Modern Approaches to Paleolithic Archaeology in ...

Society for American Archaeology

Modern Approaches to Paleolithic Archaeology in Europe -- A Sampler of Research Traditions Bettencourt-Saint-Ouen (Somme): Cinq occupations paléolithiques au début de la dernière glaciation by Jean-Luc Locht; Campements mésolithiques en Bresse jurassienne: Choisey et Ruffey-sur-Seille (Jura) by Frédéric Séara; Sylvain Rotillon; Christophe Cupillard; Recent Studies in the Final Palaeolithic of the European Plain by Berit Valentin Eriksen; Bodil Bratlund; Rekem -- a Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank, ... Review by: G. A. Clark American Antiquity, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 376-384 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035709 . Accessed: 13/09/2012 01:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

ItiMlswjcl

Editedby Douglas B. Bamforth Book Review Essays reports- and then offer some observationsabout the practiceof StoneAge archaeologyin westernandcentralEuropeas glimpsedthroughthe lens of intellectual traditionsthat departto some extent from the broadly Bettencourt-Saint-Ouen(Somme): Cinq occupations definedecological approachesin vogue in the United paleolithiques au debut de la derniere glaciation. States today. JEAN-LUCLOCHT,editor.2002. Editionsde la MaiTwo of the books areFrench,publishedin the Docson des sciences de l'Homme, Documentsd'archeolo- uments d'Archeologie Francaise(DAF) series by the gie FrancaiseNo. 90, Paris. 172 pp., 34 (paper). Maisondes Sciencesde l'Homme,a dependencyof two ministries(Culture& Communication;Youth,EducaCampementsmesolithiques en Bresse jurassienne tion & Research),the CentreNationalde la Recherche Choisey et Ruffey-sur-Seille (Jura). FREDERIC Scientifique(theFrenchNSF), andtheInstitutNational SEARA, SYLVAIN ROTILLON, CHRISTOPHE de Recherches Arqueologiques Preventives (the CUPILLARD,editors.2002. Editionsde laMaison des national salvage archaeologyorganization).Both are sciences de l'Homme, Documents d'archeologie highway salvagereports,both are similarlyorganized, FrancaiseNo. 92, Paris341 pp., 42 (paper). and both reflectthe strongnaturalscience approaches thathavedominatedFrenchpaleolithicarchaeologyfor Recent Studies in the Final Palaeolithic of the Euro- more than a century. pean Plain. BERIT VALENTIN ERIKSEN AND a MousterianOpen BODILBRATLUND,editors.2002. JutlandArchaeo- Bettencourt-Saint-Ouen, logical Society PublicationsNo. 39, Hojbjerg(Dane- Site in NorthernFrance mark).207 pp., 300 DKK (cloth). The first (DAF 90) describes the Middle Paleolithic open site of Bettencourt-Saint-Ouen,encounteredin Rekem - a Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River 1994 in the right-of-wayof a plannedextensionof the Bank, Vols.I, II. MARC DE BIE AND JEAN-PAUL A 16 motorway(Amiens-Boulogne) on the northbank CASPAR. 2000. Asse-Zellik & Leuven University of the Somme between Abbeville and Amiens. ExcaPress,Leuven.ArchaeologicaLovaniensiaNo. 10, pp. vated from Februaryto August 1995, the site consists 325 (Vol. I - text), pp. 269 (Vol. II - figures), 122.71 of five spatially and stratigraphicallydiscrete Mous(cloth). terianoccupations(N3b, N3a, N2b, N2a, Nl) formed in loesses (aeolian silts) on a gentle, east-facingslope Reviewedby G. A. Clark,Arizona State University transectedby two small erosion channelson a former tributaryof the NievreRiver,some 2 km upstreamfrom As someone long interestedin the logic of inference the town of Bettencourt.The erosionalfeaturesdivide underlyingknowledge claims in Paleolithicarchaeol- the site into three sectors, and refitting shows that, ogy- perforceanOldWorldpursuit- AmericanAntiq- althoughthe artifactsthemselvesarepristine,therehas uityreviewseditorDoug Bamforthaskedme to prepare been some downslopedisplacementof the lithics, with an essay on five recently publishedmonographsthat the Sector3 occupations,at the bottomof the slope, by samplesome of theresearchtraditionsof Europe(those far the densest.Veryextensive stratigraphic,sedimenof France, Scandinavia,Germany,Poland, Belgium). tological, palynological and paleopedological analyIn whatfollows, I firstsummarizethe contentsof these ses indicate a (mostly) forested paleoenvironment richly detailed and illustrated books- mostly site duringa complex transitionalperiodspanningthe very

Modern Approaches to Paleolithic Archaeology in EuropeA Sampler of Research Traditions

AmericanAntiquity,70(2), 2005, pp. 376-399 Copyright© 2005 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology 376

