Advertisement

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 334–367 | Cite as

Searching for Lazy People: the Significance of Expedient Behavior in the Interpretation of Paleolithic Assemblages

  • Manuel Vaquero
  • Francesca Romagnoli
Article

Abstract

A quick glance at the evolution of lithic assemblages throughout prehistory highlights a great variability in the time and effort invested in technological activities. This variability has been related to differences in the technological organization of human groups, giving rise to the distinction proposed by Binford between curated and expedient technologies. Curation has been the subject of much discussion with regard to its definition and archaeological implications, but expediency has received comparatively less interest from researchers. Nevertheless, expedient technologies are ubiquitous in the archaeological record and represent a large proportion of prehistoric lithic assemblages, even becoming clearly dominant in certain chronological and/or regional contexts. The aim of this paper is to characterize expedient technologies as low-cost strategies that can be identified in all the stages of the lithic production sequence, from raw material provisioning to tool manufacture. However, we will focus our attention on core reduction technologies, emphasizing the consequences of distinguishing between expedient and formal reduction strategies. Finally, some implications of expediency in archaeological interpretation will be discussed, focusing on the significance of expedient technologies in the cultural ascription of lithic assemblages.

Keywords

Technological investment Expedient technologies Lithic production Iberian Peninsula 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by a Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad grant (HAR2016-76760-C3-1-P) and an AGAUR grant (2014-SGR-900). F.R. is supported by the European Union H2020 Programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 653667. M.V. and F.R. research is funded by CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya. We are also very grateful to Manuel Will and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

References

  1. Alday, A. (Ed.). (2006). El Mesolítico de muescas y denticulados en la cuenca del Ebro y el litoral mediterráneo peninsular. Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Alava.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, F., Moreno-García, M., & Angelucci, D. (2008). From under the bulldozer’s claws: the EE15 Late Gravettian occupation surface of the Lagar Velho rock-shelter. World Archaeology, 41(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altınbilek-Algül, C., Astruc, L., Binder, D., & Pelegrin, J. (2012). Pressure blade production with a lever in the Early and Late Neolithic of the Near East. In P. Desrosiers (Ed.), The emergence of pressure blade making: from origin to modern experimentation (pp. 157–179). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2008). An introduction to stone tool life history and technological organization. In W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation (pp. 3–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrefsky Jr., W. (2009). The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17(1), 65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araújo, A. C., & Almeida, F. (2007). Inland insights into the Macrolithic puzzle: the case of Barca do Xerez de Baixo. In N. F. Bicho (Ed.), From the Mediterranean basin to the Portuguese Atlantic shore: Papers in Honor of Anthony Marks. Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. Faro, 14-19 Setembro de 2004 (pp. 185–208). Faro: Universidade do Algarve.Google Scholar
  7. Arias, P., Cerrillo Cuenca, E., Álvarez Fernández, E., Gómez Pellón, E., & González Cordero, A. (2009). A view from the edges: the Mesolithic settlement of the interior areas of the Iberian Peninsula reconsidered. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, & P. Woodman (Eds.), Mesolithic horizons (Vol. I, pp. 303–311). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  8. Aura, J. E. (1995). El Magdaleniense mediterráneo: la Cova del Parpalló (Gandía, Valencia). Valencia: Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica, Diputación Provincial de Valencia.Google Scholar
  9. Aura, E. (2007). Badegouliens et Magdaléniens du versant méditerranéen espagnol. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 104(4), 809–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baena, J., Carrión, E., Ruiz, B., Ellwood, B. B., Sesé, C., Yravedra, J., et al. (2005). Paleoecología y comportamiento humano durante el Pleistoceno Superior en la comarca de Liébana: La secuencia de la Cueva de El Esquilleu (Occidente de Cantabria, España). In R. Montes & J. A. Lasheras (Eds.), Neandertales cantábricos, estado de la cuestión (pp. 461–487). Santander: Museo de Altamira.Google Scholar
