements
Figure 2. Frequency distributions of maximum scar lengths of essentially share is the evidence of similar kinds of removals,
Levallois cores, Kombewa cores, “other” cores, and truncated- which reached a peak during this particular time.
faceted pieces from Level IV-A. There is no evidence that the flakes produced by these
various techniques were intended to be fashioned into re-
touched tools. While it is virtually impossible to recognize
(“facets”) from either the interior or the exterior surface flakes removed from a truncated-faceted piece, examination
(Schroeder 1969; Debénath and Dibble 1994). They have been of the Levallois and Kombewa flakes shows that they were
variously interpreted as a means of basal thinning for hafting not generally retouched (only 68 out of 884 Levallois flakes
(Coon 1951), as tools in themselves (Leakey 1931, 99–100; and 3 out of 21 Kombewa flakes). This is not surprising,
Dibble 1984), or as cores (Schroeder 1969; Solecki and Solecki however. Many studies (Geneste 1985; Meignen 1988; Dibble
1970; see also Debénath 1988; Goren-Inbar 1988; Hovers and Holdaway 1990; Dibble 1995a, 1995b) have shown that
2006; Dibble and McPherron 2006). in the Middle Paleolithic flakes with retouch are generally
While both Levallois and Kombewa are considered tech- among the larger flakes in the assemblage, and data from the
niques for producing flakes, it is more difficult to assume that Asinipodian and other layers from Pech de l’Azé IV (fig. 4
truncated-faceted pieces are also used to produce flakes rather and table 2) continue to support this. Given that the average
than being tools in themselves or pieces exhibiting hafting lengths of the flake removals presented earlier represent, on
modification. However, at Pech IV there do appear to be at average, only half the length of the retouched tools, the small
least two aspects of underlying similarity for all three artifact sizes of these flakes, including those from the truncated-fac-
classes. The first is the distribution of sizes of the flakes re- eted pieces, probably made them unlikely to be selected for
moved from these pieces, and the second is their frequency subsequent retouch. The fact remains, however, that they were
in the sequence of levels of Pech IV. manufactured, which is a strong argument that the intent
All three classes of objects—Levallois and Kombewa cores must have been to use them in an unretouched state.
and truncated-faceted pieces—exhibit negative flake scars rep-
resenting flakes that were removed from them, and the length Potential Alternative Hypotheses
of these scars (the longest if there were several) was recorded
(on Levallois cores the measured scar represents the length While it is clear that small flakes were being produced, it is
of the principal, or preferential, removal). The data on max-
imum flake scar lengths are presented in figure 2, and two
things are important to emphasize here. While the average
maximum flake scars on Levallois and other cores are statis-
tically significantly larger than those on truncated-faceted
pieces and Kombewa cores (t p 11.159, d.f. p 1935, P !
.00001), there is a high degree of overlap, and all of these
techniques produced very small flakes. In fact, the median
scar length on the Levallois cores is only 24.9 mm, which
means that fully half of the maximum scar lengths—and
therefore the length of the final flakes produced from them—
were less than this. The median flake scar on Kombewa cores
is even smaller, 19.63 mm. Thus, if both Levallois and Kom-
bewa cores were designed for the deliberate production of Figure 3. Relative proportions of Kombewa flakes, truncated-
flakes, then the flakes they produced were quite small. By faceted pieces, and small cores (less than 30 mm in length)
inference, the similarity in the distribution of scar lengths through the Pech de l’Azé IV sequence. The spikes in all three
between them and the truncated-faceted pieces and “other” occur in the Asinipodian Level IV-A.Dibble and McPherron The Missing Mousterian 781
no evidence that these processes were any different during
the occupation of Level IV-A.
Third, many of the small Levallois cores from the Asini-
podian levels were made on very small knobs of flint struck
from larger nodules (see fig. 1, 2 and 3) and are not, therefore,
the end products of continued reduction of originally large
nodules.
Finally, while it is possible that some of the Levallois cores
may have produced larger flakes in earlier stages of reduction,
this is not the case for Kombewa cores and truncated-faceted
pieces, which almost always retain the overall form of the
original flake.
While there is no evidence that the emphasis on small flake
production was a consequence of raw materials or a high
degree of intensity of utilization of lithic resources, an alter-
native possibility is that the removals were taken from Kom-
Figure 4. Average lengths of tools (columns) and flakes (solid line) bewa cores and truncated-faceted pieces in order either to
from the Pech de l’Azé IV sequence. prepare those pieces for a specific use or as a means of thin-
ning them for hafting. Arguments against hafting of the trun-
nonetheless relevant to ask whether their small size was some- cated-faceted pieces have already been made (see, e.g., Dibble
thing that was desired in and of itself or a consequence of 1984, 29). In part these are based on the fact that truncated-
something else. For example, the size of stone tools can be faceted removals occur randomly with regard to specific clas-
affected by raw-material size and the degree to which cores ses of tools (scrapers, points, notches, etc.) and that many
are reduced. Four lines of evidence suggest that neither of truncated-faceted pieces exhibit multiple removals—for ex-
these is playing a significant role in the Asinipodian, however. ample, from the proximal and distal ends or from both lateral
First, the overall sizes of flakes and tools in the Asinipodian margins. These same results hold true for the material from
level are, on average, not smaller than in levels that do not Pech de l’Azé IV, where 50 out of 196 truncated-faceted pieces
show similarly high percentages of these small core techniques exhibit such multiple removals. Having such removals from
(see fig. 4). Four of the assemblages in the Pech IV sequence opposite margins of the piece is inconsistent with normal
have greater average flake lengths (II-B, IIC, III-A, III-B), hafting modification. Likewise, there are no visible traces of
while six have small averages. In other words, in Level IV-A, hafting wear or residues on these pieces or on the Kombewa
where a significant number of small flakes were being pro- cores, though more thorough microscopic examination of the
duced by these three techniques, larger flakes were also being pieces would be critical in addressing this problem. None-
produced in sufficient numbers and sizes to maintain a rel- theless, the presence of the small removals from Levallois and
atively high average length of all flakes in the level. Unfor- other cores cannot be explained by hafting or other use of
tunately, there is no independent means of assessing raw- the cores.
