Lower Palaeolithic Core-Flake Industries in Western Europe: Techno-Functional Study of Layer « L» of Caune de l’Arago Cave (Tautavel, France)

In the 1870s the amateur archaeologist Dr Charles Abbott discovered roughly-flaked bifacial artefacts that he called “paleoliths” near Trenton, New Jersey, which he claimed were artefact types similar to Lower Palaeolithic handaxes being found in western Europe at that time. This interpretation gave rise to what has been called the Great Palaeolithic War, a debate in the United States about the existence of an “American Palaeolithic” that only ended in 1890 when the archaeologist William H. Holmes from the Smithsonian Institution excavated the Piney Branch lithics site in Washington D.C.. On the basis of the bifacial reduction sequence that he reconstructed from the lithics excavated at Piney Branch, Holmes argued that any resemblance of paleoliths to Lower Palaeolithic handaxes was accidental. Holmes believed that paleoliths were discarded elements from the sequential reduction of stone nodules (which he called the “Progressive Series”) by recent American Indian knappers during the manufacture of projectile points. In other words, the Trenton paleoliths, and by implication similar roughly-flaked bifaces, were nothing more than quarry refuse (or “waste”). Since Holmes’ day the quarry-refuse model for the interpretation of large roughly-flaked bifacial implements as “waste” and not artefact types used in other activities, particularly for lithics sties in the arid western regions of the US, has been applied at times without adequate bridging arguments. A review of Holmes’ interpretation of the Piney Branch evidence suggests that his quarry-refuse model, even when applied to Piney Branch, required numerous untested assumptions, and that the model may inadvertently obscure a range of other prehistoric activities not strictly related to quarrying and knapping. As a consequence, the application of the quarry-refuse model today to lithics sites found in North America without careful examination may also fail to identify the complete range of cultural activity at those sites, and should be applied to lithics sites only with due caution and the testing of alternative hypotheses.

Download Full-text

Palaeolithic archaeology: a review of recent research

Archaeological Reports ◽

10.1017/s0570608421000041 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 67 ◽

pp. 61-79

Author(s):

Vangelis Tourloukis

Keyword(s):

Western Europe ◽

Upper Palaeolithic ◽

Terra Incognita ◽

Recent Developments ◽

History Of ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Early Human ◽

Lower Palaeolithic ◽

Palaeolithic Archaeology

In contrast to a relatively long history of Palaeolithic investigations in western Europe, research on the Palaeolithic period in Greece has lagged behind considerably. This article reviews the last decade of Palaeolithic research in Greece, with the aim of highlighting key aspects of recent developments in the field. Newly discovered Lower Palaeolithic sites, such as Marathousa 1 in Megalopolis, have offered rare, high-resolution windows into hunter-gatherer adaptations during the earliest-known peopling of the Greek peninsula. Palaeolithic sites in insular settings, exemplified by the latest discoveries in Crete and Naxos, have stirred up intriguing discussions about early seafaring but, most importantly, provide support to a revised view of the role of the Aegean in early human dispersals. Zooarchaeological, palaeoenvironmental and dating analyses of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic materials from new and older assemblages have provided valuable insights that help contextualize the information distilled from lithic industries. In sum, recent excavations, surveys and assessments of new and older collections have together contributed to the compilation of an important corpus of novel and significant data. Palaeolithic Greece is no longer a terra incognita, and it carries the potential to become a key player in understanding early human societies in southern Europe.

Download Full-text

Core, Culture and Complex in the Old Stone Age

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society ◽

10.1017/s0079497x00019939 ◽

1945 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

pp. 1-19 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

T. T. Paterson

Keyword(s):

Western Europe ◽

Culture Industry ◽

Upper Palaeolithic ◽

Cultural Significance ◽

Wide System ◽

Cultural Classification ◽

Definition Of ◽

The Relationship ◽

Group Association ◽

Lower Palaeolithic

A Correspondence in Man a few years ago led to the expression of various attitudes towards the nomenclature of Lower Palaeolithic finds. It was agreed that cultural names should not be used to describe distinct techniques, but it was recognised that difficulties of terminology might arise, since techniques may indicate cultural similarities and therefore perhaps connections. When the time factor enters into the problem then other authorities differ. Professor Childe says, ‘where there is the slightest danger of confusing the chronological with the cultural classification, such usage is to be deprecated.’ Yet Professor Garrod later states, ‘the time has come when the labels Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic should be used exclusively in a chronological sense,’ and she refers them to subdivisions of the geological chronology. Nevertheless, as Professor Garrod herself remarks, ‘nine prehistorians out of ten continue to use these terms as more or less synonymous with hand-axe, flake and blade industries respectively,’ so these names have a purely technical or cultural significance. It follows from Professor Childe's sage advice that their chronological application ought to be allowed to fall into disuse. There is a perfectly good chronology supplied by the geologist already, with a world-wide system of five glaciations (Geikie), or their equivalents. Moreover, since it is becoming more and more apparent that the division into hand-axe, flake and blade industries is unsatisfactory (there are blades, according to Burkitt's definition of a blade, in Lower Palaeolithic industries), the threefold division has lost its meaning. I therefore suggest that we label as Lower Palaeolithic all those industries of the Pleistocene not comprised within the purely cultural group association of those predominantly blade industries which are found towards the end of the Upper Pleistocene, and are known as the Upper Palaeolithic. It is the purpose of this paper to clarify the relationship between technique and culture in the Lower Palaeolithic industries, to define more satisfactorily the terms, culture, industry and technique as used by the prehistorian, and to define some, at least, of the major cultural assemblages in North-western Europe.

Download Full-text