  11. Baena, J., Carrión, E., Cuartero, F., & Fluck, H. (2012). A chronicle of crisis: the Late Mousterian in north Iberia (Cueva del Esquilleu, Cantabria, Spain). Quaternary International, 247, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity, 51, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barroso Ruíz, C., Botella Ortega, D., Caparrós, M., Moigne, A. M., Celiberti, V., Testu, A., et al. (2011). The Cueva del Angel (Lucena, Spain): an Acheulean hunters habitat in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, 243(1), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barsky, D., Celiberti, V., Cauche, D., Grégoire, S., Lebègue, F., de Lumley, H., & Toro-Moyano, I. (2010). Raw material discernment and technological aspects of the Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3 stone assemblages (Orce southern Spain). Quaternary International, 223-224, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bar-Yosef, O., & Van Peer, P. (2009). The Chaîne Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology, 50(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bednarik, R. G. (2014). Pleistocene Paleoart of Australia. Art, 3, 156–174.Google Scholar
  17. Benito del Rey, L. (1976). Excavaciones realizadas en el yacimiento musteriense de la cueva de las Grajas. Archidona (Málaga). Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico. Prehistoria, 5, 40–52.Google Scholar
  18. Bettinger, R. L. (1987). Archaeological approaches to hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bettinger, R. L., Winterhalder, B., & McElreath, R. (2006). A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(4), 538–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Binford, L. R. (1973). Interassemblage variability—the Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (pp. 227–254). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  21. Binford, L. R. (1977). Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity (pp. 24–36). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Archaeological Research, 35, 255–273.Google Scholar
  23. Binford, L. R. (1986). An Alyawara day: making men’s knives and beyond. American Antiquity, 51(3), 547–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity, 51, 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bleed, P. (2001). Trees or chains, links or branches: conceptual alternatives for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8(1), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Boëda, E. (1988). Analyse technologique du débitage du niveau IIA. In A. Tuffreau & J. Sommé (Eds.), Le gisement paléolithique moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais), volume I (pp. 185–214). Paris: Société préhistorique française.Google Scholar
  27. Boëda, E. (1993). Le débitage discoïde et le débitage levallois récurrent centripète. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 90(6), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Boëda, E. (1994). Le concept Levallois: Variabilité des méthodes. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
  29. Boëda, E., Geneste, J. M., & Meignen, L. (1990). Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo, 2, 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Borel, A., Gaillard, C., Moncel, M.-H., Sala, R., Pouydebat, E., Simanjuntak, T., & Sémah, F. (2013). How to interpret informal flakes assemblages? Integrating morphological description, usewear and morphometric analysis gave better understanding of the behaviors of anatomically modern human from Song Terus (Indonesia). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(4), 630–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bosselin, B. (2001). La séquence post-solutréenne du Parpalló (Espagne): application des méthodes quantitatives de l’analyse des données à l’étude morphométrique du débitage. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 98(4), 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bosselin, B., & Djindjian, F. (1999). Une révision de la séquence de la Riera (Asturies) et la question du Badegoulien cantabrique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 96(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Bousman, C. B. (1993). Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology, 18, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1987). The evolution of ethnic markers. Cultural Anthropology, 2, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 108, 10918–10925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Brantingham, P. J. (2003). A neutral model of stone raw material procurement. American Antiquity, 68(3), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Bright, J., Ugan, A., & Hunsaker, L. (2002). The effect of handling time on subsistence technology. World Archaeology, 34(1), 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cacho, C., & Martos, J. A. (2004). Estudio tecnológico de los niveles magdalenienses del Tossal de la Roca (Vall d’Alcala, Alicante). In E. Baquedano & S. Rubio (Eds.), Zona Arqueológica IV. Miscelánea en homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre (pp. 88–101). Museo Arqueológico Regional: Alcalá de Henares.Google Scholar
