Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 299–368 | Cite as

Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date

  • Harold L. Dibble
Article

Abstract

The hypothesis that the principal varieties of Middle Paleolithic scrapers reflect varying degrees of resharpening and rejuvenation, rather than discrete emic types, has generated considerably controversy over the past decade. While there have been certain misunderstandings surrounding the proposed models of scraper reduction, this controversy also reflects different approaches taken by prehistorians in interpreting lithic artifacts. Placing the notion of scraper reduction in the context of lithic processes generally known as the Frison Effect, this article presents the background and intellectual context of this interpretation and attempts to clarify the models themselves and their test implications. It also reviews and summarizes data generated by several independent tests of the hypothesis and presents new data bearing on this question.

Key words

Middle Paleolithic lithics scraper reduction typology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Ahler, S. (1971).Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series No. 8, Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.Google Scholar
  2. Ahler, S. (1989a). Experimental knapping with KRF and midcontinent cherts: Overview and applications. In Amick, D., and Mauldin, R. (eds.),Experiments in Lithic Technology, British Archaeological Reports International Series 528, Oxford, pp. 199–234.Google Scholar
  3. Ahler, S. (1989b). Mass analysis of flaking debris: Studying the forest rather than the tree. In Henry, D., and Odell, G. (eds.),Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1, pp. 85–118.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1990). Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In Mellars, P. (ed.),The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 389–418.Google Scholar
  5. Andrefsky, W. (1994). Raw-material availability and the organization of technology.American Antiquity 59: 21–35.Google Scholar
  6. Bamforth, D. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation.American Antiquity 51(1): 38–50.Google Scholar
  7. Bamforth, D. (1990). Settlement, raw material, and lithic procurement in the Central Mojave Desert.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70–104.Google Scholar
  8. Bamforth, D. (1991). Population dispersion and paleoindian technology at the Allen Site. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 357–374.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, C. M. (1988). Lithic variability and Middle Paleolithic behavior.British Archaeological Research International Series 408, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Barton, C. M. (1990a). Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle Paleolithic.American Anthropologist 92: 57–72.Google Scholar
  11. Barton, C. M. (1990b). Stone tools and Paleolithic settlement in the Iberian Peninsula.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 15–32.Google Scholar
  12. Barton, C. M. (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
  13. Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). Raw material exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, Lawrence, pp. 235–250Google Scholar
  14. 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 Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 255–274Google Scholar
  15. Baumler, M., and Speth, J. (1993). A Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran. In Olszewski, D., and Dibble, H. (eds.),Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–74.Google Scholar
  16. Beyriès, S. (1987).Variabilite de l'industrie lithique au Moustérien: Approche Fonctionnelle sur Quelques Gisements Francais, British Archaeological Reports International 238, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Beyriès, S. (1988a). Functional variability of lithic sets in the Middle Palaeolithic. In Montet-White, A., and Dibble, H. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University Museum, Philadelphia, pp. 213–224.Google Scholar
  18. Beyriès, S. (1988b). Etude tracéologique des racloirs du Niveau IIa. In Tuffreau, A., and Sommé, J. (eds.),Le Gisement Paleolithique Moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais), Vol. I, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar
  19. Bierwirth, S. (1991).Lithic Analysis in Southwest France: Middle Paleoloithic Assemblages from La Quina (Charente), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  20. Bietti, A., and Grimaldi, S. (1995). Levallois debitage in central Italy: Technical achievements and raw material procurement. In Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.),The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  21. Binford, L. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process.American Antiquity 31: 203–210.Google Scholar
  22. Binford, L. (1977). Forty-seven trips. In Wright, R. (ed.),Stone Tools as Cultural Makers, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 24–36.Google Scholar
  23. Binford, L. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies.Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255–273.Google Scholar
  24. Binford, L. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation.American Antiquity 45(1): 4–20.Google Scholar