REVIEWS

endof theEemInterglacial(OIS6) andtheearlyWeichselianGlacial(OIS 5d-5a).TL andIRSLdatingof sediments, and ESR-U/Th dating of auroch teeth are reasonably consistent as a group, and bracket the 112-68 kyrB.P.interval.The geological, environmental, andchronometricstudiesaccountfor 56 pages (35 percent of the book), were undertakenby a multinational, "pluridisciplinary"team of earth scientists (French,Belgians, Germans),andare"stateof the art," usingmodernanalyticaltechniquesand- apparently sparingno expense. A total of 866 m2 was excavated, 342 m2by hand. Faunalremainsare preservedonly at the main site, N2b, wherethey occurin a greyforestsoil datedto OIS 5a. They consist of 43 equid remains(mostly teeth) of a species intermediatein its dentalmetricsbetween E. tabachensis, typically found in Eem interglacial deposits,andthe mid-Weichselspecies E. germanicus. The othermain faunalelementis probablythe auroch, Bos primigenius(23 pieces), based on morphological and biometric comparisons with aurochsen from Biache-Saint-Vaast.The occurrenceof faunalremains in last glacial open sites in northwesternFrance is unusual,althoughopen sites of earlyWeichsel age are fairlycommonin the area( 13 areknownbetweenParis andLille).Thefaunaindicatesa dry,open,grassysteppe duringtheformationof N2b.Microwearstudiesofftake andpoint samplessuggest they were used to cut meat. The sites are orderedin time as listed above. The oldest one (N3b) is representedin all threesectorsand is the only OIS 5d site known so far in the north of France.Dated to the firstintervalof climatic degradation following the Eem (the Herningstadial,c 110 kyr B.P.), raw materialanalysis, typological and technological studies (includingextensive refittingof cores) identify Levallois, discoidal and laminarblank production sequences (chaines operatoires)displaying a considerableflexibilityaccordingto the size andshape of the desired blank (flakes, points, blades), and the "packagesize" of the original nodule. Although elements of it are replicatedat other sites, this combinationof blankproductionsequencesis apparentlyunique in the early Weichselianof the region. Every stage in thethreemajortechnologicalsequencesis represented, indicatinglocal productionof blanks"onsite."All artifactsin the areasexcavatedby handwerepiece-plotted, allowingfor hundredsof refits,andmicroscopicanalysis of wear and damage patternswere conducted on retouchedpieces and on samplesof the debitage. Site N3a is a small knappingstation (87 artifacts) associated with an episode of climatic amelioration markedby the initial formationof a grey forest soil datedto c. 105 kyr B.P. (Br0rupinterstadial?).A refitted core documentsa bidirectionalmethodfor the production of lamellar blanks. Refitting was almost

377

complete, perhapsrepresentinga "momentfrozen in time"- the activitiesof a single individualovera period of ca. 30-40 minutes.The "site"(i.e., core) was abandonedafteran accidentrenderedit unsuitedto the productionof more blades. Sites N2b and N2a are separatedfrom N3a by an episode of climaticdegradation(theRedenstallstadial, OIS 5b) thoughtto date to c. 85 kyr B.P.They occurin colluvial deposits associatedwith a second forest soil, perhapscorrelatedwith the Odderadeinterstadial(OIS 5a, 85-75 kyrB.P.).N2b is by farthe densestandrichest concentrationof lithic debris (especially in Sector 3, at the bottomof the slope). The presenceof the erosional channels makes it impossible to correlateN2b stratigraphicallyacross all three sectors,but the excavators conclude that it probably representsa single, brief episode of occupation. Site Nl is the latest occupation,associatedwith a soil type that correspondsto the first of three steppic soils in the stratotypesequenceat Saint-Sauflieu,where it is datedto around70 kyr B.P. It formedundercold, dry climatic conditions, with little in the way of tree cover.The chainesoperatoiresat Nl recallthose of the earlier sites, with distinct productionsequences oriented toward the manufactureof blades, flakes and points.Takentogether,the variousaspectsof the lithic analyses(rawmaterial,technology,typology,refitting, use-wear) account for 91 pages, or 57 percent of the text. There are three important conclusions from the work:(1) acknowledgingthatthe sites are slightly disturbed,there is good evidence for the spatialsegregation of activities within occupationlevels. In upslope Sectors 1 and2, the maincore reductionsequencesare variable,and both Levallois and non-Levalloismethods are represented.In downslope Sector 3 (most of which was excavatedby hand), there is more technological consistency,with an emphasis on the production of blades and points made by the unidirectional Levalloismethod.In N2b, the site thatyieldedrarefaunal remains,microwearanalyses showed (2) good evidence for woodworkingand frequentcut marksin an assemblage in which Levallois points were common, suggestingthatthe points were used mostly as knives. The points and cut-markedbones arefound on the site peripheries,at some distance from the areasin which primaryreductiontook place, suggesting that woodworkingandbutcherywere spatiallysegregatedactivities (who would want to butcher an auroch in the middleof the livingroomfloor?!).In otherwords,these (presumablyNeandertal) campsites resembled their modern counterpartsso far as site organizationwas concerned.Finally, the authorsconclude that (3) the lithic industriesshow a persistenceof 5-6 distinctproductionsystemsover a periodof ca. 40,000 years.This

378

AMERICANANTIQUITY

observationdemonstrates,in theirview, "theweight of culturaltraditionsin the face of markedenvironmental changes" (p. 167). While the patternsidentified are undisputed,what is supposedlycausing them to occur (social learningtransmittedfromone generationto the next over ca. 2000 generations)is epistemicallyproblematic.I returnto this issue below.

Choiseyand Ruffey-sur-Seille- Mesolithic OpenSites in the Bresse Basin The secondFrenchmonograph(DAF92) describestwo large Mesolithic open sites found duringextension of the A 39 motorway (Dole-Bourg-en-Bresse), in the Franche-Comtedistrict(Departementof Jura)in eastcentral France near the Swiss border. The site of Choisey is located on a large alluvial plain above the confluenceof the Doubs andthe Saone Rivers,some 7 km southwestof the townof Dole. Witha spatialextent of at least5,000 m2in the highwayright-of-way(it may be larger),it representsa series of relativelyephemeral campsites occupied duringthe last cold phase of the Tardiglacial,theYoungerDryas(1 1-10.3 kyrB.P.),and theearlyHolocenePreborealPeriod(11.1-9.9 kyrB.P.). Choiseyis poorlydatedradiometrically, owing to a lack of collagen in the faunalsamples.Thereis a single 14C date on a hazelnutshell, 9175 ± 70 B.P.At ca. 25,000 m2, Ruffey is the larger,and perhapsmore important, site. Locatedon the floodplainof the Seille River,a tributaryof the Saone, about 10 km northwestof Lons-leSaunier,its position on the incised right (north)bank of the riverhas apparentlysparedit from destruction duringsubsequentphases of the Holocene. In contrast to Choisey, Ruffey is well-dated radiometrically(30 determinations,19 of which pertainto Early,Middle andLateMesolithicoccupationsclusteredbetweenca. 10.5 and9.4 kyrB.P). Ruffey also has a Campaniform Neolithic sequence;the two sites are only comparable stratigraphicallyduringthe end of the last glacial and at the beginningof the Holocene. The chronostratigraphies at both (but especially Ruffey) are complex because of numerouspaleochannelsthat incised the archaeologicaldeposits, a consequenceof the braided streamsthat developedperiodicallyin both drainages duringthe late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Both sites were testedusing backhoesandfront-endloaders to define stratigraphicsections and strip off overburden, followed by spatiallyextensive excavation(decapage horizontale) and total recovery of the archaeologicalhorizons(wheresampled),with all geoscienceandarchaeologicaldataenteredintoa relational database. Specialistanalysesareembodiedin the characteristically French methode pluridisciplinaire and closely replicatethose used at Bettencourt(i.e., geomorphology, sedimentology, soil micromorphology, palynology,malacology [thereare snail faunasat both