  39. Carrión Santafé, E., Baena Preysler, J., Conde Ruiz, C., Cuartero Monteagudo, F., & Roca, M. (2008). Variabilidad tecnológica en el musteriense de Cantabria. In R. Mora Torcal, J. Martínez Moreno, I. de la Torre, & J. Casanova Martí (Eds.), Variabilidad técnica del Paleolítico Medio en el sudoeste de Europa (pp. 279–318). Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  40. Casanova, J., Martínez Moreno, J., Mora, R., & de la Torre, I. (2009). Stratégies techniques dans le Paléolithique Moyen du sud-est des Pyrénées. L’Anthropologie, 113(2), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cascalheira, J., Bicho, N., Marreiros, J., Pereira, T., Évora, M., Cortés, M., et al. (2012). Vale Boi (Algarve, Portugal) and the Solutrean in Southwestern Iberia. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, 5, 455–467.Google Scholar
  42. Chiotti, L. (2002). La production d’éclats dans l’Aurignacien ancien de l’abri Pataud, les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I. Prehistoria y Arqueología, 15, 195–214.Google Scholar
  43. Clark, G. (1969). World prehistory: a new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Cobb, C. R., & Webb, P. A. (1994). A source area perspective: expedient and formal core technologies. North American Archaeologist, 15, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Collard, M., Buchanan, B., & O’Brien, M. J. (2013). Population size as an explanation for patterns in the Paleolithic archaeological record. More caution is needed. Current Anthropology, 54(S8), 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Coudart, A. (1992). Entre Nouvelle-Guinée et Néolithique européen: de la correspondance entre les variations de l’architecture domestique, la durabilité culturelle et la cohésion sociale du groupe. In Ethnoarchéologie: justification, problèmes, limites (pp. 409–446). Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA.Google Scholar
  47. Cretin, C., & Le Licon-Julien, G. (1997). Premières comparaisons sur la technologie du débitage du Magdalénien ancien: Les Jamblancs (Dordogne, France) et l’Abri Fritsch (Indre, France). Paleo, 9, 245–262.Google Scholar
  48. Delagnes, A., & Rendu, W. (2011). Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and subsistence strategies in western France. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(8), 1771–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Dibble, H. L., Holdaway, S. J., Lin, S. C., Braun, D. R., Douglass, M. J., Iovita, R., et al. (2016). Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9297-8.
  50. Domènech, E. M. (2000). Las producciones líticas del final del Epipaleolítico e inicios del Neolítico en la vertiente mediterránea española. Propuesta metodológica. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 57(1), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Doronichev, V. (2016). The pre-Mousterian industrial complex in Europe between 400 and 300 ka: interpreting its origin and spatiotemporal variability. Quaternary International, 409(B), 222–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Eren, M. I., Bradley, B. A., & Sampson, C. G. (2011). Middle Paleolithic skill level and the individual knapper: an experiment. American Antiquity, 76(2), 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Eren, M. I., Roos, C. I., Story, B. A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Faivre, J.-P., Discamps, E., Gravina, B., Turq, A., Guadelli, J.-L., & Lenoir, M. (2014). The contribution of lithic production systems to the interpretation of Mousterian industrial variability in south-western France: the example of Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France). Quaternary International, 350, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Fernández Peris, J. (2007). La Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia). Las industrias líticas del Pleistoceno medio en el ámbito del Mediterráneo peninsular. Valencia: Trabajos Varios del SIP 108.Google Scholar
  56. Fernández Peris, J., Barciela, V., Blasco, R., Cuartero, F., & Sañudo, P. (2008). El Paleolítico Medio en el territorio valenciano y la variabilidad tecno-económica de la Cova del Bolomor. In R. Mora, J. Martínez, I. de la Torre, & J. Casanova (Eds.), Variabilidad técnica del Paleolítico Medio en el sudoeste de Europa (pp. 141–169). Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  57. Finlay, N. (2015). Kid-knapped knowledge: changing perspectives on the child in lithic studies. Childhood in the Past, 8(2), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Finlayson, C., Giles Pacheco, F., Rodríguez-Vidal, J., Fa, D. A., Gutiérrez López, J. M., Santiago Pérez, A., et al. (2006). Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe. Nature, 443, 850–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Foley, R., & Mirazón Lahr, M. (2003). On stony ground: lithic technology, human evolution, and the emergence of culture. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Fontana, F., Moncel, M.-H., Nenzioni, G., Onorevoli, G., Peretto, C., & Combier, J. (2013). Widespread diffusion of technical innovations around 300,000 years ago in Europe as a reflection of anthropological and social transformations? New comparative data from the western Mediterranean sites of Orgnac (France) and Cave dall’Olio (Italy). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(4), 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gao, X. (2013). Paleolithic cultures in China. Uniqueness and divergence. Current Anthropology, 54(S8), 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. García-Medrano, P., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Cáceres, I., Díez, C., & Carbonell, E. (2014). The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII Unit). Quaternary International, 353, 170–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Geneste, J.-M. (1988). Les industries de la Grotte Vaufrey : technologie du débitage, économie et circulation de la matière première lithique. In J.-P. Rigaud (Ed.), La Grotte Vaufrey : paléoenvironnement, chronologie, activités humaines (pp. 441–517). Paris: Société préhistorique française.Google Scholar
