Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic typology...

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory [jamt] PL121-59 August 30, 1956 2:27 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2000

Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First CenturyArchaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typologyof Francois Bordes Must Be Replaced

Michael S. Bisson1

The artifact typology of Franc¸ois Bordes has been universally applied to EuropeanMiddle Paleolithic assemblages for the past half-century. Although its utility asa common descriptive language is acknowledged, it is argued that Bordes’ typedefinitions are inadequate for use in modern quantitatively and technologicallyoriented studies of lithics because they are overly subjective and are an uncon-trolled mixture of technological and functional variables acted on by raw materialconstraints. They also incorporate untested assumptions about the cognitive abil-ities of Middle Paleolithic hominids. This paper proposes to replace the Bordestypology with a method based on attribute combinations in which artifact descrip-tions will contain more behaviorally significant information than is afforded bythe current system.

KEY WORDS: Bordes; typology; systematics; attributes.

The last years have seen a strong development of dissatisfaction amonglithic typologists. The feeling that Bordes method has achieved a par-ticular task but did not allow further progress. . .has led researchersworking in this field to try new directions.

Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan (1981, pp. 178–180)

After almost a century of research, methodological approaches to themorphology, technology and indeed intended functions of Middle Pale-olithic tools remain at a surprisingly rudimentary level.

Mellars (1996, p. 136)

1Department of Anthropology, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec,Canada H3A 2T7. Fax: 398-7476.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

2 Bisson

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the evolutionary position and behavior of Neanderthals hasbeen an enduring goal of paleoanthropology (Mellars, 1996; Stringer and Gamble,1993; Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992; Wolpoff and Caspari, 1997). Leaving aside thelongstanding debate on the phylogenetic relationship of Neanderthals to anatom-ically modernHomo sapiens(Clark and Willermet, 1997; Nitecki and Nitecki,1994), this paper argues that research on Neanderthal and other Middle Paleolithichominid behavior is now becoming stalled, but not solely because of the significanttaphonomic problems impacting all Pleistocene archaeological deposits. Instead,the most pressing current problem is that the fundamental units used to describeMiddle Paleolithic assemblages, the tool type definitions of Fran¸cois Bordes (1950,1961a), are seriously flawed.

Originally designed to aid culture-chronological research, the Bordes typol-ogy has for 50 years brought order to the description and comparison of EuropeanMiddle Paleolithic assemblages. At the time it was formulated, this order was nec-essary, but for the past two decades discontent with the typology has been growing.Among the criticisms leveled at the typology are that it was designed for a limitedresearch objective (culture-chronology) and is unsuitable for investigating othertopics (Sackett, 1991); that it is too subjective for use in sophisticated statisticalanalyses (Djindjian, 1987); that it incorporates untested assumptions about Mid-dle Paleolithic hominid cognition and behavior into the physical description ofassemblages (Rolland, 1977, 1981; Dibble, 1987, 1989, 1995; Barton, 1988); andthat it inadvertently conceals important relationships between morphology, rawmaterial, function, tool life-history, and possibly stylistic behavior by being anuncontrolled mixture of attributes related to all those factors (Mellars, 1996). Inaddition to these criticisms, the typology is also almost entirely “two dimensional,”i.e., based on plan form attributes, and thus ignores important third dimensionalattributes such as the angle of the retouched edge. By assuming that the total mor-phology of the artifact is behaviorally significant, the typology is interpretationmasquerading as physical description. Instead, behavioral significance may lie inone or a combination of blank and retouched edge morphology attributes. Muchof the failure of paleoanthropology over the past 30 years to reach a consensus onthe meaning of interassemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic can be tracedto these inherent flaws.

It could be argued that Middle Paleolithic archaeology remains in the middleof a prolonged paradigm shift. A variety of alternatives to the culture-chronologicalparadigm for which Bordes’ typology was designed has been proposed, but theirevaluation has remained problematic. In a sense, the discipline may be in as much,or even more, chaos today as it was prior to the introduction of the uniform typology,because there is broad disagreement over the behavioral reality and meaning of ourtypological and taxonomic units. The incompatibility of the Bordes typology with

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? 3

the rapidly expanding variety of research objectives was noted 20 years ago (Fish,1979, p. 22), and the situation is no better today. Indeed, it has been argued thatwe presently lack the commonly shared paradigm, scientific rules, and proceduresthat characterize “normal science” (Bietti, 1991; Bietti and Bietti-Sestieri, 1985).This is no longer simply the theoretical and methodological turf war between Oldand New World archaeologists (Sackett, 1991) epitomized by the Bordes/Binforddebate. Problems with the Bordes typology have been recognized by both French(Gardin, 1980; Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan, 1981; Villa, 1983, 1991; Djindjian,1987) and North Americans (e.g., Binford, 1973; Fish, 1979; Dibble, 1987), andsignificant divisions now occur in both camps. Indeed, Steven Kuhn has describedthe discipline as being in a state of “theoretical fragmentation” (1995, p. 16). Thealmost-infinite range of opinions on the nature of Middle Paleolithic behavior nowheld by archaeologists seems to mimic the continuous variation that characterizesthe archaeological record itself. As Thomas Kuhn (1970) observed, a paradigmshift requires a concomitant shift in methodology. What is needed is a systemof artifact description in which causal links can be isolated and tested. This isthe essence of experimental science, and although archaeology is fundamentallyobservational, this approach offers no less of an advantage to our discipline. Forthis to be done, object description must precede classification and employ units thatare as objective as possible (Dunnell, 1971). Because there is now a consensus thatclassifications should be designed to facilitate research objectives (Ford, 1952;Clarke, 1978; Brown, 1982; Adams and Adams, 1991; Whittakeret al., 1998),the new method must be both universal and flexible enough to be employed byscholars from different theoretical traditions and interested in different researchproblems. A new method of artifact description will not magically resolve themany issues in play, but it will allow them to be evaluated with greater fairnessand accuracy.

This paper proposes that the morphology of individual artifacts be described interms of the cooccurrence of attributes in six variables (the “Restricted List”) andthat a summary of combinations of the first three variables serve as the shorthanddescription of an assemblage. An “Extended List” of attributes is also suggestedwhich would record a more comprehensive description of the artifact including rawmaterial, technological and metrical as well as morphological attributes. Mono-graphic or descriptive publications should include attribute combinations based onthe entire variable list for either the whole assemblage or a statistically represen-tative sample. Journal articles would need only to report attribute combinationsfrom the Restricted List, along with any variables relevant to the topic at hand. Byinitially employing a larger number of clearly defined and systematically relatedmorphological units (attributes), artifact descriptions will be more sensitive to thecomplex determinants of variability without assuming these determinants a priori.This will expand the potential of morphological analysis to reveal behaviorallymeaningful patterns in both intra- and interassemblage comparisons.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

4 Bisson

It should be noted at the outset that the adoption of this new descriptivesystem will take time. The attribute list suggested here will no doubt be amendedas its utility is tested by scholars working in different research traditions. What isimportant is that the process be set in motion. My goal is to stimulate productivedialog in that direction.

HISTORY AND INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT OFTHE BORDES TYPOLOGY

Analytical models cannot be divorced from their historical context, and it istherefore necessary to discuss the background of Bordes’ typology in some de-tail. The almost-universal use of Bordes’ typology throughout Europe and manyplaces outside its borders can be seen as one outcome of a variety of historical andideological factors including the origin of Paleolithic archaeology in France, andthe belief by its founders that the French Paleolithic sequence illustrated the majorsteps in human cultural evolution because French culture “equates with that ofall Europe and consequently with that of all humanity” (Demoule, 1999, p. 191).The research paradigms and analytical methods of Middle Paleolithic archaeologyare derived from the empiricist traditions of 19th century French natural science(Daniel, 1975; Gardin, 1980; Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan, 1981; Sackett, 1981,1991; Trigger, 1989; Clark, 1993, 1997; Dibble and Debenath, 1994). French pre-occupation with technology as the mediator between culture and nature can betraced back to the Enlightenment, and explanations of technological evolutionemphasize its relative independence from society and even today remain depen-dent on biological evolutionary principles. A concern with the minute details oftechnology took hold in French Paleolithic artifact descriptions from the beginning(Audouze, 1999), culminating first in the Bordesian system and more recently inthe widespread reliance on thechaıne operatoireconcept (Leroi-Gourhan, 1964).

In the beginning, paleontology was particularly important in setting the agendafor Paleolithic archaeology and in contributing much of the field methodology andanalytical paradigms. Nineteenth century paleontology sought to define chronos-tratigraphic sequences through the use offossiles directeurs, index fossils withbounded distributions in time and space. Although it never entirely lost sight ofthe importance of cultural behavior (Sackett, 1991), Paleolithic archaeology ab-sorbed the intellectual tradition of paleontology almost entirely and, with it, a strictempiricist epistemology that has maintained its dominance to this day (Clark, 1993,1994). The assumptions underlying this tradition are that the world is both real andknowable and that patterning is inherent in data and can be intuitively understoodby competent observers. Thus, professional reputation is an important factor injudging an argument.

Gabriel de Mortillet (1883) provided the first clear definition of a distinctMiddle Paleolithic industry, the Mousterian, in which a majority of stone tools

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

were created from retouched flakes. In basing his definition of the Mousterian onartifactual rather than faunal data, de Mortillet did not abandon the paleontologicalanalogy. His periods were defined by lithicfossiles directeurs, whose morphol-ogy was assumed to represent the intent of the makers and whose functions werethought to be intuitively evident. This, however, was the extent of the behavioralsignificance attributed to lithic artifacts, in part a consequence of the general lackof knowledge of anthropology by many 19th century French prehistorians, andthe belief that behavioral reconstruction was “mere speculation” (Sackett, 1991,p. 128). Even the commonly used term “culture” is best understood as a label-ing device devoid of any anthropological meaning. In this tradition, tools servedprimarily to determine the age and affinities of sites, and thus debitage and non-diagnostic artifacts were routinely discarded. Over time, the framework outlinedby de Mortillet was elaborated and refined in accordance with then current an-thropological theory. So, for example, when unilinear cultural evolutionary theorywas dominant, variability in Mousterian assemblages was explained as a man-ifestation of change over time (Commont, 1913). With the decline of unilineartheory in the 1920s, parallel traditions were invoked to account for the same vari-ability (Peyrony, 1921). At this time, systematic investigation of interassemblagevariability was impossible because of conflicting definitions of artifact types.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the work of Fran¸cois Bordes brought order tothe chaos of Middle Paleolithic archaeology. In addition to injecting new rigor intothe recovery of field data, Bordes (1950, 1953, 1977; Bordes and Bourgon, 1951)proposed a comprehensive type-list that culminated in his monumentalTypologiedu Paleolithique ancien et moyen(1961a). In addition to providing a common setof definitions for Middle Paleolithic artifact types, Bordes also broke with traditionby abandoning the use offossiles directeursin favor of quantitative comparisonsusing relative frequencies of all tool types in an assemblage. However, Bordesretained other elements of the paleontological analogy in his notions of discrete,unchanging lithic types and his belief in synchronic lithic variability in whichgroups of similar assemblages were structurally analogous to species (Dibble andRolland, 1992).

The Bordes typology achieved standardization, and thus replicability, throughdefined combinations of retouch attributes and flake landmarks. The resulting auraof objectivity was its major attraction; it replaced the muddle of ambiguous cat-egories that had previously hampered inter-assemblage comparisons by ensuringthat independent analysts working on the same collection would arrive at identical,or at least nearly identical, descriptions. In this sense, it was considered a scien-tifically “objective” classification because it achieved agreement between expertobservers (Salmon, 1982).

An equally important factor in its adoption was that it served the researchinterests of European prehistorians. These interests had remained fundamentallyculture-historical, and were only slight modifications of the paleontologically ori-ented research agendas that drove 19th century archaeology (Daniel, 1975; Sackett,

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

6 Bisson

1991). Indeed, the typology and the statistical approach (i.e., visual comparisonsof artifact type frequencies) with which it was linked (Bordes, 1950; Bordes andBourgon, 1953) were explicitly formulated because of the failure of existing meth-ods to resolve culture-chronological questions. This failure had been caused by thenature of Middle Paleolithic technology itself. Nineteenth century French archae-ologists soughtfossiles directeurs, discrete types bounded in space and time. Yetboth Lower and Middle Paleolithic tool forms were widely distributed and appearedto remain static for long periods, making their use as cultural-temporal markersimpractical. Bordes’ method of quantitative comparisons of tool type frequencieswas intuitively satisfying because it revealed patterning without relying onfossilesdirecteurs, and chronotypological patterning was what was expected by Europeanprehistorians (Jelinek, 1988; Kuhn, 1991; Sackett, 1991; Clark, 1997). Since be-havioral reconstruction was suspect, the typology took on a life of its own, creatingquantifiable, objective facts subject to quantitative verification which could be usedto create the desired cultural taxonomies (Villa, 1991).

THE BORDES TYPOLOGY AND THE BORDESIAN METHOD

The Bordes typology views the artifact as the fundamental unit of analysis.This is a consequence of the assumption that retouched specimens are “tools”in the modern sense of implements whose entire form was deliberately created.Bordes did, however, recognize that different parts of Middle Paleolithic retouchedtools were subject to more intentional shaping than others. He identified an “activepart” (the functional edge or edges of the tool), which, with the exception of“backed knives,” was subject to intentional shaping; the “part of prehension” (theplace where the tool was gripped or hafted), which was often unretouched, butcould be shaped by “retouch of accommodation” to facilitate prehension; and the“intermediate part,” any unretouched areas bridging the active and prehensionparts (Bordes, 1969, p. 3). These distinctions show that Bordes was fully awarethat some parts of tools were subject to more imposed form than others.

The Bordes type-list (1961a) includes 62 named types plus a miscellaneouscategory (Table I). In many cases the names are derived from earlier classifica-tions and refer to either outline shape (i.e., points, burins, notches, denticulates)or presumed functions (i.e., scrapers, knives, per¸coirs, etc.). In a few cases, typesare named for their casual resemblance to natural objects (i.e., leaf shaped pointsand slugs) or for places (i.e., Tayac points). Although many of the names carryfunctional connotations, Bordes was clear that his classification was based solelyon morphology. Inferred function was not a factor in typing any specimen. Never-theless, Bordes undoubtedly believed that deliberate retouch was done to create autilitarian object.

Not all the named types are retouched implements. Some are defined by eitherproduction technology (Levallois flakes and points, types 1–3) or a flake shape that

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Table I. Bordes’ Type-List

1. Typical Levallois flake2. Atypical Levallois flake3. Levallois point4. Retouched Levallois point5. Pseudo-Levallois point6. Mousterian point7. Elongated Mousterian point8. Limace (slug)9. Single straight scraper

10. Single convex scraper11. Single concave scraper12. Double straight scraper13. Double straight-convex scraper14. Double straight-concave scraper15. Double convex scraper16. Double concave scraper17. Double convex-concave scraper18. Straight convergent scraper19. Convex convergent scraper20. Concave convergent scraper21. Dejete scraper22. Straight transverse scraper23. Convex transverse scraper24. Concave transverse scraper25. Scraper on interior surface26. Abrupt scraper27. Scraper with thinned back28. Scraper with bifacial retouch29. Alternate scraper30. Typical endscraper31. Atypical endscraper32. Typical burin33. Atypical burin34. Typical per¸coir35. Atypical percoir36. Typical backed knife37. Atypical backed knife38. Naturally backed knife39. Raclette40. Truncation41. Mousterian tranchet42. Notch43. Denticulate44. Alternate retouched bec45. Flake with irregular retouch on interior surface

46–49. Flakes with abrupt & alternating retouch50. Flake with bifacial retouch51. Tayac point52. Notched triangle53. Pseudo-microburin54. End-notched flake55. Hachoir56. Rabot (push plane)57. Stemmed point58. Stemmed tool59. Chopper60. Inverse chopper61. Chopping tool62. Miscellaneous63. Bifacial foliate

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

8 Bisson

could plausibly have been used without retouch (pseudo-Levallois points, type 5;and naturally backed knives, type 38). For some time it has been recognized thatthese are fundamentally different from the retouched forms, and many analysesemploy only the “essential” list (as opposed to the “real” list of all 63 types), whichexcludes the unretouched specimens, as well as pieces with irregular or unusuallyplaced retouch that may be caused by postdepositional damage (see Deb´enath andDibble, 1994). These are not discussed further.

Bordes’ classification of retouched tools is essentially two-dimensional inthat types are primarily defined by the overall shape of the artifact and the formand position of the retouched edge as observed in plan form, i.e., from a positionperpendicular to the exterior surface of the piece. This is the same orientation fromwhich artifacts are conventionally drawn. The third dimension, expressed in termsof edge angle, is a factor in naming only five types. A single significant edge angleattribute, “abrupt” retouch, is recognized. This term was used by Bordes but wasnot explicitly defined. It conventionally refers to a steep, often intentionally dulled,retouched edge on which the angle created by the retouch is approximately 90◦

(Inizanet al., 1992). A few types are divided into “typical” and “atypical” formsbased on the regularity and quality of execution of their defining characteristics.The criteria for assigning a specimen to a particular type are weighted or hierar-chically ordered, and specimens are typed in the same way that field biologists usea key to identify organisms (Fig. 1).

Bordes recognized that the individual types could be subsumed under a fewmajor classes of techniques and types (summarized by Debenath and Dibble,1994). These classes were expressed as “indices,” ratios of a particular tool classto a more inclusive group, usually the entire assemblage of formal tools. Amongthe most important technological indices are the Levallois Index (IL) and the QuinaIndex. Typological indices include the Scraper Index (IR), the Biface Index, andthe Charentian Index (types 10 and 22–24 divided by the total for all types). Bordesalso created “group” indices which were often important in defining his assemblagetypes. These include the following:

• Group I (Levallois group): Types 1–4 divided by the total of all types.• Group II (Mousterian group): Types 5–29 divided by the total of all types.• Group III (Upper Paleolithic group): Types 30–37 and 40 divided by the

total of all tools.• Group IV (Denticulate group): All denticulates divided by the total of all

tools.

BORDESIAN SYSTEMATICS

Although the type definitions were the foundation of Bordesian systematics,presentation of the frequencies of the 63 tool types in a fixed order was an essential

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Fig. 1. Hierarchy of variables used by Bordes to define tool types, retouched tools (from Debenathand Dibble, 1994). In this hierarchy, a tool may be defined by as few as one or a combination of up tofive attributes.

part of this method. This permitted the use of the cumulative frequency graph to vi-sually compare data on multiple assemblages. The assemblage groups that Bordesisolated in this manner were identified by the possession of similar cumulative fre-quency profiles. Similarity, however, was defined intuitively, and as much basedon the acknowledged expertise of Bordes, as it was discrete differences in the typefrequencies (Sackett, 1988).

Bordes also did not entirely abandon the use of the index fossil concept (Fish,1979; Sackett, 1982; Mellars, 1996). Although most Mousterian tools differed frommany Upper Paleolithic types in that individual forms were widely distributed inspace and time, he did recognize that some forms had more limited distributions(bifacial leaf-shaped points in Germany, cleavers in Spain) and accorded these rel-atively rare forms greater significance in defining regional variants of assemblage

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

10 Bisson

groups than their numerical representation might justify. The groups themselveswere also not defined by tool type frequencies alone. The Mousterian of AcheulianTradition (MTA) was identified by the presence of backed knives and bifaces, andthe Quina variant of the Charentian by a high Quina Index in comparison to theother assemblage groups. Indeed, the group indices seem to substitute forfossilesdirecteursin almost all of his assemblage group definitions (Bordes, 1953).

PROBLEMS WITH THE BORDES TYPOLOGY

The Bordes typology has been criticized on two levels. The first is funda-mentally pragmatic and concerns the degree to which the subjective decisionsof individual classifiers affect the overall descriptions of assemblages. In broadtheoretical terms, Dunnell (1971) has characterized this problem as the distinc-tion between “analytic” types, intuitively identified classes of artifacts (of whichBordes’ typology is an excellent example), and “synthetic” types, which are classesof artifacts defined by attributes or attribute combinations. In his view, intuitiveclassifications lead to typological inconsistency because the type descriptions areunstructured. This issue has a direct bearing on our assessment of the comparabilityof data collected by different scholars, because objectivity has been consistentlycited as a fundamental advantage of Bordes’ type definitions. The second level ofcriticism includes numerous theoretical issues including the distinction betweendescription and classification, the role of typology in archaeological analysis, andthe meaning of Bordes’ types in terms of hominid behavior and cognition, as well asthe role of material and environmental constraints in determining the morphologyof artifacts.

Bordes’ typology achieved its dominance in part because it provided a stan-dard set of definitions based on unambiguous flake landmarks. This standardizationimplied that independent analysts, working on the same collection, would arriveat identical or nearly identical tool counts. Subjectivity was assumed to have beenminimized by the type definitions themselves, which were indeed superior to thechaotic situation that it replaced and also to the one competing typological sys-tem, the abstruse “analytical typology” of Laplace (1964, 1968), which was moredifficult to apply and was primarily designed to describe Upper Paleolithic tools(Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan, 1981; Bietti, 1991). When the Bordes typology wasnew, this assumption was not tested simply because assemblages described by thismethod were rarely subject to a second typological analysis by other experts usingthe same definitions. What is remarkable is that this situation has remained almostunchanged.

As noted earlier, typologies are at least partially arbitrary cultural constructsdesigned for particular research goals. As cultural artifacts themselves, establishedtypologies like that of Bordes have rarely been investigated for “consistency,” thedegree to which multiple expert observers actually agree on the assignment of an

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

artifact to a particular type or even on the behavioral and/or “cultural” meaningof that type. In the case of Bordes’ types, archaeologists are in what Whittakeret al. (1998) recently referred to as a state of “complacency,” where the rules ofthe typology are so widely accepted that archaeologists overlook the flaws in thesystem and are more likely to attribute anomalous results to observer error ratherthan ambiguous type definitions. The limited efforts to assess the consistency ofBordes’ type definitions are discussed below.

In 1975, Jelinek noted significant differences in the identification of points andconvex convergent side scrapers in parallel analyses of two samples from Layer E atTabun cave, Israel, that had been classified according to Bordes’ type-list (Skinner,1965; Wright, 1966). Reacting to this discovery, Fish (1978, 1979) conductedsystematic comparisons of variation in the recognition of both attributes and typesbetween observers and by the same observer over time. He found statisticallysignificant differences in many cases, and pointedly concluded that we cannotassume that artifacts thus classified “produce fully replicable sets of data” (1978,p. 88). These warnings went unheeded. Although some refinements have beenintroduced into the system, mostly in the form of clarifications or the addition ofnamed subtypes (summarized by Debenath and Dibble, 1994), there have beenvery few formal tests in which independent and equally qualified observers haveapplied the Bordes typology to the same collection or even different samples fromthe same site. This form of “blind testing” of observations has become routine,although not entirely uncontroversial, in lithic analysis use-wear studies (Moss,1987; Newcomeret al., 1986).

One of the few investigations of inter-typologist variability was recently pub-lished by Dibble (1995b), who compared his own typological analysis of an assem-blage from Level IIA of the early Mousterian site of Biache Saint-Vaast, northernFrance, with an analysis of the same material by Tuffreau (1988). In the resultinginventories, there was only a slight difference in the numbers of specimens includedon the two “essential” lists (Tuffreau,n= 290; Dibble,n= 294), indicating a highlevel of agreement in the recognition of specimens bearing “significant” retouchand thus qualifying as formal tools. This uniformity of observation did not extendto the classification of individual specimens. As with the earlier observations byJelinek (1975), when the lists were compared, the most obvious discrepancy wasin the assignment of tools to the Mousterian point and convergent scraper types. Inother respects, the agreement between the two analysts was described as “almostperfect” (Dibble, 1995b, p. 94). From the published data (Table II), this conclu-sion would seem to be overstated. Although each author identified almost the samenumber of denticulates, there were many discrepancies among the other types. Inaddition to the Mousterian points and convergent scrapers noted above, Dibbleidentified nearly twice as many single convex side scrapers as did Tuffreau (61 to32) and large numerical differences also occurred in abrupt scrapers, backed knives,and notches. In fact, for a typological system that is considered objective, remark-ably few types were identified in equal frequency by both analysts. Application of

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

12 Bisson

Table II. Essential List Type Counts of Biache Saint-Vaast, Level IIAa

Tuffreau Dibble

No. Type Frequency % Frequency %

4 Retouched Levallois point 3 1.03 0 0.006 Mousterian point 20 6.90 9 3.067 Elongated Mousterian point 27 9.31 3 1.029 Single straight scraper 22 7.59 28 9.52

10 Single convex scraper 32 11.03 61 20.7511 Single concave scraper 10 3.45 5 1.7012 Double straight scraper 1 0.34 4 1.3613 Double straight convex scraper 11 3.79 3 1.0214 Double straight concave scraper 0 0.00 2 0.6815 Double convex scraper 16 5.52 16 5.4416 Double concave scraper 1 0.34 0 0.0017 Double convex-concave scraper 6 2.07 2 0.6818 Straight convergent scraper 8 2.76 4 1.3619 Convex convergent scraper 20 6.90 42 14.2821 Dejete scraper 5 1.72 4 1.3622 Straight transverse scraper 1 0.34 0 0.0023 Convex transverse scraper 2 0.69 3 1.0224 Concave transverse scraper 1 0.34 1 0.3425 Scraper on interior surface 7 2.41 1 0.3426 Abrupt scraper 0 0.00 6 2.0428 Scraper with bifacial retouch 1 0.34 1 0.3429 Alternate scraper 2 0.69 5 1.7030 Typical endscraper 7 2.41 5 1.7031 Atypical endscraper 5 1.72 2 0.6832 Typical burin 3 1.03 4 1.3633 Atypical burin 1 0.34 1 0.3434 Typical per¸coir 0 0.00 2 0.6836 Typical backed knife 3 1.03 1 0.3437 Atypical backed knife 4 1.38 1 0.3440 Truncation 6 2.07 1 0.3442 Notch 12 4.14 20 6.8043 Denticulate 37 12.76 36 12.2444 Alternate retouched bec 2 0.69 2 0.6854 End-notched flake 3 1.03 1 0.3456 Rabot 1 0.34 3 1.0258 Tanged tool 0 0.00 1 0.3461 Chopping tool 1 0.34 2 0.6862 Miscellaneous 9 3.10 12 4.80

Total 290 294

aComparison of the type counts for the essential tool list of Biache Saint-Vaast,Level IIA, made in independent analyses by Tuffreau and Dibble. Data taken fromDibble (1995b).

a simple, percentage based measure of similarity, the Robinson–Brainerd index, tothese data gives a score of 139.70 on a scale of 200. In other words, the two typolo-gists agreed on the designations of specimens in only 69.85% of cases. Differencesin distinguishing between “typical” and “atypical” tool forms accounted for slightlyover 3% of the global 30.15% disagreement, so this potentially ambiguous categoryhad a minor effect in this case. The point-convergent scraper problem accounted for

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

12.13% of this variation, leaving 18.02% of other tools subject to intertypologistvariation. In other words, even in the types considered to be unproblematic, twoexpert observers disagreed in approximately one out of every five cases.

Not only did the individual type identifications vary, but so did a number ofcomposite categories of major tool forms. The largest difference was the identifi-cation of 50 points by Tuffreau, and only 12 by Dibble, who saw 22 of Tuffreaus’points as convex convergent scrapers. This was not unexpected. Distinguishingpoints from convergent scrapers is the best known ambiguity in the typology(Debenath and Dibble, 1994). Differences in the perception of some other generalcategories are not as easy to explain. The large disagreement over the numbersof single convex side scrapers might be accounted for by subtle variation in thetwo analysts’ perceptions of the meaning of “straight,” “convex,” and “concave”edge forms, but because “single lateral scraper” would seem to have an unam-biguous definition, it is reasonable to expect little or no difference in the sums ofthese tools in each list. This is not the case. Tuffreau recognized only 64 singlelateral scrapers, whereas Dibble identified 94. Double scrapers, another seeminglyunambiguous category, differed as well (Tuffreau, 35; Dibble, 27). Among theless frequent tools, endscrapers, backed knives, and truncations all occurred atmarkedly higher frequencies in Tuffreau’s list, probably accounting for many ofthe specimens that Dibble had placed among the lateral scrapers. It is only whenthe types are condensed into their broadest categories, the indices, that the twoanalyses achieve closer agreement (Dibble, 1995b, p. 96) (Table II). If this levelof intertypologist variability is at all typical, then the warning by Fish (1978) is asappropriate today as it was 20 years ago.

The long-term failure to assess systematically the actual objectivity of theBordes typology is an excellent example of the empiricist approach in which an ideais accepted based on its authorship rather than a critical evaluation of its substance(Clark, 1993, 1994). As an expert flintknapper and the acknowledged preeminentauthority on Lower and Middle Paleolithic technologies, Bordes was seen as havingthe greatest intuitive grasp of the subject and, therefore, to be the most qualifiedperson to see into the minds of Neanderthals and identify their intentions in creatingstone tool shapes. The “centralized and hierarchically structured nature of Frenchscientific communities” (Hammond, 1982, p. 21) which had carried over fromthe 19th century, combined with Bordes’ powerful personality and his positionas founder ofl’Institut du Quaternaireat the University of Bordeaux, was also afactor in the widespread adoption of his type-list.

Whittakeret al. have summarized the causes of typological inconsistency.These include logical flaws and ambiguities in type definitions, as well as humanerrors. In their words, “Interobserver variability is unavoidable in the classificationperformed using any typology, largely because of variation in human perceptionsand biases” (1998, p. 143). These can include random errors either in the recogni-tion of types or in the recording of data, and systematic bias, in which one observer“sees” the same phenomenon differently from others. A good example of this is

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

14 Bisson

the tendency of some archaeologists to classify specimens as “convex convergentscrapers” that others would call “Mousterian points.” The way in which Bordes’typology has been transmitted within the archaeological community has helpedcreate these systematic differences in perception. Although published type de-scriptions are necessary to legitimize a typology, both Fish (1979) and Whittakeret al. (1998) emphasized that archaeologists primarily learn typologies by directcontact with other archaeologists, creating a situation where observer biases areboth reinforced and perpetuated as senior scholars pass on their particular visionof a typology to their graduate students.

Typological inconsistency could be argued to be a technical problem requiringrefinement of type definitions and more uniform training of typologists. Althougha very serious issue, this problem alone might not necessarily justify the aban-donment of the Bordesian system. More significant are questions that have beenraised as to the causes of variability in Middle Paleolithic tools, and whether thesecorrespond to the assumptions that underlie the typology.

Following his predecessors, Bordes (1965, 1969) believed that tool formswere the desired outcomes of conscious or subconscious choices and, thus, re-flected ideal forms that existed as concepts in the minds of the makers. Mellars(1989, 1991) refers to this as the creation of “imposed form” on tools. This fun-damental assumption remains widely held in Europe (Clark, 1997; Debenath andDibble, 1994; Sackett, 1991) but is now almost universally rejected by Anglo-American archaeologists. Although recognition that factors other than choice in-fluenced some tool forms can be found in the writings of Bordes himself (1961a),the first person to challenge systematically the normative paradigm inherent in thetypology was Harold Dibble (1984, 1987). Dibble investigated the scrapers, themost common of all Middle Paleolithic tools and, thus, the class with the greatestimpact in quantitative comparisons of assemblages. The implication of Bordes’normative approach is that there should be nodal tendencies in the distributionof scraper attributes that correspond to the tool-makers’ intent. Instead, Dibblefound continuous variation, which he explained as a consequence of differentialreduction and the “Frison effect” (Jelinek, 1976), the tendency of tools to changein form as they are rejuvenated and resharpened. Dibble illustrated this effect withan experimental scraper which was transformed from a lateral to a transverse typeby successive resharpenings in which the platform was retained intact to serveas a hand-hold. His statistical analysis, ultimately expanded to include over 20French and Middle Eastern assemblages, demonstrated that reduction intensity hada variable but statistically significant impact on scraper morphology and thereforeassemblage composition when the Bordesian method was used (Dibble, 1995). Heconcluded that multiple environmental, raw material, and behavioral constraintseffected the individual life histories of tools and, in turn, determined assemblagecomposition.

Steven Kuhn (1991, 1992) voiced similar criticism of the cognitive signif-icance of Bordes types but argued that the primary determinant of scraper form

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

was the shape of the initial flake blank. Basing his argument on the PontinianMousterian of Italy, in which he noted a close correlation of blank form andscraper form, Kuhn suggested that the shape of the raw material supports availableto knappers exercised strong limits on possible flake production strategies, andthus the blanks from which an assemblage was derived. Similar conclusions werereached by Mellars (1992a) based on an inverse correlation between transversescrapers and the presence of Levallois flake production technique in a sample of33 Ferrassie and Quina Mousterian assemblages from southwestern France. Therelative impact of reduction processes versus initial blank morphology in deter-mining tool types and assemblage composition has remained a subject of debate(Dibble, 1995; Kuhn, 1995; Mellars, 1996), although there is general agreementthat both factors play a part (Dibble, 1991; Kuhn and Stiner, 1998).

The assumption that each type represents an intentionally imposed form isan example of a fundamental theoretical problem with Bordes’ typology: the con-fusion of description and interpretation. In the context of the Bordesian system,this was recognized implicitly by many Anglo-American archaeologists in theirquestioning of the meaning of each type, but it has been quantitatively orientedFrench archaeologists who have discussed the general theoretical issue with thegreatest clarity. Gardin describes the physical description of artifacts as a processof “cataloging” in which both the expertise and the objectives of the archaeologistare significant factors in the descriptive language employed. He characterizes clas-sifications as “theoretical constructs of a higher order” (1980, p. 10) rather thandescriptions of the observable properties of an artifact, which he sees as the listingof attributes and attribute combinations from which typologies are constructedusing quantitative methods. The latter points have been elaborated by Djindjian,who agrees that many older typologies are flawed because they jump uncriticallyfrom description to analysis and because they mix technological, functional, andstylistic attributes in a way that the relative significance of each of these “intrin-sic” qualities cannot be checked. This last point was explicitly directed at Bordes’methodology and the resulting assemblage groups, which are described as “mixedstructures. . .which cannot be interpreted” (1987, p. 401) because of their relianceon a behaviorally ambiguous typology.

In the past 25 years a number of elaborate attribute based descriptions havebeen carried out in French archaeology, and quantitative methods and data banksare widely accepted (Gardin, 1987). These have tended to focus on more re-cent periods beginning with the Upper Paleolithic (Djindjian, 1987). The Mid-dle Paleolithic has been conspicuously absent from these attempts. It is possiblethat the less structured nature of Middle Paleolithic technology may have been asignificant factor. To many in the European tradition, an analysis would be suc-cessful only to the extent that it identified types useful for culture-chronologicalreconstruction. Gardins’ quantitative methods may have been deemed unsuitablebecause the data themselves failed to cluster in the manner expected by archaeol-ogists. Growing dissatisfaction with typological analysis in France led to highly

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

16 Bisson

sophisticated studies of technological processes through thechaıne operatoireap-proach of Leroi-Gourhan (1964), creating a curious situation. Detailed analyseswere made of the grammars of blank production (see Dibble and Bar-Yosef, 1995)and how tools are modified by resharpening (Dibble, 1987), but very little has beendone on the grammars oftool production. The concept of Bordes’ types as naturalcategories appears to have precluded any such analysis.

As others have noted (Dibble and Debenath, 1991), the present controversyover the behavioral meaning of Bordes’ types recapitulates the famous debateon the nature of types between Ford (1952) and Spaulding (1953). Spaulding ar-gued the empiricist position that structure is inherent in the archaeological record(“emic”), permitting types to be defined by nonrandom attribute combinationsconstituting the material expression of behavioral norms. He advocated the useof unambiguously defined attributes carefully selected for their behavioral signif-icance, standardized statistical testing, and explicit investigation of the causes ofpatterning. Ford believed that types are arbitrary divisions of a continuum of behav-ioral variability inherent in all cultural phenomena and are, thus, a product of theanalyst and a reflection of specific research objectives. These superimposed (“etic”)types have no permanence. Dunnell’s differentiation of definition and descriptionis particularly relevant in this context. In his view, “intensional” definitions, whichspecify a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an object to correspondto a term, are the only ones relevant to science. Definitions are ultimately aboutthe relationships between words and ideas. In contrast, descriptions are “a com-pilation of the variable attributes of an individual case or group of cases” (1971,p. 17). Thus the objects of descriptions are physical entities rather than words orconcepts. It is this distinction that Bordes’ typology muddles by mixing physicaldescription with interpretation and is precisely why an attribute based descriptivesystem is advocated here. Although the consensus in North America today is thattypes are etic (Dunnell, 1971; Adams and Adams, 1991), the question of the “real-ity” of types is, in an important sense, irrelevant. An important research objectiveshould be the systematic description of artifacts to permit meaningful comparisons(Deetz, 1967). The ultimate goal is to provide sufficient data so that other archaeol-ogists can use them to create “synthetic types. . .paradigmatic class(es) of discreteobjects defined by modes (cultural paradigmatic classes of attributes)” (Dunnell,1971, pp. 156–157) that are appropriate to the investigation of their particular re-search problems. The issue of whether these descriptions correspond to cognitivecategories or any other behaviorally generated patterns is at the inferential level ofanalysis.

Although problems with Bordes’ typology are widely recognized, most ar-chaeologists continue to employ the Bordes type list out of respect for its historicalprecedence (Debenath and Dibble, 1994) and circumvent the biases of the typol-ogy by using alternative research strategies (Audouze, 1999). One problem withthis compromise is that it could lead to differences in the interpretations of the

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

same data by members of teams who come from different research traditions, al-though this does not occur if chronostratigraphy is a primary research goal (Dibbleand Lenoir, 1995). A more important consequence is that the various innovativeapproaches that are being developed have taken place in effective isolation andhave produced data which cannot be incorporated into other studies (see Dibble,1995a) in the way that the Bordes types were intended.

BORDESIAN SYSTEMATICS

Bordesian systematics have been the focus of debate in European MiddlePaleolithic archaeology for over 30 years. Both the theory and the method thatunderlies it and the meaning of the assemblage groups (facies) that it identifiedhave been subject to intense scrutiny. It is not the purpose of this paper to presenta detailed evaluation of the many interpretations offered for these assemblagegroups. It is instead argued that many of these debates are unresolvable withinthe context of the Bordesian typological system. What follows is a discussionof the logical relationship between the typology itself and the assemblage groupsystematics that are derived from it. The major debates over the meaning of Bordes’facies are briefly summarized in order to clarify the reasons why an attribute basedapproach to assemblage description is superior to one in which the minimal unit isthe whole artifact and to provide a rationale for the choice of particular attributesfor the common list.

The degree to which the typology exerts a determining influence on subse-quent analysis was illustrated in a series of papers by Dibble (1984, 1987, 1988,1991, 1995), who expanded on ideas originally proposed by Rolland (1981) andJelinek (1984). Dibble noted that scrapers, denticulates, and notches are the tooltypes that have contributed most to interassemblage variability and that these toolsare characterized by continuous rather than nodal or discontinuous differencesin form. In a sample of 72 French assemblages, less than 10% of assemblagevariability was related to other types (Dibble, 1988). If the classification of thesetools is somehow faulty, the assemblage groupings derived from them cannot beseen as natural. Indeed, these tool categories may be where Bordes’ typology ismost deficient. In both, continuous variation is present, but Bordes treated thementirely differently. The scrapers are oversplit into 24 discrete types (includingthelimace). The notches and denticulates, however, are oversimplified. Single andmultiple discontinuous notches are not differentiated and potentially meaningfulcategories such as a regular, serrated saw-like edge are not distinguished from twoirregular adjacent notches, a form which could have a different function. Sinceassemblage groups are in part defined by the proportions of these tools, simplelogic dictates that this typological noise (Jelinek, 1988a) must have a significantimpact.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

18 Bisson

The first of a growing number of calls to replace Bordes’ typology was madeby Sackett (1988), who has provided the most comprehensive and devastatingcritique of Bordesian systematics. Commenting on a symposium on the UpperPleistocene prehistory of Western Eurasia, Sackett noted the many new method-ological advances that had been made in Middle Paleolithic research. In particular,he emphasized the growing evidence for continuous variability in tool forms. Inthe face of these data, he found it astonishing that the same scholars who haveundermined both the logical and the factual basis of Bordian systematics had notseen the implications of their own research. In his view, the overriding questionis not the meaning of Bordes’ assemblage groups, but whether they exist at all asbehavioral entities and, if so, whether they show chronological patterning and/orcorrelate with environmental variables. Similar views have been expressed byFreeman (1992), who notes that evidence that the assemblage groups identified byBordes grade into each other has been either ignored or explained away as the re-sult of small or mixed samples. Examples include large intermediate assemblagesthat have been recovered by proper excavations in the Midi of France (de Lumley,1971, 1972) and also his own work in Spain. In his view, the facies concept “mustbe abandoned” (1992, p. 114). Clark (1997) argues in a similar vein. Again citingthe research of Dibble (1987) on continuous variability in scrapers, he asserts thatthe Bordian facies are “typological artifacts” and that, if Bordian systematics arenot abandoned, they should at least be separated from “the historicist biases thatare invoked to explain them” (1997, p. 68).

Nevertheless, Bordes’ types, as well as his assemblage groups, are not with-out defenders (Mellars, 1996; Demoule, 1999). Although interpretations have var-ied over the years, the consensus of European scholars is that they both repre-sent real entities, and the great majority of North Americans have also viewedthem as behaviorally significant. Some early applications of elaborate quantitativemethods to sets of assemblages appeared to confirm Bordes’ assemblage groups(Callow and Webb, 1981; Doran and Hodson, 1966). However, Dibble and Rolland(1992) have criticized these analyses because the same variables used to define thegroups are also used to assess the statistical significance of the groups. These criti-cisms notwithstanding, almost all discussions of interassemblage variability in theEuropean Middle Paleolithic treat Bordes assemblage groups as a starting point.