[Vol. 70, No. 2, 2005]

sites], archaeozoology,paleontology,taphonomy,raw materialsourcing, spatial analysis, biological anthropology [a rarecremationis preservedin a Sauvetterian level at Ruffey]).These complementthe technological and typological analyses of the lithic industriestraditionally emphasizedin paleolithicresearch.A particularly useful feature of the monograph is a concise descriptionof the west EuropeanHolocene paleoenvironmentalframeworkagainstwhichall culturalchange is measured(pp. 21, 22). This puts the reader"in the picture"and provides an organizationalstructurefor what follows. What follows is an exhaustive series of chronostratigraphicand paleoenvironmentalstudies (108 pp., 33 percentof the book) that providea context for the archaeology(206 pp., 63 percent).The main focus of the archaeologyis on spatialanalysis, which allowed the authorsto conclude that most domestic activities wereorganizedaroundhearths,andthatdomesticwaste (large bones, nuclei, and other clunky objects) were shovedtowardthe site peripheries.Thispatternpersists throughoutthe entire sequence. No living structures (shelters,huts,etc.) wereidentified.Petrographicanalyses indicated systematic procurementfrom sources 70-185 km distant.All the lithics (ca. 24,000 pieces) were analyzed from a numberof technological perspectives (mainlyrefitting).They show consistentuse of hardand soft directpercussiontechniqueson prismaticbladeletcoreswithunprepared(i.e., non-facetted) platformsover the firsttwo millenniaof the sequence, graduallyreplacedover the last two millenniaby the productionof regularblades and bladeletsby indirect percussion.Typologically,both sites aredominatedby a varietyof geometricmicroliths(especiallytriangular arrowheads)made on small blades and bladelets, and therearechangesovertimebothin pointformandpoint frequency. The intentof the typological analysesis to identify theculturesto whichthesehunter-gatherers supposedly pertained,andto examinetherelationshipsamongthem in spaceandtime.At Ruffey,the oldest occupationsare datedto ca. 10.4-10 kyrB.P.andarelinkedto the Beuronian "culturaldomain,"indicatingmovement from and/orcontact with peoples to the north.The second set of occupations(ca. 10.4-9.6 kyr B.P.) are assigned to the Middle Sauvetterian (after Sauveterre-leLimance,in southernFrance),whichis a "culture"originally definedalong the Mediterraneancoast, whereit is datedto ca. 9.9-9. 1 kyrB.P.This is takento indicate southern affiliation, contact, and/or influences. At Choisey,the earlieroccupationis arguedto be Ahrensburgianor Epi-Ahrensburgian,recalling the final epipaleolithicof theEuropeanPlain,whereasthe laterone, datedto ca. 10.1 kyr B.P, is strictlylocal, resembling otherMiddleMesolithicsites in theDoubsvalley.Orig-

REVIEWS

inallyidentifiedby AlfredRustin the 1930s, theAhrensburgianis an assemblageof flint artifactscomprising tangedpoints with no ventralretouchon the tang, and geometric microliths, mainly small triangularpoints mountedseriallyin bone, antleror wooden armatures. Supposedlyderivedfromthe Bromme-Lyngbyculture of southernScandinavia,it is datedin northernEurope to theAller0dInterstadial(11.8-11 kyrB.P.).Although thereareno tangedpointsat eithersite (claimsof affinity are based on the geometric microliths),the literatureof theEuropeanEpipaleolithicis repletewith these typologicallybased "cultures,"based for the most part on the forms, frequencies, and modes of retouch of microliths.Whetheror not it is reasonableto suppose that retouchedstone artifactswould, or could, reflect in theirtime/spacedistributionstool-makingtraditions held in commonby identity-consciousgroupsof people has not, so far,been seriouslyexamined. The low-energy fluvial environments at both ChoiseyandRuffeyyieldedlarge,well-preservedmammal faunasthatreflectedshifts in huntingandbutchering practices at both sites. The Choisey faunas are dominatedby reddeerthroughout,whereasthose from Ruffeyemphasizespecializedpredationovertime,with wild boarmost commonlytakenin the Beuronianlevels; boar and aurochsin the Lower Sauveterrian,red deer in the Middle Sauvetterian,and aurochs in the laterMesolithic.Beaver,roe deer,fox, andwolf arealso present.Analysis of skeletal elements generally indicates butcheringpractices tailored to size classes of animals. As at Bettencourt,much is made of the pluridisciplinaryapproachandof the desirability(indeednecessity) of collaboration between archaeologists and naturalscientists,buttheresultingspecialistanalysessophisticatedand complex in theirown right- remain curiously unintegrated.The main substantivecontributionsrecognizedby the authorsalso resemblethose fromBettencourt:(1) fine-graineddescriptionanddating of the changing paleoenvironmentalcontexts at both Choisey and Ruffey; (2) identificationof compositionally similar,hearth-centeredactivity units in the absenceof any tracesof dwellings; (3) documentation of specializedhunting,butchering,andtransportpractices; (4) identification of the lithic production sequencesboth within andbetween sites, andcomparison with otherMesolithic sites in the region; and (5) applicationof typologicalsystematicsto addressquestions of culturalorigins, identity,affinity,and contact in a regiondescribedas the "crossroadsof the FrancheComte"(p. 336).