  64. Gould, R. A. (1978). The anthropology of human residues. American Anthropologist, 80, 815–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gould, R. A., & Saggers, S. (1985). Lithic procurement in Central Australia: a closer look at Binford’s idea of embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity, 50(1), 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Gould, R. A., Koster, D. A., & Sontz, A. H. L. (1971). The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity, 36(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Gramly, R. M. (1980). Raw material source areas and “curated” tool assemblages. American Antiquity, 45, 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hayden, B. (1975). Curation: old and new. In J. S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C. Arnold, & G. Reardon (Eds.), Primitive Art and Technology (pp. 47–59). Calgary: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  69. Hayden, B. (1979). Palaeolithic reflections. Lithic technology and ethnographic excavation among Australian aborigines. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  70. Hayden, B., & Gargett, R. (1988). Specialization in the Paleolithic. Lithic Technology, 17(1), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Henrich, J. (2004). Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can produce maladaptive losses: the Tasmanian case. American Antiquity, 69, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Högberg, A. (2008). Playing with flint: tracing a child’s imitation of adult work in a lithic assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1), 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Holdaway, S., & Douglass, M. (2012). A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Johnson, J. (1986). Amorphous core technologies in the Midsouth. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 11, 135–151.Google Scholar
  75. Karlin, C., Bodu, P., & Pelegrin, J. (1991). Processus techniques et chaînes opératoires. Comment les préhistoriens s’approprient un concept élaboré par les ethnologues. In H. Balfet (Ed.), Observer l’action technique. Des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire? (pp. 101–117). Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
  76. Keeley, L. H. (1982). Hafting and retooling: effects on the archeological record. American Antiquity, 47, 798–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Keller, C. M., & Keller, J. D. (1996). Cognition and tool use. The blacksmith at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Kelly, R. L. (1988). The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity, 53(4), 717–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kelly, R. L. (2013). The lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The foraging Spectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Klein, R. G. (2000). Archeology and the evolution of human behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(1), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kuhn, S. L. (1992). On planning and curated technologies in the middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research, 48(3), 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kuhn, S. L. (1995). Mousterian lithic technology. An ecological perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Léa, V., Roque-Rosell, J., Torchy, L., Binder, D., Sciau, P., Pelegrin, J., et al. (2012). Craft specialization and exchanges during the southern Chassey culture: an integrated archaeological and material sciences approach. Rubricatum, 5, 119–128.Google Scholar
  84. Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung san: men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Locht, J.-L., & Swinnen, C. (1994). Le débitage discoïde du gisement de Beauvais (Oise): aspects de la chaîne opératoire au travers de quelques remontages. Paleo, 6, 89–104.Google Scholar
  87. Lycett, S. J., & Norton, C. J. (2010). A demographic model for Palaeolithic technological evolution: the case of East Asia and the Movius Line. Quaternary International, 211, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lycett, S. J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Eren, M. I. (2016). Levallois: potential implications for learning and cultural transmission capacities. Lithic Technology, 41(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  89. MacCalman, H. R., & Grobbelaar, B. J. (1965). Preliminary report of two stoneworking OvaTjimba groups in the Northern Kaokoveld of South West Africa. Cimbebasia, 13, 1–39.Google Scholar
  90. Maíllo, J. M. (2005). Esquemas operativos líticos del Musteriense Final de Cueva Morín (Villanueva de Villaescusa, Cantabria). In R. Montes & J. A. Lasheras (Eds.), Neandertales cantábricos, estado de la cuestión (pp. 301–313). Santander: Museo de Altamira.Google Scholar
  91. Maíllo Fernández, J. M. (2006). La producción de lascas en el Auriñaciense arcaico de Cueva Morín (Cantabria). Sautuola, XII, 45–58.Google Scholar
  92. Márquez, B., Mosquera, M., Pérez-González, A., Arsuaga, J. L., Baquedano, E., Panera, J., et al. (2013). Evidence of a Neanderthal-made quartz-based technology at Navalmaíllo Rockshelter (Pinilla del Valle, Madrid region, Spain). Journal of Anthropological Research, 69(3), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Marreiros, J., Bicho, N., Gibaja, J., Pereira, T., & Cascalheira, J. (2015). Lithic technology from the Gravettian of Vale Boi: new insights into Early Upper Paleolithic human behavior in Southern Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, 359-60, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Marwick, B., Clarkson, C., O’Connor, S., & Collins, S. (2016). Early modern human lithic technology from Jerimalai, East Timor. Journal of Human Evolution, 101, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. McAnany, P. A. (1988). The effects of lithic procurement strategies on tool curation and recycling. Lithic Technology, 17, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McCall, G. S. (2012). Ethnoarchaeology and the organization of lithic technology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20, 157–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mijares, A. S. B. (2001). An expedient lithic technology in Northern Luzon (Philippines). Lithic Technology, 26(2), 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mithen, S. (1994). Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene: hominid group size, social learning and industrial variability. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 4(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Moore, M. W. (2011). The design space of stone flaking: implications for cognitive evolution. World Archaeology, 43(4), 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Moore, M. W. (2013). Simple stone flaking in Australasia: patterns and implications. Quaternary International, 285, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Moore, M. W., & Perston, Y. (2016). Experimental insights into the cognitive significance of early stone tools. PloS One, 11(7), e0158803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Moore, M. W., Sutikna, T., Jatmiko, Morwood, M. J., & Brumm, A. (2009). Continuities in stone flaking technology at Liang Bua, Flores, Indonesia. Journal of Human Evolution, 57(5), 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mora, R., Martínez Moreno, J., & Casanova, J. (2008). Abordando la noción de “variabilidad musteriense” en Roca dels Bous (Prepirineo suroriental, Lleida). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 65(2), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mourre, V. (2003). Discoïde ou pas discoïde? Réflexions sur la pertinence des critères techniques définissant le débitage discoïde. In M. Peresani (Ed.), Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and Implications (pp. 1-18). BAR International Series 1120. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  105. Nash, S. E. (1996). Is curation a useful heuristic? In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory (pp. 81–99). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  106. Nelson, M. C. (1991). The study of technological organization. Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 57–100.Google Scholar
  107. Odell, G. H. (1996). Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation”. In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory (pp. 51–80). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  108. Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X. P., de Lombera-Hermida, A., García-Antón, M. D., García-Medrano, P., et al. (2013). The Early and Middle Pleistocene technological record from Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Quaternary International, 295, 138–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ortega, D., & Maroto, J. (2001). Matières premières et technologie lithique du Moustérien final de la grotte des Ermitons (Pyrénées Méditerranéennes). In J. Zilhao, T. Aubry, & A. F. Carvalho (Eds.), Les premiers hommes modernes de la Péninsule Ibérique (pp. 69–76). Lisboa: Instituto Portugues de Arqueología.Google Scholar
  110. Parry, W. J., & Kelly, R. L. (1987). Expedient core technology and sedentism. In J. K. Johnson & C. A. Morrow (Eds.), The Organization of Core Technology (pp. 285–304). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  111. Pastoors, A., & Peresani, M. (Eds.) (2012). Flakes not blades: the role of flake production at the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. Mettmann: Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 5.Google Scholar
  112. Pelegrin, J., & Chauchat, C. (1993). Tecnología y función de las puntas de Paiján: el aporte de la experimentación. Latin American Antiquity, 4(4), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Peresani, M. (1998). La variabilité du débitage discoïde dans la Grotte de Fumane (Italie du Nord). Paleo, 10, 123–146.Google Scholar
  114. Perreault, C., Brantingham, P. J., Kuhn, S. L., Wurz, S., & Gao, X. (2013). Measuring the complexity of lithic technology. Current Anthropology, 54(S8), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Petrequin, P., & Petrequin, A.-M. (1993). Ecologie d’un outil: La hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonesie). Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  116. Picin, A., & Carbonell, E. (2016). Neanderthal mobility and technological change in the northeastern of the Iberian Peninsula: the patterns of chert exploitation at the Abric Romaní rock-shelter. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 15(5), 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Pigeot, N. (1990). Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9(1), 126–141.Google Scholar
  118. Pop, C. M. (2016). Simulating lithic raw material variability in archaeological contexts: a re-evaluation and revision of Brantingham’s neutral model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(4), 1127–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Reti, J. S. (2016). Quantifying Oldowan stone tool production at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. PloS One, 11(1), e0147352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Riel-Salvatore, J., & Barton, C. M. (2004). Late Pleistocene technology, economic behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. American Antiquity, 69(2), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Romagnoli, F. (2015). A second life: recycling production waste during middle Palaeolithic in Southern Italy. The lithic assemblage of layer L at Grotta del Cavallo (Lecce, South Apulia). Quaternary International, 361, 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Roux, V. (1991). Peut-on interpréter les activités lithiques préhistoriques en termes de durée d’apprentissage ? Apport de l’ethnologie et de la psychologie aux études technologiques. In 25 ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire. Bilan et perspectives (pp. 47–56). Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA.Google Scholar
  123. Roux, V., Bril, B., & Dietrich, G. (1995). Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping: the case of stone-bead knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology, 27(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Rubio-Jara, S., Panera, J., Rodríguez-de-Tembleque, J., Santonja, M., & Pérez-González, A. (2016). Large flake Acheulean in the middle of Tagus basin (Spain): middle stretch of the river Tagus valley and lower stretches of the rivers Jarama and Manzanares valleys. Quaternary International, 411(B), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Ruebens, K. (2013). Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: a comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability. Journal of Human Evolution, 65, 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Ruebens, K., & Wragg Sykes, R. M. (2016). Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour: British bout coupé handaxes as a case study. Quaternary International, 411(A), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sánchez-Cervera, B., Santonja Gómez, M., Pérez-González, A., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., & Sánchez-Romero, L. (2015). La industria lítica del yacimiento achelense de Torralba (Soria, España). Colecciones marqués de Cerralbo y Howell. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 72(1), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Santamaría, D., Montes, L., & Utrilla, P. (2008). Variabilidad técnica del Paleolítico Medio en el valle del Ebro: la Cueva de los Moros I de Gabasa (Peralta de Calasanz, Huesca). In R. Mora Torcal, J. Martínez Moreno, I. de la Torre, & J. Casanova Martí (Eds.), Variabilidad técnica del Paleolítico Medio en el sudoeste de Europa (pp. 319–339). Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  129. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Panera, J., Rubio-Jara, S., Sesé, C., et al. (2014). The Middle Paleolithic site of Cuesta de la Bajada (Teruel, Spain): a perspective on the Acheulean and Middle Paleolithic technocomplexes in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 556–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Panera, J., Rubio-Jara, S., & Méndez-Quintas, E. (2016). The coexistence of Acheulean and ancient Middle Palaeolithic techno-complexes in the Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, 411(B), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Shennan, S. (2000). Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology, 41, 811–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Shott, M. J. (1989). On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity, 54, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Shott, M. J. (1996). An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Shott, M. J., & Sillitoe, P. (2005). Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Shott, M. J., Lindly, J. M., & Clark, G. A. (2011). Continuous modeling of core reduction: lessons from refitting cores from WHS 623x, an upper Paleolithic site in Jordan. PaleoAnthropology, 2011, 320–333.Google Scholar