material availability and size during the various occupations.
However, given that the overall average flake size in Level IV- Table 2. Summary Statistics for the Lengths of Complete
A is similar to that seen in the other levels, it would not Retouched Tools and Unretouched Flakes
appear that raw-material size or variability was any different
during the occupation of that level. Retouched Tools Unretouched Flakes
Second, there is no evidence that the overall intensity of
utilization of the lithic resources was significantly higher dur- Mean N S.D. Mean N S.D. T P
ing the Asinipodian occupation. There are two measures of I-A 43.22 266 13.05 33.49 3,066 9.57 ⫺10.08 ! .0001
overall intensity of utilization—the ratio of blanks to cores I-B 42.05 520 13.46 34.36 4,246 10.22 ⫺11.66 ! .0001
(how many flakes are removed from a core) and the ratio of II-A 50.79 117 14.48 35.56 406 11.92 ⫺13.96 ! .0001
tools to flakes (how many flakes are converted into retouched II-B 53.76 84 14.13 38.52 192 12.11 ⫺14.26 ! .0001
II-C 58.52 615 16.08 39.82 3,344 12.56 ⫺47.93 ! .0001
tools). The Asinipodian expresses values of both of these ratios
III-A 56.08 108 13.67 37.72 759 11.91 ⫺18.29 ! .0001
the same as or even lower than those for the other assemblages III-B 51.66 286 16.01 38.85 1,293 12.69 ⫺22.94 ! .0001
at the site (fig. 5 and table 3), which suggests that cores were IV-A 43.88 336 13.49 36.79 4,056 11.34 ⫺12.36 ! .0001
not being more reduced at that time and that more of the IV-B 40.04 157 11.07 34.23 1,395 9.43 ⫺4.25 ! .0001
larger flakes were not being retouched into tools, leaving be- V 48.42 287 14.08 36.56 1,837 11.42 ⫺18.21 ! .0001
hind only small flakes. While both of these ratios can be Note: Length is taken from the point of percussion to the most distal
affected by other processes (see Dibble 1995c), especially im- end of the piece. In all of the assemblages, retouched pieces are signif-
port and export of material into and from the site, there is icantly larger than unretouched ones.782 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006
artifacts may simply have been gripped in the hand. Recent
studies of Neandertal hand morphology have shown that their
hands were as capable as our own in terms of the range of
movement (see Niewoehner, Weaver, and Trinkaus 1997; Nie-
woehner 2001 and citations therein) but also show traits be-
yond modern variation, including “unusually hypertrophied
hand musculature, significantly increased mechanical advan-
tages across many joints, unusually broad fingertips, and un-
usual shapes and orientations of some of their CMC [car-
pometacarpal] joints” (Niewoehner 2001, 2979). There is
continued debate, however, about what kinds of behaviors
would have generated these patterns. Generally, these traits
Figure 5. Ratios of blank to core (the number of complete and are interpreted as adapted for a greater power grip (gripping
proximal flakes and tools divided by the number of cores) and a hammerstone, for instance). However, when the direction
tool to flake (the number of complete and proximal tools divided of force is considered along with its magnitude, it seems that
by the number of complete and proximal flakes). Although both Neandertals were not as well adapted for the kind of oblique
of these measures can reflect other processes, they also monitor joint reaction forces that are involved, for instance, in holding
the intensity of utilization of the lithic resources through either
the handle of a hammer (Niewoehner 2001). Thus, Nie-
increasing core reduction or increasing tool production, and both
can result in smaller average sizes of the unretouched flakes. The woehner concludes (p. 2980) that, despite some evidence of
fact that the Asinipodian level does not show relatively high values hafting that would imply oblique power grips, Neandertal
of either suggests that these processes were not responsible for hands were actually better suited to use “either with hand-
the emphasis on small flake production at that time. held stone flakes or with flakes hafted into the distal rather
than the lateral aspects of handles” (see also Villemeur 1994).