379

of the EuropeanPlain duringthe waningphases of the tardiglacialandthe earliestHolocene. Publishedby the JutlandArchaeologicalSociety, with the financialsupport of the Danish ResearchCouncil for the Humanities, the AarhusUniversity ResearchFoundationand the Berit WallenbergsFoundation,and distributedby the AarhusUniversityPress, most of the paperswere firstpresentedat a U.I.S.P.P.symposiumheld in Stockholm in October 1999. The authors'nationalitiescorrespondalmost perfectlyto the geographicalextent of the plain itself; Dutch, Swedes, Germans,Belgians, Danes, Poles, Latvians,and Swiss are represented. Much of the EuropeanPlain effectively lacks an earlierprehistory.During the last pleniglacial, it was largelydevoidof humansettlement,eitherburiedunder the continentalice sheetsor affectedby periglacialphenomenathatrenderedmost of it uninhabitable.Withthe onset of global warming during the late glacial, the large Fennoscandianice sheets retreatedrapidlyand, afterca. 15 kyr B.R, the region openedup to a succession of tundra,park-tundra,andopen forest communities withtheirassociatedfaunasthatdrewforagersback from their pleniglacial refugia in more temperate climes.Althoughinterrupted by thecolderclimaticconditions of the Older (12-11.8 kyr B.R) and Younger Dryas (1 1-10 kyr B.R), this process of recolonization acceleratedmarkedlyduring the Aller0d chronozone (11.8-11 kyr B.R), when climatic ameliorationfirmly establisheditself. By thebeginningof theHolocene(ca. 10 kyrB.R), hunter-gatherers hadresettledmost of the plain, now covered by a mixed deciduous-coniferous forest dominatedby birch,pine, aspen, andjuniper. The symposium brought together scholars interested in a wide rangeof colonizationissues, including thereconstructionof lateglacialpaleoenvironments, the chronologyof the final paleolithicrecolonization,and culturehistoriesof the differentregions, so far as they areknown (politics havingimpededor preventedpanEuropean scholarly communication until fairly recently). Despite its location in the heartof Europe, andthe importanthistoricalrolesplayedby the national researchtraditionsin the emergenceof the formaldisciplineof paleolithicarchaeologyin thenineteenthcentury,not an awfullot is knownabouttherecolonization. Half the papersaresite reports,andmost of the rest are ratherthin regional summaries,using geochronological frameworksdeveloped in Holland and Belgium, and borrowingmost of the culture-stratigraphicunits fromthe GermansandDanes (e.g., Hamburgian[= late Magdalenian],Federmesser [= Azilian], Brommean, Ahrensburgian,etc.). Issues andproblemsin late glacialprehistoryon the TheFinal Paleolithic of the EuropeanPlain EuropeanPlain are perhapsmore difficult to address Its contentsperfectlycapturedby its title, this collected thanthose in unglaciatedareas.There are severalreaworkcomprises18 essays on the humanrecolonization sons for this. One is a notable lack of caves and, gen-

380

AMERICANANTIQUITY

[Vol. 70, No. 2, 2005]

placement of the artifacts(ca. 30 cm on average) is attributedto small-scalebioturbation(thereareno indications of major disruptivenaturalevents- burrows, tree falls, erosional episodes, etc.). In an astonishing methodologicaltour deforce, all 23,496 flint artifacts (excepttinychips)werepoint-provenienced,examined for tracesof use, wearanddamage,2,3 11 of themrefitted, and then subjectedto what is arguablythe most intensive battery of statistical pattern searches ever undertakenat anarchaeologicalsite, anywhere.In addition, 1,602 pieces of quartzite,sandstone,and quartz were recovered,of which 715 (45 percent)were refitted within loci, 39 (2.4 percent)between loci, underscoringthe spatialdiscretenessof the lithic scatters. Most of Rekem consists of HabitationZone 1, a NW/SE-orientedrectangleof 12 discretelithic scatters (Loci 1,4-8, 10-13, 15, and 16) extendingoveran area of about80 x 35 m andthoughtto be broadlycontemporaneous.The larger concentrationscover areas of 50-60 m2 (e.g., 5, 6, and 10) and include evidence of structures(burntquartzite,sandstonepebbles)anda varied inventoryof lithic debrisindicatinga successionof severaldifferentactivities.Nearlycircularareasca. 4-5 m in diameterdefinethe smallerconcentrations,which have been identifiedas eitherrefuse dumps(e.g., 1) or limitedactivitysites focused on variousaspectsof flint working (e.g., 7, 11, 15). Refitting of flint and other rocksrevealsa complexnetworkof inter-locusrelations amongmost of theconcentrationsin HZ1. The program of integratedspatialanalysisidentifieshigh-resolution patternsof pasthumanactivityat Rekem,bothin small loci reflectinga limited range of behavior(e.g., 15, a flint knappinglocus generatedby a single individual over ca. 20-30 minutesof time), and in largerconcentrationsgeneratedby a more extended succession of activities(e.g., 10, where an enclosed space ca. 5-6 m across, a hearth and [possiblyl an organic floor mat could be inferredfroma rangeof spatialdata).Domestic activitiesevidently took place inside this dwelling, includingbone and antlerworking,processingof both wet and dry hides, butchery,and refittingof brokenor damagedprojectilepoints.Manyof these activitiesare Rekem- a Late Last Glacial Site in the Belgian concentratedarounda hearth,which was itself periodLowlands ically cleanedandmaintained."Drop"and"tosszones" The Federmessersite of Rekemis locatedin the north- (e.g., Binford 1978, 1980, 1982) were also identified easternBelgian lowlands on the left bank of the river at these and otherloci. Sites like Rekem are fairly common in the Low Meuse, in sands formed atop a late Weicheselianterrace,abouta kilometerfromthe presentchannel.Exca- Countriesand elsewhere in Europe(e.g., Clark 1975) vated in 1984-6 over an areaof 1.7 ha (ca. 4.2 acres), and are sometimes dismissed (e.g., Vermeerschand 16 separate,spatiallydistinctunitswereidentified(Loci Bubel 1997) as of limited analyticalpotentialbecause 1-16), which are exhaustively analyzed in these two they are not "pristine."While controllingfor acknowlmonographs.The acidic sandyenvironmentprecluded edged post-depositionaldisturbance,De Bie and Caspreservationof organic remains, so the Rekem sites par have essentially turnedthis objectionaround,and consisted only of lithics preserved at a depth of ca. have sought to investigatewhetheror not spatialpat80-100 cm below the modernsurface.The verticaldis- ternsof anthropogenicoriginhavebeenpreserved.They erally,poorpreservationof fauna;all the sites discussed in the book are open air sites. A second reason is that thereis no consensuson the temporalparametersof the variouschronozonesused to organizethe archaeology so that,even if the terms (e.g., Aller0d, B0lling) used are the same across the entireregion, they do not necessarily connotethe same kinds of paleoenvironments that they do in the west. In what is probablythe best syntheticpaperin thebook (thereis no overvieworconcluding chapter),the Danish archaeologistBerit Eriksen underscoresthe need for a reliable correlationof therelativearchaeologicalandthe absolutegeochronological frameworksfor the late glacial of the region. Althoughongoing work in the naturalsciences, based largelyon the high-resolutionoxygen isotoperecordin the GRIP Greenlandice core, has refined the event to a greaterdegreepossiblethanusingconstratigraphy ventional paleobotanical methods (cf. Bjorck et al. 1998;Mangerudet al. 1974), most archaeologistshave neither grasped the distinctionbetween chronozones (which are fixed) and biozones (which are time transgressive), nor have they kept pace with developments in oxygenisotopegeochemistry.Thismeansthatassessments of contemporaneityfrom site to site, or region to region, are often founded on inappropriateframeworks of paleoenvironmentalevolution. These problems areexacerbatedwhen the "patchy"qualityof the archaeologicalrecordis taken into account. It is reasonableto ask whetherperceptionsof pattern(affected here, as in France,by a "typologicalfilter")are accurateperceptionsof an archaeologicalreality,or whether they simply reflect differences in the intensity of researchand/ordifferentconstrualsof the systematics used to organizearchaeologicalsites in spaceandtime. Underpinningthe entire volume is the convictionthat is the a nuancedunderstandingof thepaleoenvironment critical factor in understandingthe recolonization process. Curiouslyabsentis any considerationof historical,ethnographic,biological,orgeographicalexamples of humanor animalcolonizationor recolonization of vacantlandscapes(see, e.g., Clark 1994).

REVIEWS

do this by means of an integrated,quantifiedprogram of morphological,technological,functionaland refitting studiesthatdemonstratethe potentialfor intra-site spatial analysis for detecting robust, high-resolution patternsat various scales. They conclude (1) that the LMPs (= laterallymodifiedlaminarpieces)- the most commontool class in theRekemsites- aremostlyprojectile points, (2) that,by combiningedge-wearanalyses anddistributionalstudiesof macroliths,manuports and fire-crackedrock, they can identify "retooling" areas- partsof the site complex where brokenLMPs wereremovedfromtheirarmaturesby heatingthe mastic, andthendiscarded;and(3) thattheycan distinguish these from "tooling" areas- places where primary reduction took place. The analysis is overall a convincingfunctionalexplanationfor patternsobservedat both the macro-and the microscales.Its thoroughness and detail lend credibilityto the authors'conclusions aboutthebehaviorsetsrepresentedin theRekemlithics. One thing bothersme aboutthe Rekem site report, andthese observationsalso applyto the monographon the BresseBasinMesolithicsites.Afterall this tedious, time-consuming,painstaking,exceedinglycomplexand multifacetedanalysis,we discoverwhatis moreor less obvious in the first place: (1) that late paleolithic foragers in Belgium probablyhad bow and arrowtechnologies (knownor suspectedfor a long time); (2) that, like all hunter-gatherers, they spatiallysegregatedtheir activities to some extent (especially those involving disposalof bulkyitems);and(3) thatsome of theRekem loci representmore or less discrete segments of what was probably a universal set of behaviors involving backed bladelet technologies. I cannot help but feel, afterall this effort,thatwe don'treallylearnvery much beyond what logic would have dictatedhad occurred givenknowledgeof modernforagersexploitingcertain kinds of animals,with certaintechnologies in certain environmentalcontexts.The Rekemforagerswere not, afterall, australopithecines !Whatanenormousamount of workto learnthat,at Rekem,most of the LMPswere probablyprojectilepoints, ratherthancuttingtools.