  136. Sillitoe, P., & Hardy, K. (2003). Living lithics: ethnoarchaeology in Highland Papua New Guinea. Antiquity, 77, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Slimak, L. (2003). Les débitages Discoïdes moustériens: évaluation d’un concept technologique. In M. Peresani (Ed.), Discoid lithic technology. Advances and implications (pp. 33–62). BAR International series 1120. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  138. Slimak, L. (2008). ¿Qué sistemas de talla, qué conceptos, qué límites para el Paleolítico Medio? In R. Mora, J. Martínez Moreno, I. de la Torre, & J. Casanova (Eds.), Variabilidad técnica del Paleolítico Medio en el sudoeste de Europa (pp. 9–26). Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  139. Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production. An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Tan, N. H. (2014). Rock art research in Southeast Asia: a synthesis. Art, 3, 73–104.Google Scholar
  141. Thiébaut, C. (2005). Le Moustérien à denticulés: variabilité ou diversité techno-économique? Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Université Aix-Marseille I, Université de Provence.Google Scholar
  142. Tomka, S. A. (2001). The effect of processing requirements on reduction strategies and tool form: a new perspective. In W. Andrefsky Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning (pp. 207–223). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  143. Torrence, R. (1983). Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In G. Bailey (Ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective (pp. 11–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Torrence, R. (Ed.). (1989). Time, energy and stone tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Tostevin, G. B. (2011). Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire methods of lithic analysis. PaleoAnthropology, 2011, 351–375.Google Scholar
  146. Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., & Faivre, J.-P. (2013). The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(5), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Ugan, A., Bright, J., & Rogers, A. (2003). When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science, 30(10), 1315–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Vaquero, M. (1999). Variabilidad de las estrategias de talla y cambio tecnológico en el Paleolítico Medio del Abric Romaní (Capellades, Barcelona). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 56(2), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Vaquero, M. (2011). New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources using refitting and spatial data. Quartär, 58, 113–130.Google Scholar
  150. Vaquero, M., Esteban, M., Allué, E., Vallverdú, J., Carbonell, E., & Bischoff, J. L. (2002). Middle Palaeolithic Refugium, or archaeological misconception? A new U-series and radiocarbon chronology of Abric Agut (Capellades, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 953–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Vaquero, M., Alonso, S., García-Catalán, S., García-Hernández, A., Gómez de Soler, B., Rettig, D., & Soto, M. (2012). Temporal nature and recycling of Upper Paleolithic artifacts: the burned tools from the Molí del Salt site (Vimbodí i Poblet, northeastern Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8), 2785–2796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vaquero, M., Bargalló, A., Chacón, M. G., Romagnoli, F., & Sañudo, P. (2015). Lithic recycling in a Middle Paleolithic expedient context: evidence from the Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain). Quaternary International, 361, 212–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Vega Toscano, L. G. (1989). Ocupaciones humanas en el Pleistoceno de la Depresión de Guadix-Baza: elementos de discusión. In M. T. Alberdi & F. P. Bonadona (Eds.), Geología y Paleontología de la Cuenca de Guadix-Baza (pp. 327–346). Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC.Google Scholar
  154. Wallace, I. J., & Shea, J. J. (2006). Mobility patterns and core technologies in the middle Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 1293–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Watson, V. D. (1995). Simple and significant: stone tool production in highland New Guinea. Lithic Technology, 20(2), 89–99.Google Scholar
  156. White, M. J. (2000). The Clactonian question: on the interpretation of core-and-flake assemblages in the British Lower Paleolithic. Journal of World Prehistory, 14(1), 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari san projectile points. American Antiquity, 48(2), 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D. E., Badal-García, E., d’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., et al. (2010). Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 1023–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Zilhão, J., Ajas, A., Badal, E., Burow, C., Kehl, M., López-Sáez, J. A., et al. (2016). Cueva Antón: a multi-proxy MIS 3 to MIS 5a paleoenvironmental record for SE Iberia. Quaternary Science Reviews, 146, 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Area de PrehistoriaUniversitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain
  2. 2.Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio Social (IPHES)TarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations