Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The artifact typology of François Bordes has been universally applied to European Middle Paleolithic assemblages for the past half-century. Although its utility as a common descriptive language is acknowledged, it is argued that Bordes' type definitions are inadequate for use in modern quantitatively and technologically oriented studies of lithics because they are overly subjective and are an uncontrolled mixture of technological and functional variables acted on by raw material constraints. They also incorporate untested assumptions about the cognitive abilities of Middle Paleolithic hominids. This paper proposes to replace the Bordes typology with a method based on attribute combinations in which artifact descriptions will contain more behaviorally significant information than is afforded by the current system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES CITED

  • Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E.W. (1991). Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1990). Aspects of behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: Functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In Mellars, P. (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audouze, F. (1999). New advances in French prehistory. Antiquity 73: 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audouze, F., and Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1981). France: Acontinental insularity. World Archaeology 13(2): 170–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, C. (1988). Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior, British Archaeological Reports International Series No. 408, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, C. (1991). Retouched tools, fact or fiction? Paradigms for interpreting paleolithic chipped stone. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumler, M. (1988). Core reduction, flake production and the Middle Paleolithic industry of Zobiste (Yugoslavia). In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. (1994). Reconstructing Prehistory: Scientific Method in Archaeology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyries, S. (1987). Variabilité de l'Industrie Lithique au Moustérien: approche fonctionelle sur quelques gisements Française. British Archaeological Reports International Series 328, BAR, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bietti, A. (1991). Normal science and paradigmatic biases in Italian hunter-gatherer prehistory. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 258–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bietti, A., and Bietti-Sestieri, A. (1985). Problemi di teoria e di metodo in Archaeologia Preistorica. In Liverani, M., Palmieri, A., and Peroni, R. (eds.), Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M Puglisi, Universit´a di Roma, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1972). Models and paradigms in paleolithic archaeology. In Clarke, D. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 109–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1973). Interassemblage variability-The Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, pp. 227–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. (1989). Isolating the transition to cultural adaptation: An organizational approach. In Trinkhaus, E. (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L., and Binford, S. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68(2, Part 2): 238–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisson, M. S. (1997). Interview with a Neanderthal: The role of blank morphology and prehension in determining Middle Paleolithic scraper forms. Paper delivered to the Paleoanthropology Society Annual Meeting.

  • Boëda, E. (1994). Le concept Levallois: variabilité des methodes, CRA Monograph 19, Editions du CNRS, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boëda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 41–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1950). Principes d'une méthode d'´etude des techniques de débitage et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L'Anthropologie 54: 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1953). Essai de classification des industries moustériennes. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 457–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1961a). Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen, Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l”Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire 1, Delmas, Bordeaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1961b). Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134: 803–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1965). A propos de typologie. L'Anthropologie 69: 369–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1968). The Old Stone Age, McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on typology and techniques in the Paleolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6: 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1977). Time and space limits in the Mousterian. In Wright, R. V. S. (ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F., and Bourgon, M. (1951). Le complexe mousterien: Mousterien, Levalloisian et Tayacien. L'Anthropologie 55: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuil, H., and Lantier, R. (1959). The Men of the Old Stone Age, St. Martins Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brézillon, M. (1968). La dénomination des objets de pierre tailléee: matériaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue Française, Gallia Préhistoire Supplément 4, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (1982). On the structure of artifact typologies. In Whallon, R., and Brown, J. (eds.), Essays on Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, IL, pp. 176–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callow, P., and Webb, R. (1981). The application multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Paleolithic assemblages from southwestern France. Revue d' Archéometrie 5: 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P. (1986). Relationships between Mousterian Lithic and Faunal Assemblages at Combe Grenal. Current Anthropology 27: 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P., and Dibble, H. (1987). Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 263–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P., and Dibble, H. (1992). Scientific archaeology and the origins of symbolism: A reply to Bednarik. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2: 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. (1987). From the Mousterian to the Metal Ages: Long-term change in the human diet of northern Spain. In Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, Plenum, New York, pp. 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. (1993). Paradigms in science and archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 203–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. (1994). Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 305–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. (1997). Through a glass darkly: Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. In Clark, G. A., and Willermet, C. M. (eds.), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. A., and Willermet, C. M. (eds.) (1997). Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. D. (1974). Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. D. (1982). The cultures of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age. In Clark, J. D. (ed.), Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 284–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. L. (1978). Analytical Archaeology, 2nd ed., Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combier, J. (1962). Chronologie et systématique du Moustérien occidental: données et conceptions nouvelles. Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche (Rome) 1: 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commomt, V. (1914). Les Hommes contemporains du renne dans la vallée de la Somme. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Picardie (4th ser.) 7: 207–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. (1968). Archaeological applications of factor, cluster, and proximity analysis. American Antiquity 33: 367–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. (1989). Formal approaches in archaeology. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America.

  • Daniel, G. (1975). A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. 2nd ed., Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debénath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994). Handbook of Paleolithic Archaeology Volume One: The Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, J. (1967). Invitation to Archaeology, Natural History Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lumley, H. (1971-1972). Le Paléolithique inferieur et moyen du Midi méditerraneén dans son Cadre géologique, GP Supplément 5e (1 and 2), CNRS, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Mortillet, G. (1883). Le Préhistorique: Antiquité de l'Homme, Reinwald, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction. Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1987). 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 Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1989). The implications of stone tool types for the presence of language during the Middle Paleolithic. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 415–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1991). Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale. Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 239–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1995a). Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and a review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1995b). Biache Saint-Vaast, level IIA: A comparison of analytical approaches. In Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1995). The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Bernard, M. (1980). A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques. American Antiquity 45(4): 857–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Debenath, A. (1991). Paradigmatic differences in a collaborativeresearch project. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past, Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.) (1995). The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Rolland, N. (1992). On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of western Europe: History, perspectives and a new synthesis. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djindjian, F. (1987). Identification, characterization and evolution of material culture. In Djindjian, F., and Ducasse, H. (eds.), Data Processing and Mathematics Applied to Archaeology, European University Center for the Cultural Heritage, Ravello, pp. 393–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, J., and Hodson, F. (1966). A digital computer analysis of Paleolithic flint assemblages. Nature 210: 688–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1971). Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, P. (1978). Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: A pilot study. American Antiquity 43: 86–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, P. (1979). The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage, Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 16, Arizona State University, Tempe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. (1952). Measurements of some prehistoric design developments in the southeastern states. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 44, American Museum of Natural History, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. (1954). On the concept of types. American Anthropologist 56: 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (1966). The nature of Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain. American Anthropologist 68(2): 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (1992). Mousterian facies in space: New data from Morin level 16. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardin, J. C. (1980). Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardin, J. C. (1987). Aid to reasoning in archaeology. In Djindjin, F., and Ducasse, H. (eds.), Data Processing and Mathematics Applied to Archaeology, European University Center for the Cultural Heritage, Ravello, pp. 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneste, J.-M. (1989). Economie des ressources lithiques dans le Moustérien du Sud-Ouest de la France. In Otte, M. (ed.), L'Homme de Néanderthal, Vol. 6. La subsistence, Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liége, Liége, pp. 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, R. (1989). Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools, BAR International Series 474, Oxford.

  • Gould, R. (1980). Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. (1982). The expulsion of the Neanderthals from human ancestry: Marcellin Boule and the social context of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 12: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool functions in the Western Desert. In Wright, R. (ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 178–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1979). Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation Among the Australian Aborigines, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J. (1992). Technology of Knapped Stone (translation of Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée), Cercle de Recherches et d'Etudes Préhistoriques CNRS, Meudon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. (1975). A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic industries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In Wendorf, F., and Marks, A. (eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 279–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. (1976). Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cleland, C. (ed.), Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, Academic Press, New York, pp. 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. (1982). The Tabun Cave and paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216: 1369–1375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. (1984). Mousterian variability and reduction intensity: A comparison of Levantine and Perigordian industries. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the SAA, Portland, OR.

  • Jelinek, A. (1988a). Technology, typology, and culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. (1988b). ”Discussion” on “FunctionalVariability of Lithic Sets in the Middle Paleolithic” by S. Beyries. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. (1991). ”Unpacking” lithic reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology. American Antiquity 57: 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. (1995). Mousterian Lithic Technology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S., and Stiner, M. (1998). Middle Paleolithic ‘creativity' reflections on an oxymoron? In Mithen, S. (ed.), Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, Routledge, New York, pp. 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplace, G. (1964). Essai de typologie systématique. Annali Universitàdi Ferrara n.s. 15: 1–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplace, G. (1968). Récherches de typologie analytique. Origini 2: 7–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Sala, I. (1986). Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: A word of caution. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(3): 229–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le Geste et la Parole, Technique et Langage, Albin Michel, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, A. (1992). Typological variability in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherron, S. P., and Dibble, H. (1999). Stone tool analysis using digitized images: Examples from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Lithic Technology 24(1): 38–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1969). The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Périgord region of south-west France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: 134–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1989). Technological changes across the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition: Technological, social, and cognitive perspectives. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 338–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1991). Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans in Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1992). Technological change in the Mousterian of southwest France. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Monograph 78, Philadelphia, pp. 29–43.

  • Mellars, P. (1996). The Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithen, S. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind, Thames and Hudson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, E. (1987). A review of “investigating microwear polishes with blind tests.” Journal of Archaeological Science 14(3): 473–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, M. R. G., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1986). Investigating microwear polishes with Blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(3): 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitecki, M. H., and Nitecki, D. V. (eds.) (1994). Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrony, D. (1921). Le Moustérien-Ses faciès. In Association Française pour l'Avancement des Sciences, 44e session, Strassbourg, pp. 496–497.

  • Rolland, N. (1977). New aspects of Middle Paleolithic variability in Western Europe. Nature 266: 251–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N. (1988). Observations on some Middle Paleolithic time series in southern France. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory in Western Eurasia. University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. (1973). Style, function and artifact variability in paleolithic assemblages. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, pp. 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. (1981). From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French paleolithic research. In Daniel, G. (ed.), Toward a History of Archaeology, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. (1988). The Mousterian and its aftermath: A view from the Upper Paleolithic. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. (1991). Straight archaeology french style: The phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective. In Clark, G. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 109–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, M. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. (1989). A functional study of the lithic industries associated with hominid fossils in Kebara and Qafzeh caves, Israel. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 611–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J., and Klenck, J. (1993). An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 175–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, J. (1965). The Flake Industries of Southwestern Asia: A Typological Study, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18: 305–313, 391-393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. (1982). Structure in archaeological data: Nominal variables. In Whallon, R., and Brown, J. (eds.), Essays in Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology, Evanston, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, C. B., and Gamble, C. (1993). In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins, Thames & Hudson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: Aclose look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinkaus, E., and Shipman, P. (1993). The Neanderthals: Changing the Image of Mankind, Alfred A Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuffreau, A. (1988). L'industrie lithique du niveau IIA. Le gisement paléolithique moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas de Calais), Vol. 1. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 21, SPF, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turq, A. (1979). L'évolution du Moustérien de type Quina au Roc de Marsal et en Périgord, Thesis, l”Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Bordeaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turq, A. (1992). Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turq, A. (1995). Raw material sources in the region of Combe-Capelle Bas. In The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdes, V., and de Quiros, F. (1992). Approaches to the Middle Paleolithic in northern Spain. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, P. (1985). Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa, P. (1983). Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa, P. (1991). Middle Pleistocene prehistory in southwestern Europe: The state of our knowledge and ignorance. Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J., and Thomas, D. (1972). What mean these stones: Ethno-taxonomic models and archaeological interpretations in the New Guinea highlands. In Clarke, D. (ed.), Models in Prehistory, Methuen, London, pp. 275–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, J. C., Caulkins, D., and Kamp, K. A. (1998). Evaluating consistency in typology and classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2): 129–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsen, E. (1968). Functional analysis of flaked stone artifacts. American Antiquity 33: 156–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wobst, H. M. (1978). The ethno-archaeology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43: 303–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpoff, M., and Caspari, R. (1997). Race and Human Evolution, Simon and Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. (1966). The University of Michigan archaeological collections from et-Tabun, Palestine: Levels F and E. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 51: 407–423.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Michael S. Bisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bisson, M.S. Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 1–48 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009578011590

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009578011590

Search

Navigation