  25. Binford, L. (1985). Human ancestors: Changing views of their behaviOR.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 292–327.Google Scholar
  26. Binford, L. (1989). Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: An organizational approach. In Trinkaus, E. (ed.),The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18–41.Google Scholar
  27. Binford, L., and Sabloff, J. (1982). Paradigms, systematics and archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 137–153.Google Scholar
  28. Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability.American Antiquity 51(4): 737–747.Google Scholar
  29. Boëda, E. (1982). Approche technologique de la variabilité de la méthode Levallois: Industries de Bagarre et de Corbehem (Pas-de-Calais).Bulletin de l'Association Française pour l'Étude du Quaternaire 19(2–3): 63–66.Google Scholar
  30. Boëda, E. (1986).Approche technologique du concept Levallois et evaluation de son champ d'application, Thèse de IIIème Cycle, Université de Paris.Google Scholar
  31. Boëda, E. (1988). Le concept Levallois et évaluation de son champ d'application. In Binford, L., and Rigaud, J.-Ph. (eds.),L'Homme de Neandertal, Vol. 4, La Technique, Liège, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
  32. Boëda, E. (1991). Approche de la variabilité des systèmes de production lithique des industries du paléolithique inférieur et moyen: Chronologique d'une variabilité attendue.Techniques et Culture 17–18: 37–79.Google Scholar
  33. Boëda, E., and Pelegrin, J. (1983). Approche technologique du nucléus Levallois à éclat.Etudes Préhistoriques (1979–1980)15: 41–48.Google Scholar
  34. Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., and Meignen, L. (1990). Identification de chaines operatoires lithiques du paleolithique ancien et moyen.Paléo 2: 43–80.Google Scholar
  35. Bordes, F. (1950). Principes d'une methode d'étude des techniques de debitage et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen.L'Anthropologie 54: 19–34.Google Scholar
  36. Bordes, F. (1953). Levalloisien et Moustérien.Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 226–235.Google Scholar
  37. Bordes, F. (1961).Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Bordes, F. and Bourgon, M. (1951). Le complexe mousterien: Mousterien, Levalloisien et Tayacien.L'Anthropologie 55: 1–23.Google Scholar
  39. Boutié, P. (1981).L'industrie Mousterienne de la Grotte de Kebara, Mount Carmel, Israel. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Musée de l'Homme Memoire No. 10, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  40. Butler, B., and May, E. (1984). Prehistoric chert exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent.Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 2.Google Scholar
  41. Byers, M. (1994). Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition: A theoretical and methodological critique.Current Anthropology 35: 369–881Google Scholar
  42. Callow, P. (1986). The flint tools. In Callow, P., and Cornford, (eds.),La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961–1978 Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney, Geo Books, Norwich, CT, pp. 251–314.Google Scholar
  43. Carrere, P. (1990). Contribution de la balistique au perfectionnement des études technofonctionnelles des pointes de projectiles préhistoriques.Paléo 2: 167–176.Google Scholar
  44. Chase, P. (1990). Tool-making tools and Middle Paleolithic behaviOR.Current Anthropology 31: 443–446.Google Scholar
  45. Chase, P. (1991). Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 193–214.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Chauchat, C. (1992). Réflexions sur les outillages du Paléolithique moyen.Paléo 4: 49–60.Google Scholar
  48. Clark, G. (1991).Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  49. Clark, G. (1993). Paradigms in science and archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 203–234.Google Scholar
  50. Clark, G. (1994). Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 305–343.Google Scholar
  51. Close, A. (1980). The Identification of Style in Lithic Artefacts.World Archaeology 10: 223–236.Google Scholar
  52. Close, A. (1991). On the validity of Middle Paleolithic tool types: A test case from the Eastern Sahara.Journal of Field Archaeology 18(2): 256–264.Google Scholar
  53. Collins, M. (1975). Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Swanson, E. (ed.),Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, Mouton: The Hague, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  54. Combier, J. (1967). Le Paléolithique de l'Ardèche dans son cadre paléoclimatique.Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux, Memoire No. 4, Delmas, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  55. Commont, V. (1914). Les Hommes contemporains du renne dans la vallée de la Somme.Memoire de la Société des Antiquaires de Picardie 7: 207–646.Google Scholar
  56. Copeland, L. (1983). The palaeolithic industries at Adlun. In Roe, D. (ed.),Adlun in the Stone Age. The Excavations of D.A.E. Garrod in the Lebanon, 1958–1963, British Archaeological Research International Series 159(i, ii): 89–365.Google Scholar
  57. Copeland, L., and Hours, F. (1983). Le Yabroudien d'el Kowm (Syrie) et sa place dans le Paléolithique du Levant.Paleorient 9: 21–37.Google Scholar
  58. Cooper, H. (1954). Material culture of the Australian aborigines.Records of the South Australian Museum 11: 91–103.Google Scholar
  59. Davis, Z. (1994).On the Validity of Middle Palaeolithic Typology: An Explanation of the Variability in Scraper Morphology at Le Moustier and Tabun, M.A. Thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  60. Debénath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994).The Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Vol I. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe, University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  61. de Loecker, D. (1992). Site K: A middle Palaeolithic site at Maastricht-Belvédére (Limburg, The Netherlands).Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22: 449–460.Google Scholar
  62. de Loecker, K. (1993). A Saalian riverside settlement: Maastricht-Belvédère Site K (Limburg, the Netherlands).Notae Praehistoricae 12: 7–14.Google Scholar
  63. Demars, P. (1982). L'Utilisation du silex au Paléolithique Supérieur: Choix, approvisionnement, circulation. L'example du Bassin de Brive.Cahiers du Quatemaire 5, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  64. Dibble, H. (1984a). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction?Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431–436.Google Scholar
  65. Dibble, H. (1984b). The Mousterian Industry from Bisitun Cave (Iran).Paleorient 10: 23–34.Google Scholar
  66. Dibble, H. (1987a). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology.American Antiquity 52: 109–117.Google Scholar
  67. Dibble, H. (1987b). Reduction sequences in the manufacture of Mousterian implements of France. In Soffer, O. (ed.),The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, Plenum, New York, pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  68. 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 Museum Press, Philadelphia, Symposium Series I, pp. 188–191.Google Scholar
  69. 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: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 415–432.Google Scholar
  70. Dibble, H. (1991a). Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale.Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 239–258.Google Scholar
  71. Dibble, H. (1991b). Rebuttal to Close.Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 264–267.Google Scholar
  72. Dibble, H. (1991c). Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
  73. Dibble, H. (1995a). Raw material availability and intensity of utilization: A test of current models of Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  74. Dibble, H. (1995b). An assessment of the integrity of the archaeological assemblages. In Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  75. Dibble, H. (1995c). The Biache-Saint-Vaast, Level IIa: A comparison of analytical approaches. In Dibble, H., and Bar Yosef, O. (eds.),The Interpretation and Definition of Levallois Variability, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  76. Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1995).The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  77. Dibble, H., and Debénath, A. (1991). Paradigmatic differences in a collaborative research project. In Clark, G. (ed.),Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 217–226.Google Scholar
  78. Dibble, H., and Holdaway, S. (1990). Le Paléolithique moyen de l'abri sous roche de Warwasi et ses relations avec le Moustérien du Levant.L'Anthropologie 94(4): 619–642.Google Scholar
  79. Dibble, H. and Holdaway, S. (1993). The Middle Paleolithic of Warwasi Rockshelter. In Olszewski, D., and Dibble, H. (eds.),The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
  80. Dibble, H. and Lenoir, M. (1995).The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  81. Dibble, H, and Pelcin, A. (1995). The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake weight.Journal of Archaeological Science (in press).Google Scholar
  82. 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 Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  83. Dibble, H., and Whittaker, J. (1981). New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation.Journal of Archaeological Science 6: 283–296.Google Scholar
  84. Dibble, H., Lenoir, M., and Roth, B. (1995). The use of raw materials at Combe-Capelle Bas. In Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University Museum Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  85. Flenniken, J., and Raymond, A. (1986). Replication experimentation and technological analysis.American Antiquity 51(3): 603–614Google Scholar
  86. Frison, G. (1968). A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools.American Antiquity 33: 149–155.Google Scholar
  87. Frison, G. (ed.) (1975).The Casper Site, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  88. Frison, G. (1989). Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants.Amerian Antiquity 54: 766–784.Google Scholar
  89. Gallagher, J. (1977). Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: Implications for archaeology.Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407–414.Google Scholar
  90. Geneste, J.-M. (1985).Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord: Une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique Moyen, Thèse a l'Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux, 1985.Google Scholar
  91. Geneste, J.-M. (1988). Systèmes d'approvisionnement en matières premières au Paléolithique moyen et au Paléolithique superieur en Aquitaine. In Kozlowski, J. (ed.),L'Homme de Neandertal, Vol 8. La Mutation, Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l'Université de Liège, no. 35, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  92. Girard, C. (1978). Les industries moustériennes de la Grotte de l'Hyène à Arcy-sur-Cure.XIe Supplement à Gallia Préhistoire, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  93. Goodenough, W. (1990). Evolution of the human capacity for beliefs.American Anthropologist 92: 597–612.Google Scholar
  94. Goodyear, A. (1974).The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas, Arkansas Archeological Survey No. 7, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
  95. Gordon, D. (1993). Mousterian tool selection, reduction, and discard at Ghar, Israel.Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 105–218.Google Scholar
  96. Goren-Inbar, N. (1988). Notes on “decision making” by Lower and Middle Palaeolithic hominids.Paléorient 14(2): 99–108.Google Scholar
  97. Gould, R., Koster, D., and Sontz, A. (1971). The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia.American Antiquity 36: 149–169.Google Scholar
  98. Gowlett, J. (1984). Mental abilities of early man: A look at some hard evidence. In Foley, R. (ed.),Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 167–192.Google Scholar
  99. Gramly, R. (1980). Raw materials source areas and “curated” tool assemblages.American Antiquity 45: 823–833.Google Scholar
  100. Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool functions in the Western Desert. In Wright, R. (ed.),Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, Humanities Press, Canberra, pp. 178–188.Google Scholar
  101. Hayden, B. (1979).Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation Among the Australian Aborigines, Humanities Press, NJ.Google Scholar
  102. Hayden, B. (1993). The cultural capacities of Neandertals: A review and reevaluation.Journal of Human Evolution 24: 113–146.Google Scholar
  103. Henry, D. (1989). Correlations between reduction strategies and settlement patterns. In Henry, D., and Odell, G. (eds.),Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar
  104. Hoffman, C. (1985). Projectile point maintenance and typology: Assessment with factor analysis and canonical correlation. In Carr, C. (ed.),For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, Wesport, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, pp. 566–612.Google Scholar
  105. Holdaway, S. (1991).Resharpening Reduction and Lithic Assemblage Variability Across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  106. Holloway, R. (1981). Culture, symbols and human brain evolution.Dialectical Anthropology 5: 287.Google Scholar
  107. Huckell, B. (1979). Of chipped stone tools, elephants, and the Clovis hunters: An experiment.Plains Anthropologist 24: 177–188.Google Scholar
  108. 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
  109. Jelinek, A. (1988). Technology, typlogy, and culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Montet-White, A., and Dibble, H. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 199–212.Google Scholar
  110. Kelly, R. (1988). The three sides of a biface.American Antiquity 53: 717–734.Google Scholar
  111. Kuhn, S. (1990). A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools.Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 583–593.Google Scholar
  112. Kuhn, S. (1991). “Unpacking” reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 76–106.Google Scholar
  113. Kuhn, S. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology.American Antiquity 57: 115–128.Google Scholar
  114. Kuhn, S. (1994). A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits.American Antiquity 59: 426–442.Google Scholar
  115. Kuhn, T. (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  116. Leakey, M. D. (1971).Olduvai Gorge, Vol. III. Excavations in Beds II & III, 1960–1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  117. Lemmonier, P. (1983). L'Etude des systèmes techniques: Une urgence in technologie culturelle.Techniques et Culture 1: 11–34.Google Scholar
  118. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964).Le Geste et la Parole I: Technique et Language, Albin Michal, Paris.Google Scholar
  119. Marcy, J.-L. (1993). Aperçu sur les stratégies de production des racloirs du niveau C. InRiencourt-lés-Baupaume (Pas-de-Calais): Un Gisement du Paléolithique Moyen. Documents d'Archéologie Français, No. 37, Paris, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
  120. Marks, A. (1988). The curation of stone tools during the Upper Pleistocene: A view from the Central Negev, Israel. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp.87–94.Google Scholar
  121. 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 Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
  122. Marks, A., Shokler, J., and Zilhao, J. (1991). Raw material usage in the Paleolithic. The effects of local availability on selection and economy. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, Lawrence, pp. 127–140.Google Scholar
  123. Mauldin, R., and Amick, D. (1989). Investigating patterning in debitage from experimental bifacial core reduction. In Amick, D., and Mauldin, R. (eds.),Experiments in Lithic Technology, British Archaeological Reports 528 International Series, Oxford, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar
  124. McDonald, M. (1991). Systematic reworking of lithics from earlier cultures in the early Holocene of Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt.Journal of Field Archaeology 18(2): 269–273.Google Scholar
  125. McPherron, S. (1994).A Reduction Model for Acheulean Biface Morphology, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  126. McPherron, S., and Dibble, H. (n.d.). Stone tool analysis using image digitization: Examples from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic.Google Scholar
  127. Meignen, L. (1988). Un exemple de comportement technologie différentiel selon les matières premières: Marillac, couches 9 et 10. In Binford, L., and Rigaud, J.-Ph. (eds.),L'Homme de Neandertal, Vol. 4. La Technique, Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  128. Meignen, L. (1993).L'Abri des Canalettes. Un Habitat Moustérien sur les Grands Causses (Nant, Aveyron). Fouilles 1980–1986, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  129. Mellars, P. (1995).The Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  130. Mellars, P. (1989a). Major issues in the emergence of modern humans.Current Anthropology 30: 349–385.Google Scholar
  131. Mellars, P. (1989b). Technological changes at the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition: Economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.),The Human Revolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 338–365.Google Scholar
  132. Mellars, P. (1991). Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans in Europe.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 63–76.Google Scholar
  133. Montet-White, A. (1991). Lithic acquisition, settlements and territory in the Epigravettian of central Europe. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, Lawrence, pp. 205–220.Google Scholar
  134. Morala, A. (1990). L'atelier périgordien supérieur de Rabier (Lanquais, Dordogne): Recherches sur l'origine des occupants du site sur les bases de la lithologie. In Séronie-Vivien and Lenoir, M. (eds.),Le Silex: De sa Genèse à l'Outil, Tome II, Cahiers du Quat 17, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, pp. 391–404.Google Scholar
  135. Munday, F. (1977). Intersite variability in the Mousterian occupation of the Avdat/Aqev area. In Marks, A. (ed.),Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. 1. The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 113–140.Google Scholar
  136. Neeley, M., and Barton, C. (1994). A new approach to interpreting late Pleistocene microlith industries in southwest Asia.Antiquity 68: 275–288.Google Scholar
  137. Newcomer, M. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture.World Archaeology 3: 85–94.Google Scholar
  138. Odell, G. (1989). Fitting analytical techniques to prehistoric problems with lithic data. In Henry, D., and Odell, G. (eds.),Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 1, Washington, D.C., pp. 159–182.Google Scholar
  139. Olszewski, D. (1993). The Zarzian occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter, Iran. In Olszewski, D., and Dibble, H. (eds.),The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 207–236.Google Scholar
  140. Panabières, F. (1989).Etude techno-typologique des racloirs de la couche 35 de Combe-Grenal, DiplÔme d'Etudes Approfondies en Anthropologie, Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  141. Patterson, L. (1990). Characteristics of bifacial reduction flake-size distribution.American Antiquity 55: 550–558.Google Scholar
  142. Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., and Bodu, P. (1988). “Chaînes opératoires”: Un outil pour le préhistorien.Technologie préhistorique, dir. Tixier J., pp. 55–62.Google Scholar
  143. Pettitt, P. (1992). Reduction models and lithic variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of Southwest France.Lithics 13: 17–32.Google Scholar
  144. Potts, R. (1991). Why the Oldowan? Plio-Pleistocene toolmaking and the transport of resources.Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 153–176.Google Scholar
  145. Purdy, B. (1984). Quarry studies: Technological and chronological significance. In Ericson, J., and Purdy, B. (eds.),Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 119–146.Google Scholar
  146. Reher, C. (1991). Large scale lithic quarries and regional transport systems on the High Plains of eastern Wyoming. Spanish diggings revisited. In Montet-White, A., and Holen, S. (eds.),Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 251–284.Google Scholar
  147. Rigaud, J.-Ph. (1988). La Grotte Vaufrey. Paléoenvironnement, Chronologie, Activités Humaines.Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, Tome XIX.Google Scholar
  148. Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., and Rensink, E. (1988). Planning depth, anticipation and the organization of Middle Paleolithic technology: The “archaic natives” meet Eve's descendants.Helinium 28: 17–34.Google Scholar
  149. Rolland, N. (1977). New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic variability in Western Europe.Nature 266: 251–252.Google Scholar
  150. Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability.Man 16: 15–42.Google Scholar
  151. Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability.American Antiquity 55(3): 480–99.Google Scholar
  152. Sackett, J. (1973). Style, function, and artifact variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. In Renfrew, C. (ed.),The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, pp. 317–325 inGoogle Scholar
  153. Sackett, J. (1982). From de Mortillet to Bordes. A century of French Paleolithic research. In Daniel, G. (ed.),Towards a History of Archaeology, Thames & Hudson, London, pp. 85–89.Google Scholar
  154. Sackett, J. (1986). Isochrestism and style: A clarification.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 266–277.Google Scholar
  155. Schick, K. (1986). Stone age sites in the making: Experiments in the formation and transformation of archaeological occurrences.British Archaeological Reports International Series 314, Oxford.Google Scholar
  156. Schick, K. (1987). Modeling the formation of Early Stone Age artifact concentrations.Journal of Human Evolution 16: 789–807.Google Scholar
  157. Schiffer, M. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context.American Antiquity 37: 156–165.Google Scholar
  158. Séronie-Vivien, M.-R., and Lenoir, M. (eds.) (1990).Le Silex: De sa Genèse à l'Outil, Vols. I and II, Editions du CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  159. Shott, M. (1989). On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages.American Antiquity 54: 9–30.Google Scholar
  160. Shott, M. (1994). Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69–110.Google Scholar
  161. Speth, J. (1972). The mechanical basis of percussion flaking.American Antiquity 37: 34–60.Google Scholar
  162. Speth, J. (1974). Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking.TebiWA 17: 7–36.Google Scholar
  163. Speth, J. (1975). Miscellaneous studies in hard-hammer percussion flaking: The effects of oblique impact.American Antiquity 40: 203–207.Google Scholar
  164. Speth, J. (1981). The role of platform angle and core size in hard-hammer percussion flaking.Lithic Technology 10: 16–21.Google Scholar
  165. Stahle, D., and Dunn, J. (1982). An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools.World Archaeology 14: 84–97.Google Scholar
  166. Sullivan, A., and Rozen, K. (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation.American Antiquity 50: 755–779.Google Scholar
  167. Tindale, N. (1965). Stone implement making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert.Records of the South Australian Museum 15: 131–164.Google Scholar
  168. Tixier, J., Inizan, J., and Roche, H. (1980). Prehistoire de la Pierre Taillee 1: Terminologieet Technologie,Cercle de Recherches et d'Etudes Prehistoriques, Valbonne, France.Google Scholar
  169. Tobias, P. (1992). The speciesHomo habilis: Example of a premature discovery.Annales Zool. Fennici 28: 371–380.Google Scholar
  170. Torrence, R. (1983). Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In Bailey, G. (ed.),Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  171. Torrence, R. (1989). Re-tooling: Towards a behavioral theory of stone tools. In Torrence, R. (ed.),Time, Energy and Stone Tools, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
  172. Toth, N. (1982).The Stone Technologies of Early Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: An Experimental Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  173. Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at Early Stone artefacts.Journal of Archaeological Science 12: 101–121.Google Scholar
  174. 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: 171–184.Google Scholar
  175. Tuffreau, A., and Sommé, J. (1988). Le gisement paléolithique moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais): Stratigraphie, environnement, études archéologiques.Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 21, Paris.Google Scholar
  176. Turq, A. (1985). Le Mousterien de type Quina du Roc de Marsal (Dordogne).BSPF 82: 47–51.Google Scholar
  177. Turq, A. (1988). Le Moustérien de type Quina du Roc de Marsal à Campagne (Dordogne).Documents d'Archéologie Périgourdien (ADRAP) 3: 5–30.Google Scholar
  178. Turq, A. (1989). Approche technologique et économique du faciès Moustérien de type Quina.Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Fracaise 86: 244-.Google Scholar
  179. Turq, A. (1990). Exploitation des matières premières lithiques dans le Moustérien entre Dordogne et Lot.Le Silex de sa Genèse à l'Outil. Actes du Ve Colloque International sur le Silex, Cahiers du Quaternaire No. 17, Bordeaux, pp. 415–427.Google Scholar
  180. 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, Symposium Series Vol. 2, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
  181. Turq, A. (1995). Raw material sources in the region of Combe-Capelle Bas. In Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University Museum Press, Philadelphia, Appendix I (in press).Google Scholar
  182. Tzonev, T. (1989).Dynamic Approach to the Notion of the Type in Archaeology on the Example of Side-Scraper Morphology in Polish and Bulgarian Middle Paleolithic, Ph.D. dissertation, Jagiellonian University.Google Scholar
  183. Wynn, T. (1985). Piaget, stone tools and the evolution of human intelligence.World Archaeology 17: 32–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold L. Dibble
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations