Gilliane F. Monnier

The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization in Western Europe

In the late nineteenth century, the European Paleolithic was divided into stages, each of which was characterized by a distinct stone tool type known historically as a fossile directeur, or index fossil. Today, these index fossils are no longer explicitly used to date assemblages because they are known to overlap widely, but they continue to be used as key components in the periodization of the Paleolithic. This study addresses two major questions: (1) How have archaeologists justified retaining these index fossils to distinguish the Lower from the Middle Paleolithic? and (2) Does the diachronic patterning of these tool types support this periodization? The results reveal (1) that the overlap of index fossils was a known problem from the beginning and prehistorians repeatedly modified the classification to accommodate data which documented this overlap without rejecting its fundamental indexfossilbased core and (2) that, while temporal trends agreeing with the Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization can be identified, they are insignificant compared with the chronological variation observed in each of these tool types. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization should therefore be revised on the basis of a comprehensive examination of multiple lines of evidence, not just lithic typology.

Middle Palaeolithic Scraper Morphology, Flaking Mechanics and Imposed Form: Revisitng Bisson's ‘Interview with a Neanderthal’

Bisson’s paper is thought-provoking and well researched. His attempt to discover ‘rules of scraper production’, in many ways a refinement of Dibble’s model of scraper reduction (Dibble 1987; 1995), is innovative. He is also to be credited for designing a testable, replicable experiment and for his insightful focus on tool edges rather than overall tool shapes. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems concerning his methodology and underlying assumptions. The following critique will argue that: 1) Bisson’s scraper production rules reflect flaking mechanics and elements of the experimental design, rather than Neanderthals’ functional needs; 2) methodological flaws in his analysis of Middle Palaeolithic tools undermine his arguments that archaeological scrapers either follow or violate these rules; and 3) Bisson’s assumption that novice flintknappers are analogues for Neanderthals is inappropriate. Finally, this article will address some of the theoretical issues concerning uses of the concepts of mental templates and imposition of form. Bisson (2001) proposes that imposition of form in Middle Palaeolithic scrapers can be recognized when the rules for scraper manufacture, which are based upon functional considerations, are known. He derives these ‘scraper production rules’ on the basis of experiments with novice flintknappers, and finds that they apply to Neanderthal-manufactured Mousterian scrapers. He interprets the violation of these rules in scrapers from Skhul Cave as evidence that anatomically modern humans imposed form on their stone tools, and therefore had mental templates. This study provides evidence that the ‘scraper production rules’ are not, in fact, the rules according to which Neanderthals made their tools. Instead, they reflect flaking mechanics and elements of Bisson’s experimental design rather than any functional considerations taken into account during scraper manufacture. Furthermore, methodological flaws in Bisson’s analysis of Middle Palaeolithic artefacts undermine his arguments that archaeological scrapers either follow or violate the rules. These problems render untenable his conclusion that Neanderthals did not have mental templates and that they lacked flexibility and innovation in stone-tool making.