381

Stone Age archaeologyoccupies in each of them (differentfrom one countryto the next, dependingon the natureof theearlyarchaeologicalrecord).Thesethings, along with the background,training, and interpretationsof individualworkers,determinethe logic of inference used to identifypatternsandto assign meaningto them.Froma particularintellectualstandpoint,theytell us how to "makesense" of the remotehumanpast. In terms of content, there is little to separatethe monographsfrom their American counterparts.They use sophisticated analytical techniques to identify, describe,and assess the strengthof patternedassociation in the differentclasses of (mostly lithic) artifacts preservedat each site. Reconstructionanddatingof the environmentalcontext are importantobjectives in all of them. The intent is to locate the site in time and to assign it to a particular paleoclimatic episode. No expense has been sparedin publication.All the books are well-bound and beautifully produced, with very high-qualitypaper,excellent illustrations,maps, and photographs(thefull-pagephotosof the Rekemreconstructedcores areparticularlyoutstanding).It is to the creditof the Frenchthatat least some of theirhighway salvage reportsare deemed worthy of the additional expense involved in publishingthem in a professional formatandin sufficientquantitiesto make them available to the generalpublic. I have tried to provide an expandeddescriptionof the substantivecontent of these monographsso that Americanreaderscan get an idea of whatis considered importantto the archaeologists themselves in these countries.Although(with the exceptionof Rekem)the workis undertakenwithoutan explicit problemorientation, the site reportsare fully comparablemethodologically and in terms of substantivecontentto their equivalentsin the United States. However,as Binford andSabloffpointedout long ago (1982), the European researchtraditionsexhibitcertaintendenciesthatmight be regardedas problematicfromtheregionallyfocused, humanbehavioralecology perspectiveadoptedby many Americanworkers(Winterhalderand Smith 2000). One such tendencyis an overemphasison the artiAn Assessment facts themselves, which are studied as a domain of The monographsreviewed here representthe best of investigation in their own right, isolated from other "normalscience"in thepaleolithicarchaeologyof west- suchdomains.Acknowledgingmajoradvancesin techern Europe- "straightarchaeology French"(or Bel- nological systematicsembodied in the chaine operagian, or Scandinavian) "style," as Sackett put it toire approach (which reconstructs artifact "life (1991:109).As is the case with theirNew Worldcoun- histories," somewhat like Mike Schiffer's behavior terparts,these books are the productsof relativelydis- chains [e.g., 1987]), this is evident in the three site tinct, but overlapping, regional research traditions, reportswhere, although much effort is expended on "fuzzy sets" if you will, each with its own particular datinganddescribingthe paleoenvironmentalcontexts biases, preconceptions, and assumptions about the in which the sites are found, the characteristicsof the natureof the human past. Those research traditions paleoenvironment itself remain curiously detached developedin the contextof the intellectualhistoriesof fromthe humanactivitiesthatresultedin the formation the nations and regions involved, and the place that of the archaeological sites. Characterizingthe pale-

382

AMERICANANTIQUITY

oenvironmentis thejob of specialistcollaboratorswho, it would appear,never talk to one another,nor do the projectdirectorsfeel compelledto providea synthesis of sometimescontrastingviews on the natureof environmentalchange.Howpaleolithicforagersmighthave respondedto it is not consideredat all. The monographsarealso extremely"sitecentered," with little comparativeanalysis or synthesis of data from contemporarysites in the same region.The individual site is the object of intense scrutiny,as though it existed in a vacuum,ratherthanas partof a regional system, and the final objective of such researchis to producethe most comprehensivedescriptionof the site and its context as possible. Thereis, perhaps,the presumptionthatotherswill integratethe resultsof these reports,but it seldom happensbecause of the atomism mentionedabove, which arises from the lack of a systemic perspectiveof sufficientpowerandgeneralityto integrateresearchon a regional scale. Simply put, the American obsession with epistemology and theory buildingdoes not exist in manypartsof Europe,where StoneAge archaeologyis seen as an extension of history projectedback into the preliteratepast. This preconceptionaffectsall aspectsof research,butespecially how meaningis assignedto patternin a pastpopulated by long-gone ethnic or social entities analogousto the tribes, nations, and peoples of history (Clark 1993, 1999). Is it reasonableto expect thatpatternsrecoverable in Pleistocenesites aremainlyor exclusively the materialexpressionsof traditionalways of makingstoneartifacts, transmittedby social learningover 40 millennia, as maintained,for example, in the Bettencourtmonograph?Americansand Europeansappearto differ on the natureof the basic analyticalunitsthe latterdevised to divide the Stone Age in space and time. I maintain thatthese differentinterpretationsaffect construalsof pattern,and the meaning assigned to pattern,at all of the levels in the researchprocess,butthatthey areparticularlyproblematicin respectof the typological systematicsappliedto retouchedstonetools (Barton1991; Clark1993, 2002a). I have been criticizedfor holding this opinionwhich, after30 yearsof researchin Europe and westernAsia, seems self-evident to me. Because this issue is an importantone, and directlyrelevantto the subjectof this review,I addressit here.

[Vol. 70, No. 2, 2005]

systematics and have become both reified and essentialized by subsequentworkers;(3) that they have little or no compositionalintegrityacrossspaceandtime; (4) aredefineddifferentlyby differentworkers;and(5) thatthereis no consensusaboutwhatthey meanor representbehaviorally(Clark2002b). These remarksprovokeda "grumblingresistance"(MareanandThompson 2003) by some workersthatcalls for a response. I submit that my observations were neither disputablenor exceptional, and were entirely consistent with a broadly scientific, critically self-conscious approachto our discipline. No one could deny that,if paleolithic archaeology had arisen somewhere other thanwhere it did (e.g., Africa, insteadof Europe),the analyticalunits would have taken on a very different character(see, e.g., the extendedcriticismof Eurocentricbias by McBreartyandBrooks [2000]). I thinknegative reactions to remarkslike these are sometimes criticismsof Europeanconconstruedas (unwarranted) ceptual frameworksand, by implication,the research traditionsthatproducedthem- especiallythose of the "founders"of paleolithicarchaeology,the French. I wish to make it clear thatI am not criticizingthe French, Latin Europeans,Central Europeans,Europeansin general,norindeedanybody(except,perhaps, strict empiricists- people who think "the facts speak for themselves").The Frenchwere only doing whatall scientists do- creating analytical units they thought relevantandappropriate to someproblemtheyweretryto solve. We archaeologistsdon't have "natural" ing analyticalunitslike the life sciences do. Wehaveto create them, and the only way we can do thatis in terms of some problemof interest.But problemsareembedded in problemcontexts,problemcontextsin research traditions,and researchtraditionsin broaderintellectual milieux (sometimes called metaphysical paradigms)thatdifferfromone anotherin respectof implicit biases, preconceptions,and assumptionsabout their subjectmatter(in this case, what the past was "like"). Because manyproblemsandquestionsregardedas "significant"(e.g., our biological and culturalorigins) are held in common by distinct nationaland regional researchtraditions,it is illuminatingto try to catch a glimpse of the metaphysicsthatunderlietheir"worldviews."Ithas been argued,forexample,thatprehistoric archaeologyin the Old andNew Worldsproceedsfrom differentviews of the past, foundedon fundamentally A "GrumblingResistance" fundamentallydifferentmetaphysicalparadigms(BinAt the Annual Meeting for the Society for American ford and Sabloff 1982; Clark1993). Underlyingmany Archaeologyin Denver (March2002), I assertedthat Europeanapproachesis the preconceptionthatprehisthe basic analyticalunits used in paleolithic archaeo- tory is historyprojectedback into the preliteratepast, and that process in the remote past can be treatedas logicalresearchare(1) "accidentsof history,"createdfor the most part- by Frenchprehistoriansbetweenca. analogousto, and an extension of, process in history. 1880 andca. 1940 in orderto solve chronologicalprob- This contrastssharplywith the broadlyecological and lems; (2) thatthey are based ultimatelyon typological systemic biases thatunderlieAmericanapproaches.

REVIEWS

It's importantto keep in mind that metaphysical paradigmsare typically not subjectedto much critical scrutinywithinresearchtraditionsand have no objective realitybeyond thatconcededthem by theiradherents. So, from one point of view, one metaphysical paradigmis "asgood as another"(i.e., its internallogic is consistent,its explanationscoherentgiventhatlogic). However,those who subscribeto differentmetaphysical paradigmscan maintainan interminablediscourse withoutever resolving anythingbecause they employ distinctfundamentalconcepts,andgive to superficially sharedconcepts differentmeanings (Willermet1993, 2001). Because the assumptionsunderlyingthe metaphysical paradigmdeterminethe characterof its subordinateparadigms(which in turndetermineresearch protocolsin any problemcontext),conflictsoften arise in respectof the natureof explanation,and what kinds of explanationsare regarded,a priori, as plausible or not. These conflicts are not evident at the level of the monographs reviewed here, which are essentially descriptiveaccountswith no interpretationbeyondthe level of the individualsite. They become very important,however,at the level of synthesis.1FromanAmericansocioecologicalperspective,therearebig problems with the contentionthat prehistoryis an extension of history, and these have far-reachingimplications for some Europeanconstrualsof pattern,andwhatit might mean (Clark2002c).

383

SocietePrehistoriqueFrangaise96:153-1 73. 2000 La questionde la BadegoulianCantabrique: reponsea L.G. Strauset G.A. Clark.Bulletinde la Societe PrehistoriqueFrangaise97:297-307. Clark,GeoffreyA. 1979 Liencres,an Open Stationof AsturianAffinitynear Santander,Spain.Quaternaria21: 249-286, 300-304. 1993 Paradigmsin Science and Archaeology.Journalof ArchaeologicalResearch1:203-234. 1994 Migrationas an ExplanatoryConceptin Paleolithic Archaeology.JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory 1:305-343. 1999 ModernHumanOrigins- HighlyVisible, Curiously Intangible.Science 283:2029-2032; 284: 917; www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/990029,shl. 2002a Observationson ParadigmaticBias in Frenchand AmericanPaleolithicArchaeology.In TheRole of American Archeologistsin the Studyof the EuropeanUpper Paleolithic,editedby LawrenceG. Straus,pp. 19-26. BAR InternationalSeriesNo. 1048, Oxford. 2002b NeandertalArchaeology- ImplicationsforOurOrigins. Paperpresentedat the 67thAnnualMeeting of the Society forAmericanArchaeology,Denver. 2002c NeandertalArchaeology- Implicationsfor OurOrigins. AmericanAnthropologist104:50-67. Mangerud,J., S. Andersen,B. Berglund,andJ. Donner 1974 QuaternaryStratigraphyof Norden:A Proposalfor TerminologyandClassification.Boreas 3:109-127. Marean,CurtisW., andJessicaC. Thompson 2003 Researchon the Originsof ModernHumansContinues to DominatePaleoanthropology. AnthroEvolutionary pology 12:165-167. McBrearty,Sally,andAllison S. Brooks 2000 The RevolutionthatWasn't:A New Interpretation of theOriginof ModernHumanBehavior.Journalof Human Evolution39:453-563. Sackett,JamesR. References Cited 199 1 StraightArchaeologyFrenchStyle:the Phylogenetic Paradigmin HistoricalPerspective.In Perspectiveson the Barton,C. Michael 199 1 RetouchedTools,FactorFiction?ParadigmsforInterPast, edited by G. A. Clark,pp. 109-140. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia. pretingPaleolithicChippedStone.In Perspectiveson the Past, edited by G. A. Clark,pp. 143-163. Universityof Schiffer,MichaelB. 1987 FormationProcesses in the ArchaeologicalRecord. PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia. Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. Binford,Lewis R. 1978 DimensionalAnalysisof BehaviorandSite Structure: Straus,LawrenceG., andGeoffreyA. Clark 2000 La grotte de la Riera (Asturies) et la question du LearningfromanEskimoHuntingStand.AmericanAntiqSolutreenCantabrique (et Iberique).Bulletinde la Societe uity43:330-361. Set1980 WillowSmokeandDogs' Tails:Hunter-Gatherer PrehistoriqueFrangaise97:129-132. tlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Vermeersch,Pierre,andS. Bubel 1997 PostdepositionalArtefact Scattering in a Podsol: AmericanAntiquity45:4-20. Processes and Consequencesfor Late Palaeolithicand 1982 The Archaeologyof Place.Journalof AnthropologiMesolithicSites.Anthropologie35:119-130. cal Archaeology1:5-31. Willermet,CatherineM. Binford,Lewis R., andJeremySabloff 1993 The Debate over ModernHumanOrigins:a Scien1982 Paradigms,SystematicsandArchaeology.Journalof tific Tug-of-War.MA Thesis, Departmentof AnthropolAnthropologicalResearch38:137-153. ogy, ArizonaStateUniversity. Bjorck,S., M. Walker,L. Cwynar,S. Johnsen,K.-L. Knudsen, 2001 FuzzyLogic as a ClassificationTool:a Case Study J. Lowe, B. WohlfarthandINTIMATEMembers 1998 An EventStratigraphy fortheLastTerminationin the Using LevantineArchaic Hominids.Ph.D Dissertation, NorthAtlanticRegion Based on the GreenlandIce Core Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University. Ann Arbor,MI: UniversityMicrofilms. Record:A Proposalby the INTIMATEGroup.Journalof Winterhalder, Bruce,andEricA. Smith QuaternaryScience 13:282-292. 2000 AnalyzingAdaptiveStrategies:HumanBehavioral Bosselin, Bernard,andFrancoisDjindjian 1999 Une revisionde la sequencede la Riera(Asturies)et Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:51-72. la questionde la BadegoulianCantabrique. Bulletinde la

384

AMERICANANTIQUITY

[Vol. 70, No. 2, 2005]

in ChauvetCave.No longerdo Leroi-Gourhan's( 1968) spatial schemata of central panels containing bison, 1. For a splendid,currentexampleof paradigmconflictat aurochs,horses, and rhinoceroses(versusremotepasthe level of the metaphysic,contrastBosselin and Djindjian sages depictingfelines) seem to hold up, for here are (1999, 2000) with Strausand Clark(2000). centralpanels with lions in abundance.AlthoughLascaux Cave may largely conform to Leroi-Gourhan's conceptualframework,Chauvetreveals a complexity thatgoes farbeyondhis ideasof duality,despiteRobertLascaux,Le Geste,UEspace, ethe Temps.NORBERT Lamblin'sdetermination(in this volume) to find dualAUJOULAT.2004. Seuil, Paris. 273 pp., 194 figs. 45 ity in every aspect of the art. Euros(cloth), ISBN 2-02-025726-2.

Note

Lascaux ChauvetCave: TheArt of Earliest Times.JEAN Aujoulat's book Lascaux is not a heavy theoretical

CLOTTES,editor.2003. Universityof UtahPress,Salt Lake City. 225 pp., 207 figs. $ 45.00 (cloth), ISBN 087480-758-1.

work,buttherearepreciousnuggetsof analysis,insight, and theoryspreadthroughoutandplaced togetherlike pieces of a puzzle in the final chapterwhere theirfull significanceis revealed.Muchof the bookreadsalmost Reviewedby Brian Hayden and SuzanneVilleneuve, like a detailed catalog. Theoreticallyinclined readers Simon FraserUniversity. may findthese descriptivepassagestedious,butperseverancewill be rewarded.Even in a book this size, it Of the two books reviewed here, NorbertAujoulat's would be impossible to presentall 1,963 recordedfigLascauxis the latestof a remarkableseriesof largefor- ures, but Aujoulat discusses almost all of the most matbooks on cave androckartthathas appearedunder importantones. Researchersinterestedin a morecomthe directionof JeanClottes.In additionto theircoffee- prehensivelist anddescriptionof the images may contable appeal,both Lascaux and ChauvetCave consti- sult Aoujoulat's(2002) Ph.D. dissertation. tute importantacademiccontributions.The firstbook, Some of the more interestinghighlightsof this new Lascaux, builds on the importanttechnical reportsof text on Lascauxinclude: the Abbe Glory as well as adding 15 years of intensive • A revised datingof the artto the late Solutrean,c. 18,600 B.P; recordingand analysis by Aujoulathimself on the art in what is arguablythe premierworld heritagesite of • Argumentsfor a brief period of artcreationin the the Paleolithic.The documentationin this book is all cave, spanningabouta generation; the more important since access has been tightly • The "Puit"(Shaft)havingbeen accessed via a seprestrictedsince 1963 andnow evenresearchersarecomarateentryratherthanvia the main chamber; • excluded. Less use of scaffolding than previously assumed, pletely NorbertAujoulat has unparalleledknowledge of and evidence that brushes were used to extend Lascaux's art,the resultis probablythe most definitive reaches; documentationon Lascauxthatcurrentlyexists orprob- • The exceptionalluminescentqualityof the walls in the Salle des Taureauxand DiverticuleAxial; ably will exist for the foreseeable future.The quality of the photographsand reproductionis superb.Being • An excellent discussion of the perspective techconscious of his position, Aujoulathas opted to proniques used to convey relativedistanceof animals vide readers with as much useful description of the or legs from the viewer; cave and its art as possible togetherwith a numberof • Major panels where dominant species were all technicalanalyses includingvariablewavelengthdigpaintedin a single episode as partof plannedcomital image transformations. positions; In additionto editingthe entireseries of impressive • In majorpanelswheremorethanone species is prevolumes on cave art, Jean Clottes is also the project sent,horseswere alwaysthe firstto be painted.After some interval,aurochswere added,while reindeer director,volume editor, and main contributorfor the second notable volume reviewed in the same series: were added last. This provides an importantnew ChauvetCave.Therecan be little doubtas to the landtemporaldimensionto the spatialdimensionof the mark significance of this early Aurignaciancave and iconographicstructurein the caves as discussed in its art.It has overthrownmany of the existing theoretmore detail below. ical modelsdealingwiththe natureof UpperPaleolithic artand the trajectoryof its evolution.No longer can it Chauvet be arguedthatthe artevolved from simple to complex: In contrastto Lascaux, which is aboutone of the first it appearsfull blownin all its complexityat 32,000 B.P. intensivelystudiedcaves, ChauvetCaveis an account-