There are many reasons, then, to conclude that these As- While these interpretations should not be taken as conclusive
inipodian levels from Pech de l’Azé IV reflect an emphasis evidence that small flakes were hand-held, they are presented
on the production of very small flakes and that these flakes here to show that there is no a priori reason to conclude that
were produced in a variety of ways. There is virtually no the small size of these flakes would have prevented their use.
question that Levallois is a means of flake production, and There is, however, a very important question as to the
the same is probably true—though not as certain—for the function of these very thin and sharp flakes. There are sug-
Kombewa technique. These two techniques share important gestions (Niewoehner 2001) that small flakes may have been
characteristics with each other and with truncated-faceted used for woodworking; however, preliminary microwear anal-
pieces, and together all three classes resulted in very small yses of 15 pieces from Pech IV yielded only two that showed
removals. Moreover, the small size of these removals does not signs of having been used for short-term cutting of soft ma-
appear to be related to other factors, such as raw-material terials (W. Banks, personal communication), and this may
size or degree of core reduction, and there is no evidence that reflect a more expedient production and use of such flakes.
they represent hafting or other deliberate modification of the This is clearly an area of research that should be pursued
original piece. Our conclusion is, therefore, that their small further. However, a lack of understanding on our part of the
size was, in itself, a desired feature and that they were pro-
duced for use in their natural, unretouched state.
Table 3. Counts of Complete Cores, Retouched Tools, Un-
retouched Flakes, and Total Blanks (Retouched or Not)
Discussion
One possible objection to the arguments presented here is Level Cores Tools Flakes Total Blanks
that the small flakes appear to be too small to have been used. I-A 182 351 3,999 4,350
There is, of course, the possibility that they were hafted, per- I-B 216 655 6,025 6,680
haps into composite tools, and there is evidence for hafting II-A 18 141 590 731
in the Middle Paleolithic (see Churchill 2001 for a review). II-B 16 103 301 404
II-C 166 769 5,044 5,813
These studies are based on larger flakes (for example, Levallois
III-A 46 132 1,091 1,223
points) or other retouched tools, however, and there are no III-B 163 358 2,222 2,580
systematic studies of Middle Paleolithic artifacts of the sizes IV-A 693 522 7,736 8,258
being emphasized here. However, examination of these pieces IV-B 287 224 2,708 2,932
revealed no signs of hafting modification or residues. V 126 360 3,214 3,574
Hafting of the small flakes is not, however, the only way Note: Counts of both tools and flakes are based on complete or proximal
they could have been used. Alternatively, as Moncel (2003, pieces (which accounts for the number of platforms present) and do not
46) notes in the context of a different kind of industry, small include medial or distal fragments.Dibble and McPherron The Missing Mousterian 783
way Middle Paleolithic implements were used is not in itself an additional purpose for their manufacture and transport.
a compelling argument against those pieces’ having been a Our point, though, is only that there are many possible tech-
significant part of the general technological component. There niques that can be used to produce small flakes, and this
is, for example, still considerable debate on the functions of opens the door for new interpretations of particular tool types.
most Paleolithic implements, from bifaces, which could have Moreover, it is possible that small flake production may
been tools or cores or something else entirely (e.g., Davidson represent an important aspect of variability in the Middle
and Noble 1993; Kohn and Mithen 1999; Roberts and Parfitt Paleolithic. As has been noted for some time (Dibble 1988a;
1999), to scrapers and so-called points (Gordon 1993; Dibble Dibble and Rolland 1992), most Middle Paleolithic assem-
1995a) and notches and denticulates (which can also reflect blages contain more or less the same range of major classes
taphonomic disturbances [Bordes and Bourgon 1951; Mc- of tool types and technologies but differ in the relative fre-
Brearty et al 1998; Nielson 1991]). A better understanding of quencies of those classes. Likewise, all of the techniques de-
the spatial and particularly the environmental distribution of scribed here occur in most if not all Middle Paleolithic as-
small flake technologies could help address this, and exper- semblages but vary in their relative proportions. In this regard,
imental studies would be useful to address the relative merits the Asinipodian appears to represent an extreme emphasis
of small, thin flakes versus the edges exhibited on other Mid- but probably only one end of a continuum of variability
dle Paleolithic elements, be they large unretouched flakes, among Middle Paleolithic assemblages. Thus, it is likely that
scrapers, or notches. such production, along with the production of other re-
touched tools, bifaces, and particular technologies, represents
a significant axis of assemblage variability and (as is still true
Further Implications
of the others) one that definitely needs explanation. Having
If further research supports the conclusion that Middle Pa- said that, we do not concur with Bordes (1975) in elevating
leolithic hominins deliberately manufactured and used small the status of the Asinipodian to the level of another named
flakes, it would have significant implications for the inter- facies of the Mousterian. Rather, for whatever reason, activities
pretation of Mousterian assemblage variability. In the Asi- at this particular time and place were suited for this kind of
nipodian, the production of small flakes was based on three production to a degree not previously observed.
particular techniques, and, to the best of our knowledge, in Aside from what it means for Middle Paleolithic behavior,
this regard this particular assemblage appears to be unique. the production of small flakes also raises important meth-
However, it is known that many other Middle Paleolithic odological issues in terms of techniques of excavation as well
industries exhibit one or more of these techniques. For ex- as the analysis and description of Middle Paleolithic assem-
ample, Moncel (2003 and citations therein) reports on other blages. It is common practice to provenience, number, and
Middle Paleolithic industries that exhibit small cores, and analyze lithic objects only above a minimum size—usually 2
truncated-faceted pieces clearly exist (under a variety of to 2.5 cm. The flakes that were being deliberately produced
names) in assemblages from Europe (Turq and Marcillaud by the techniques described here were often much smaller
1976; Roth, Lenoir, and Dibble 1995), the Levant (Schroeder and thus easily overlooked. Even if such cutoffs are lowered,
1969; Solecki and Solecki 1970; Crew 1976), the Zagros (Dib- the problem of identifying deliberately produced small flakes
ble 1984; Dibble and Holdaway 1990), and Africa (Leakey among the debris produced through core reduction and tool
1931). Kombewa technique is also widespread through Eu- production still remains. While flakes removed from Levallois
rope and Africa (Owen 1938; Dauvois 1981) though it is and Kombewa cores are generally recognizable, it is less clear
virtually absent in the Zagros or Levantine Mousterian. Like for those coming from truncated-faceted pieces and perhaps
many other aspects of Middle Paleolithic industries, small other techniques of small flake production as well.
flake production may be very widespread, though it may be
associated with several different techniques.
Conclusion
Furthermore, there may be other, still unrecognized tech-
niques for small flake production. One distinct possibility is One of the most important contributions to Paleolithic ar-
Clactonian notches. Rather than the notch itself, the flake that chaeology was the standardization of the typology for lithic
was removed from the notch may have been the intended artifacts put forward by Bordes during the middle of the last
end product, since it would possess many of the same char- century (Bordes 1961a). His typology of flake tools consisted
acteristics as the small flakes made with the other techniques of 63 named types, most of them defined by the type and the
described above. Another possibility is handaxes. While most placement of retouch on flakes and some by the technology
have focused on these artifacts as tools with heavy-duty cut- used to create them (Debénath and Dibble 1994). His second
ting edges, it is also widely acknowledged that they are a ready major contribution (see Sackett 1981) was to apply this ty-
source of sharp flakes whose morphology would appear to pology to Mousterian assemblages of northern and south-
be quite similar—that is, small, thin, and extremely sharp. western France, and on that basis he developed the assemblage
While we are not concluding that handaxes existed for the systematics—the various Mousterian facies—that are still rec-
sole purpose of flake production, it could very well represent ognized and used to this day. The significance of these con-784 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006
tributions is undeniable given the tremendous amount of re- suggestions. Funding for the excavation and analysis of Pech
search that they stimulated concerning the factors that de l’Azé IV was provided by the Leakey Foundation and the
underlie variability in the types themselves (e.g., Dibble 1995a; National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS0073856).
McPherron 1994, 1995) and the assemblages that are com-
posed of them (e.g., Bordes 1961b; Binford and Binford 1966;
Mellars 1969, 1996; Rolland 1981; Rolland and Dibble 1990).
Much of this work has also focused on fundamental anthro-
pological concerns, using these same lithic types as evidence Comments
for the evolution of language (e.g., Holloway 1981; Gowlett
1984; Dibble 1989), culture (Holloway 1969; see Gibson and Nick Ashton
Ingold 1993), and intelligence (Wynn 1979, 1985). Department of Prehistory and Europe, British Museum, 56
As is true in any empirical discipline, research tends to be Orsman Road, London N1 5QJ, UK (nashton@thebritish
focused on units of analysis defined on the basis of particular museum.ac.uk). 28 IV 06
criteria (see papers in Ramenofsky and Steffen 1998). Thus,
in the case of Paleolithic archaeology, for a long time these Dibble and McPherron have identified some interesting pat-
units were largely retouched pieces, and with the exception terns in the lithic data from Pech de l’Azé IV. Their arguments
of Levallois flakes and cores most unretouched pieces were centre on the distinctiveness of Level IV-A, in particular the
related to the status of “waste” or by-products. After all, it production of Levallois and Kombewa cores and truncated-
was assumed for many years that retouched tools represented faceted pieces, and the idea that these pieces represent the
the desired end products, and so naturally they were the focus intentional production of small unretouched flakes. This
of most research. This situation has changed over the past opens up questions relating to Neanderthal power grip or
two decades, however, as interest in the underlying technology hafting and the effects of a previously unrecognized category
of blank production has increased (Marks and Volkman 1983; of tool on interpretations of Mousterian assemblage vari-
Boëda 1986; see papers in Dibble and Bar-Yosef 1995). None- ability. The data that they present indicate that all cores are
theless, even in a technological approach, where the emphasis smaller in Level IV-A, flake scars from intended products
is on reconstructing the processes that resulted in particular generally vary between 10 and 35 mm in maximum length,
flake forms, the need still exists to understand what the in- average flake lengths are similar for all levels at Pech de l’Azé
tended results were (Bar-Yosef and Dibble 2005). To put it IV (means 33–40 mm), there is less conversion of flakes into
simply, it is irrelevant to know how certain things were made tools in Level IV-A, and there are fewer flakes per core in
unless we know what their producers were trying to make. Level IV-A. Dibble and McPherron argue that because of the
In a similar vein, while we desperately need to know more similarity in flake sizes between the different levels, raw-ma-
about the functions of these objects, such studies also require terial size was also similar. However, the less intense working
that potentially informative classes of material be identified. of the cores in Level IV-A despite their smaller size suggests
Thus, this paper is not at all about whether a new “type” that nodule size was also smaller. The size of flakes removed
should be added to Bordes’s type list but focuses on the prob- from a core will depend on the size of the original nodule,
lem of being able to recognize meaningful units in the ar- the intensity of working, and the type of technology deployed.
chaeological record. Therefore the question is to what extent the observed pattern
What we have tried to do here is to present arguments is based on the use of different technology, which itself may
based on several lines of evidence that Middle Paleolithic have been determined by differences in the size and, impor-
hominins deliberately produced small flakes for specific func- tantly, the shape of the nodules.
tions. If this conclusion is true, then this fact has been over- A further problem lies in how certain it is that the removals
looked for virtually the entire history of the discipline. It that have been measured were intended products. With Le-
represents, then, a component of Middle Paleolithic tech- vallois, this is commonly assumed, but when some of these
nology and behavior that is, in effect, missing from our con- (3–4%) were as small as 10–15 mm (fig. 2) doubts must arise
cepts of what constitute behaviorally significant aspects of about the intentions of the makers. Could some of these cores
Middle Paleolithic industries. While future work may clarify have been in the process of repreparation when a decision
the specific role that theses flakes played in Middle Paleolithic was made to discard them? From a Lower Palaeolithic per-
adaptation, that they have been overlooked for nearly a cen- spective, knapping frequently seems to go beyond the point
tury and a half reminds us once again of how little we truly of utility. One example is at High Lodge (Suffolk, UK [Ashton
understand about those past lifeways. et al. 1992]), where a refitting knapping scatter shows the
reduction of a partly worked core through the removal of 30
further flakes. Several flakes are missing from the middle of
Acknowledgments the knapping sequence, but most of the final flakes have been
We thank several colleagues, including the seven anonymous discarded with the scatter, presumably as waste products. It
reviewers of this manuscript, for their helpful comments and would seem that the core was rapidly flaked and discardedDibble and McPherron The Missing Mousterian 785
and several flakes were then selected for use elsewhere. Despite Table 1. Levallois and Kombewa Flakes, Retouched Flakes,
a different level of planning and production in Levallois tech- and Cores from Level IV-A at Pech de l’Azé IV
nology, there is no reason that the same process in terms of
automated, procedural knapping and tool selection (either Flakes Retouched Flakes Cores
blanks or unretouched flakes) was not taking place. In other
Levallois 816 68 80
words, just as we have to beware of the “finished artefact Kombewa 18 3 35
fallacy,” we should also be aware of the “finished core fallacy.”
With the other techniques there must also be doubts about Note: Source: Dibble and McPherron’s figures 2 and 3 and text.
intention. The apparent removal of Kombewa flakes can also
be a by-product of the knapping process, where a single blow a topic I myself have been studying for many years, though
can remove both the flake and a flake resembling a Kombewa in a totally different geographical, chronological, and cultural
flake from the same point of impact. This is potentially the context (Bouzouggar 1997a, 1997b; Bouzouggar, Kozlowski,
case in figure 1 (11 and 12). In terms of the original and and Otte 2002). I especially welcome their work because the
broader definition of Kombewa, in which flakes were removed data concerning this technology come from Pech de l’Azé IV,
primarily from the lateral edges and ventral face of another a cave with a long stratified record of human activity and
flake, there is a reasonable certainty of their having been well-preserved organic remains. The site was recently exca-
intentionally knapped (Owen 1938). With truncated-faceted vated by Dibble and McPherron, and I had the opportunity
pieces, as Dibble and McPherron acknowledge, it is not in 2002 to observe the high level of precision of field recording
known whether they were tools or cores. using the total-station system—a system I have subsequently
It would have been interesting to see more figures for each adopted in my excavations in Morocco.
of the levels, such as average lengths for each major artefact However, there are a number of points arising from their
category. For example, how do the average lengths of Levallois paper that require further explanation and clarification. To
and Kombewa flakes tie in with the figures obtained from the begin with, the Asinipodian is still not fully explained in terms
cores? One intriguing statistic that can be derived from the of its technological, chronological, or palaeoenvironmental
figures presented is the apparent production of up to 11 Le- contexts. As far as the technology is concerned, for Dibble
vallois flakes from each core, including roughly one per core and McPherron the Asinipodian is a technology exhibiting
that is retouched (see my table 1). This in itself is perhaps basically Levallois and Kombewa techniques and the trun-
not surprising, but it underlines the problems of identifying cated-faceted method. Each of these techniques produces
intentional Levallois products as opposed to by-products. In small flakes. It is equally important, however, to know the
contrast to this there is a deficit of 40% (14) in the number function of these small flakes. Secondly, it would be inap-
of Kombewa flakes in relation to Kombewa cores. Have these propriate to extrapolate the definition of the Levallois to the
flakes been taken away, or does this reflect a problem of small Levallois cores without controlled experiments. I am
identification? not suggesting creating a new term but simply pointing to
The suggestion that unretouched flakes (perhaps sometimes the need to verify whether the same definition fits the small
small) were used is not in doubt, but whether there was cores or not. Another area for discussion concerns the dis-
planned production of small flakes remains unanswered. In tinction based on technological criteria between the small
the absence of use-wear, any attempt to quantify the extent Levallois flakes and those originating from truncated-faceted
to which unretouched flakes were used is clearly problematic. cores (McPherron, Soressi, and Dibble 2001, 21). Here again
As I am sure Dibble and McPherron would agree, this also replication studies are needed, as well as analysis of the use
draws attention to the problem of using simply quantitative wear on both flakes and cores (especially Levallois and Kom-
differences in tool types between assemblages when attempt- bewa cores) of this technology. Larger nodules are not abun-
ing to identify cultural groupings in the Mousterian. dant around Pech de l’Azé (Dibble 1985, 392) but a persistent
problem concerns the independent means of estimating past
raw-material availability, an issue raised by Dibble (1991)
many years ago. However, very little evidence exists for the
Abdeljalil Bouzouggar occupational intensity of the site. The increasing number of
National Institute of Archaeological Sciences and Heritage, small cores and flakes during this occupation could be con-
Av. John Kennedy, 10 000 Rabat, Morocco (bouzouggar@ nected with the fact that the site was a potential source of
menara.ma). 29 IV 06 residual raw material, as has been suggested for the Middle
Paleolithic of layer 10 at Roca Dels Bous northeastern Spain
Despite the wealth of evidence for the Middle Palaeolithic in (Mora, de la Torre, and Moreno 2004), and probably exploited
France, surprisingly little is known about the Asinipodian for making expedient tools.
(Bordes 1975), and Dibble and McPherron’s paper is helpful Without seeking connections between the different worlds
in redressing this imbalance. It represents a fresh opportunity of European Neandertals and North African Homo sapiens,
to discuss and share information about small cores and flakes, small cores also exist in the Aterian (a subdivision of the786 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006
Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age in North Africa) [An- 2000), and the production of composite tools with hafted
toine 1938 and Tixier 1958–59]), and I have suggested a pat- microliths is generally thought to be part of the modern hu-
tern of exploitation based on experimental knapping in which man behavioral “package” that was brought into Europe in
it appears that small pebbles were broken into two pieces with the hands of Homo sapiens. Documenting microlithic tech-
the anvil technique before the preparation of the Levallois nology among Neandertals (the presumed makers of the
core surface (Bouzouggar 1997a, 1997b). In the Aterian, some Mousterian at Pech IV) would contribute to our understand-
of the small flakes were transformed into pedunculate pieces ing of their cognitive abilities and adaptive strategies and
that were probably hafted but left no wear traces (de Igreja remove from consideration one of the technological behaviors
Araujo, personal communication). Another idea that needs that seemingly separates modern humans from Neandertals.
to be verified is whether small cores (especially Levallois ex- Thus the discovery of mircolithic technology in the French
amples) were themselves made as tools because the scar of Mousterian would be of great significance. But here the old
the preferential removal would allow easy manipulation with saw about extraordinary claims’ requiring extraordinary evi-
the thumb (Antoine 1938, 19). dence applies, and the evidence in this case does not seem
I am in basic agreement with Dibble and McPherron in up to the claim.
that they do not attempt to consider the Asinipodian as a Dibble and McPherron recognize that small flakes are a
new cultural facies, since it is likely that the Mousterian of ubiquitous by-product of lithic reduction and therefore their
the Old World is probably a highly flexible technology. Much presence in an assemblage is not evidence in and of itself that
of the interest in the Old World Mousterian lithic technology small flakes were the desired end product of knapping. Bona
has tended to concentrate on the very narrow thematic issue fide microlithic tools of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic
of retouched tools rather than considering a broader set of of Europe, even of the earliest Upper Paleolithic, are recog-
variables such as the presence of small flakes and cores. nizable end products of reduction because they show evidence
As mentioned above, Pech de l’Azé IV continues to offer of use in the form of either retouch or edge wear (e.g., re-
rich sources of multiproxy data for palaeoenvironmental and touched Dufour bladelets in the basal Aurignacian). Dibble
chronological studies (McPherron, Soressi, and Dibble 2001). and McPherron are not able to present such direct evidence
An examination of the detailed palaeoenvironmental evidence in the Pech de l’Azé case. The evidence they do cite—the
should allow fuller consideration of questions regarding the presence of very small Levallois cores, Kombewa cores, and
rates and scales of climatic and landscape change and how truncated-faceted pieces—is problematic. As they note, the
these might have impacted human behavior. This is probably truncation and faceting of flakes may represent basal thinning
an important gap in our knowledge concerning the Asini- to facilitate hafting, and the Kombewa “cores”—flakes that
podian, and I hope it will be filled with new studies now in are considered “cores” on the basis of a single flake removal—
progress. are also parsimoniously interpreted as flakes subjected to basal
trimming. The suggestion that truncated-faceted flakes and
Kombewa cores served for the production of microliths would
be more compelling if all of these pieces were systematically
Steven E. Churchill examined and found to be free of traces of hafting resins or
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Box wear polish. In both cases one has to wonder why knappers
90383, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, U.S.A. would have gone to the trouble to produce flakes from which
(churchy@duke.edu). 30 IV 06 they then struck one or two microliths rather than simply
driving small flakes off of small nodules. The interpretation
Dibble and McPherron are to be commended for an inter- of Kombewa flakes is equally problematic, and more evidence
esting article on the possible deliberate production of very is needed to demonstrate that they are not simply debitage
small flakes in the Mousterian at Pech de l’Azé IV and a from reduction of the bulb of percussion (3 of 21 Kombewa
worthwhile discussion of the difficulties inherent in identi- flakes show signs of retouch, which is consistent with the
fying the correct units of analysis when interpreting the lithic intensity of retouch on Levallois flakes from the assemblage
record. They focus on the importance of recognizing small and may support the claim that they are intentionally pro-
flake production in the Mousterian as a prerequisite for un- duced microliths, but what percentage of the Kombewa flakes
derstanding assemblage variability, but I would say that its evinces use wear?). Finally, the existence of small Levallois
importance goes beyond the way we interpret Mousterian cores is not in and of itself compelling evidence for microlith
assemblages. When it comes to the European record, the pro- production. Dibble and McPherron argue that the generally
duction and use of microliths—Mode 5 technology as iden- small size of the flake scars on these cores reveals a desire on
tified by Desmond Clark (1968)—has been confidently iden- the part of the knapper to produce small flakes. But what
tified only in Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Relatively large matters is not the size of core preparation scars (which simply
microliths (2.0–2.5 cm in length, similar in size to the possibly reflects the average size of debitage) but rather the length of
purposeful small flakes at Pech IV), appear late in the Middle the privileged flake. Judging from the cores illustrated in figure
Stone Age of southern Africa (see McBrearty and Brooks 1, the smaller of the two cores illustrated would have producedDibble and McPherron The Missing Mousterian 787
privileged flakes on the order of about 3 to 4 cm in length— combined distribution of Kombewa and truncated-faceted
small but not microlithic. It does raise the question why Nean- pieces and small cores throughout the Pech IV sequence (fig.
dertals at Pech de l’Azé were interested in relatively small 3), higher percentages of small flakes occur in other assem-
flakes (Dibble and McPherron make clear that it is not a case blages in the sequence (fig. 4). Again, there is no direct cor-
of limitations in the size of the raw materials as it is, for relation between distributions of small cores and small flakes.
example, in the pebble-derived Italian Pontinian [Kuhn Finally, the idea of identifying any universal “function” for
1995]), but the evidence as presented does not seem to war- all morphologically similar lithic pieces seems faulty. On the
rant the claim that there is an important microlithic com- contrary, one can suggest functional variability within artifact
ponent to the Mousterian that we have been missing all these classes in temporally and geographically different archaeo-
years. The suggestion of a microlithic component to Mous- logical contexts. For example, in the Zagros Mousterian as-
terian assemblages is an interesting one, and further inves- semblages of the southern Caucasus the truncated-faceted
tigation of this possibility may ultimately lead to the kind of technique was used to accommodate hafting of the bases of
direct evidence required to substantiate the claim. points and other tools, while in the eastern Gravettian of the
Russian Plain this method was exploited to rejuvenate the
cutting edges of Kostenki knives. In Russian Paleolithic ar-
chaeology, the truncated-faceted technique was originally
Vladimir Doronichev and Lubov Golovanova identified as a “corelike method of thinning.” Also, the Kom-
Institute for the History of Material Culture, Dvortsovaya bewa technique, though rarely discussed in Russian archae-
nab. 18, 191186 St. Petersburg, Russia (lprehist@rol.ru). 28 ology, is generally considered a method of reducing the bulbar
IV 06 part of a flake to accommodate hafting. Regarding small Le-
vallois cores one can suggest that some of them were reduced
Dibble and McPherron’s main goal is to demonstrate that the centripetal cores, especially in industries with no large Le-
production of small flakes was a deliberate result and not vallois cores or flakes such as the Asinipodian level of Pech
simply a by-product of the knapping or retouching of other IV. In true Levallois assemblages with a variety of large, me-
artifacts. Given the impossibility of drawing conclusions from dium, and small Levallois flakes and cores, the latter were
an analysis of the small flakes themselves, they examine the apparently preferentially used for removing larger flakes of
pieces from which small flakes were struck—small Levallois predictable morphology. In any case, the study of small tools/
cores, small Kombewa cores, and truncated-faceted pieces. flakes is related to two general problems: (1) the existence of
They accept a priori that these three artifact classes were used special (hence culturally specific) lithic technologies for pro-
to produce small flakes while differing from one another in ducing small flakes or the deliberate exploitation of small
the mode of production. The main problem here is that they flakes made from scarce high-quality raw material and (2) the
represent either desired or undesired/reduced core types, de- absence of most small lithics in most old excavations and the
sired or undesired/unfinished tool types. Originally Levallois poor preservation of many Paleolithic collections.
and Kombewa were described as special types of large flakes In general, Dibble and McPherron’s approach is a very
and then their definitions were applied to particular flaking important attempt to rejuvenate Paleolithic research para-
techniques for producing them. Similar morphology does not digms and analytical procedures.
mean that small Levallois and Kombewa pieces are desired
cores or represent the same deliberate method of flake pro-
duction as large Levallois or Kombewa cores. This is best
understood when we turn to the third group, truncated-fac- Metin I. Eren
eted pieces. Contrary to the case with the previous groups, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
the term “truncated-faceted” was originally applied to small University, Box 750336, Dallas, TX 75275-0336, U.S.A.
artifacts variously interpreted as results of thinning for haft- (meren@smu.edu). 17 IV 06
ing, as tools in themselves, or as cores.
From the analysis of the Pech de l’Azé IV material Dibble Dibble and McPherron’s lithic analysis at Pech de l’Azé IV
and McPherron make two observations that contradict their shows how detailed reduction models can delineate prehis-
hypothesis that small Levallois, Kombewa, and truncated-fac- toric knapping behaviors. Without use-wear or residue anal-
eted pieces were core types deliberately made to produce small ysis, proving that small, unretouched blanks are intentional
flakes. (1) As figure 2 shows, there is a similarity in the dis- products is no simple task, and they should be applauded for
tribution of scar lengths between these three groups and their efforts. Rather than using a static typology of assumed
“other” cores, suggesting that small flakes were struck from end products, they employ a dynamic typology of process that
many if not all cores in this assemblage and therefore that identifies an overlooked Middle Paleolithic knapping strategy.
there is no direct correlation between scar length and any Their study has implications for how lithic analysts recognize
core type. (2) Although the Asinipodian Level IV-A has the meaningful type categories, and their methods should be
highest percentage of these small cores, including 50% of the emulated.788 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006 Still, I have a few concerns. Although they mention that small flake production intensity is similar between Levels II- “there is no independent means of assessing raw-material A, II-B, and IV-A, and import and export processes are indeed availability and size during the various occupations” at the similar among all the levels as stated, why do Levels II-A and site, raw-material availability and transport may present larger II-B have high core-to-blank and blank-to-tool ratios (fig. 5) problems than they concede. Small flake production may in- while IV-A does not? Discussion of other levels may provide deed have been intentional (after all, small flakes were pro- insight and context for the patterning seen in Level IV-A. duced), but intentionally producing a small flake because It remains uncertain whether truncated-faceted pieces are one’s hand is adapted to holding it and intentionally pro- cores. Dibble points out elsewhere that there is no consensus ducing a small flake because one is running out of raw ma- on whether they were used for producing small flakes or for terial are very different. producing a particular kind of edge (Débenath and Dibble Although there is a large number of small cores in Level 1994, 123). One wonders if use-wear or residue analysis on IV-A (fig. 3), the average tool and blank lengths are not the such pieces might distinguish between these two possibilities. smallest when compared with other levels. The authors ex- Finally, Dibble and McPherron state, “Many of the small Le- plain that “larger flakes were also being produced in sufficient vallois cores from the Asinipodian levels were made on very numbers and sizes to maintain a relatively high average length small knobs of flint struck from larger nodules.” How many of all flakes in the level [IV-A].” It would be good to know exactly? This has implications for how many Levallois cores where these large flakes came from. Are there large unex- were reduced from larger sizes and thus how many small flakes hausted cores in Level IV-A, and, if so, how many? The pres- are possibly by-products. ence or absence of large cores may strengthen or weaken the argument. Three scenarios illustrate the point: Scenario 1: Large cores are present. Limited raw-material availability is not responsible for small flake production, since Bruce L. Hardy the option for creating larger flakes exists. Department of Anthropology, Kenyon College, Gambier, Scenario 2: Large cores were subsequently transported off- OH 43022, U.S.A. (hardyb@kenyon.edu). 30 IV 06 site. Though these produced enough large flakes to increase the overall blank size, the cores were still large enough to be Dibble and McPherron are to be commended for thinking taken away for future use. If this is the case, the blank-to- beyond the normal constraints of typology. Although typology core ratio will be even lower than figure 5 indicates, again has certainly been useful in many ways, it has also served as implying that limited raw-material availability is not respon- blinders for Paleolithic research. While it is a necessary evil, sible for small flake production. it is not an end in itself. Scenario 3: If large cores are not present in Level IV-A and While they provide technological evidence for production were not transported off-site, the only possible explanation of small thin flakes from truncated-faceted pieces, Levallois for the presence of large flakes is that large cores were reduced flakes, and Kombewa flakes, the only information they present into small cores (not including Kombewa or truncated-faceted relative to functional analyses is that “preliminary mirowear pieces). This implies raw-material shortage, indicating that analyses of 15 pieces from Pech IV yielded only two that many of the small flakes were probably by-products of large showed signs of having been used for short-term cutting of flake production and only some of them were intentionally soft materials.” To be fair, they recognize that this is insuf- produced toward the end of the reduction sequence. ficient, stating that “this is clearly an area of research that While there is no way to detect scenario 2, the presence or should be pursued further.” However, their case for the “miss- absence of large cores coupled with an analysis of large blanks ing Mousterian” would have been greatly strengthened had may help distinguish between scenarios 1 and 3. Of course, some form of functional analysis (either use-wear or residue there is probably some degree of overlap among them. analysis) been conducted. The authors state, “Most Middle Paleolithic assemblages Citing Niewohner (2001), Dibble and McPherron suggest contain more or less the same range of major classes of tool that Neandertal hand anatomy would not have been efficient types and technologies but differ in terms of the relative fre- at oblique power grips and that Neandertals therefore would quencies of those classes.” If this is indeed the case, it would have been more efficient with hand-held than with hafted be interesting to know more about small flake production in tools. How efficient does our anatomy have to be in order to other levels at Pech de l’Azé IV. While the actual amount of perform a task? Our own modern human hands may be less small flake production in other levels is obviously much less efficient than Neandertal hands in performing tasks involving than in Level IV-A, how does the intensity of production power grips, but this does not preclude our performing tasks compare? For example, Levels II-A and II-B exhibit only 34 with a power grip. Despite the presumed inefficiency of Nean- cores between them, but if, say, 30 of these 34 cores are small dertals’ oblique power grips, numerous researchers have cores used for producing small flakes and the intensity of found evidence for hafting in the Mousterian (e.g., Anderson- small flake production in Levels II-A and II-B is comparable Gerfaud 1990; Beyries 1988; Boëda et al. 1996; Hardy et al. to that in Level IV-A, new questions arise. Hypothetically, if 2001; Shea 1988). Furthermore, since Dibble and McPherron
You can also read