INTERPRETATIONS OF BORDES’ ASSEMBLAGE GROUPS

Bordes’ (1961b) interpretation of the assemblage groups as the material prod-ucts of ethnic groups, each having its own preferred style of tool manufacture, wasinherent in his concept of types as discrete, intentionally produced morphologicalunits. The first important challenge to this paradigm was the “functional hypoth-esis,” associated primarily with the works of Lewis Binford (1972, 1973; Binfordand Binford, 1966; Freeman, 1966). Far from rejecting the idea of culture in the

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Paleolithic, the “functional” position was that behavior is an interaction of thecultural repertoire and the environment. Because Bordes’ tool types were widelydistributed in time and space, they were not imbued with the same componentof style commonly found in artifacts produced in later prehistory. Mousterianlithic assemblages instead consisted almost exclusively oftechnomicartifacts,i.e., artifacts that are primarily utilitarian and thus linked in form to the demandsof the physical environment (Binford, 1962). These tools were “expedient,” havingshort use lives and being discarded near where they were used. In consequence,variability in Mousterian assemblages must be generated by the differences in thetype, relative frequency, and intensity of activities carried out at different placesand times, and this in turn will be influenced by a variety of environmental and cul-tural constraints. Activities were thought to generate kits (“factors”) of mutuallycovarying tool types that would cross-cut Bordes’ assemblage groups (Binford,1973, 1989). In essence, Binford accepted the tool types as desired end prod-ucts, but interpreted them as having been deliberately produced to satisfy specificutilitarian needs.

Initial criticism of the functional hypothesis focused on errors made in the ap-plication of factor analytical techniques. The intuitive assignment of specific func-tions to individual tool types was also criticized, as was the failure of the Binfords’factors to correlate with paleoenvironments or evidence of season. Indeed, the fac-tor analysis technique used in the original study (Binford and Binford, 1966) wasinappropriately applied (Cowgill, 1968). Subsequent forensic research employinghigh magnification microscopy found no significant correlation between Bordes’tool types and specific activities (Beyries, 1987; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Shea,1989), as had been assumed by the Binfords. Environmental and seasonal correla-tions with activity facies remain problematic and subject to debate (Bordes, 1973,1975; Binford, 1989; Mellars, 1996), and there appears to be no correspondencewith faunal assemblages (Chase, 1986).

Although questions raised by the Bordes–Binford debate have dominatedMiddle Paleolithic studies for over 30 years, there has been little progress intheir resolution (e.g., Barton, 1991; Dibble and Rolland, 1992). Far from reced-ing into the background, Binfords’ hypothesis remains sufficiently important thatit was subject to a lengthy critique in the recent comprehensive synthesis of theMousterian by Mellars (1996). Many of Mellars’ arguments point to the theoreti-cal implausibility of the functional variability hypothesis in terms of taphonomicprocesses, modern hunter/gatherer behavior, and the lack of synchronicity of theFerrassie, Quina, and Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition facies. He also stressesthat Binfords’ explanation of Mousterian interassemblage variability ultimatelyrests on the assumed correlation of form with function and argues that we mustknow more about the actual uses of particular tool forms to test the Binford model(1996, pp. 318–319). Citing the forensic studies noted above, Mellars emphasizesthat individual tool types often have multiple functions, thus invalidating the simpleequations made by Binford.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

20 Bisson

However, these edge-wear studies are subject to the same problem of all otherstudies that rely on Bordes’ types as the basic descriptive unit for tools. Experi-ments have demonstrated that some edge morphologies are superior to others forparticular tasks (Vaughan, 1985). The edge-wear studies cited as evidence against acorrelation between form and function, require more careful scrutiny. Unexpectedand counterintuitive results include the identification of a significant number oftools bearing evidence of use on bone, when this can have been produced only byincidental contact since carved bone is extremely rare in Middle Paleolithic con-texts (Chase and Dibble, 1987, 1992). A large number of specimens are also notedto have wood polish, but Jelinek (1988b) comments that wood polish is nearlyindistinguishable from microwear caused by soil movement, and long burial inPleistocene sediments subject to compaction and cryoturbation could easily ac-count for this phenomenon (see also Levi-Sala, 1986; Shea and Klenck, 1993).

If the edge-wear studies remain inconclusive, then the form–function rela-tionship requires further investigation from a different perspective. This is a goodexample of the inhibiting effect of the Bordes typology on a promising avenue ofresearch. Definitions of Bordes’ assemblage groups were strongly dependent onthe scrapers. The identification of many scraper types is in turn dependent on theposition of the axis of flaking, an attribute which has no direct bearing on func-tion, and edge profile, which has some functional significance but certainly not inproportion to the number of edge profile combinations recognized by Bordes. Itis unlikely that straight or convex edges, which vary continuously (Dibble, 1987),can be differentiated in any meaningful way in terms of function, although a con-cave edge has greater limits as to what it can do. Edge angle is another functionallysignificant variable (e.g., Gould, 1980; Hayden, 1977, 1979; White and Thomas,1972), but this is masked in Bordes’ types. Thus what is probably one of the twomost important functionally related variables is not represented in the analyticalunits that are being used to test (and reject) the functional hypothesis. Dismissals ofthe functional hypothesis that concentrate on the inadequacy of the form–functionlink miss this point. Unless a descriptive system that has the potential to be sensi-tive to function is employed, this hypothesis will remain untestable. This problemhas been known for over 20 years (Sackett, 1973; Jelinek, 1976) yet little has beendone about it. A descriptive system including attributes known to have functionalsignificance will provide an opportunity for the first fair test. Even if activity vari-ation proves not to be the primary determinant of assemblage composition, it willallow a more systematic assessment of its overall impact.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC RESEARCH

Among the alternatives to the cultural and functional hypotheses, Mellars’(1969, 1996) interpretation of Mousterian variability as a manifestation of evolv-ing technological traditions is fundamentally similar to Bordes’ in that it relies

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

on the reality of the assemblage types as phenomena to be explained. The assem-blage types rely on the reality of the Bordes tool types. Thus the patterns Mellarsidentifies are subject to the same criticisms leveled at Bordes’ interpretation ofparallel phyla. A more novel solution, proposed by Rolland (1981), argues thatthe major factor generating variability in the Mousterian was differential levelsof reduction of lithic raw materials. This model postulates a single behavioraltradition in which the environment, particularly the climate, and the nature andavailability of workable stone were important factors influencing lithic reductionand, therefore, assemblage composition. Dibble’s studies (1987, 1988, 1991), dis-cussed at length above, complement Rollands’ hypothesis and provide a coherentexplanation of the mechanisms by which reduction can transform assemblagecharacteristics. Although style and function may have contributed to assemblagecomposition, these factors were overshadowed by raw material and environmentalconstraints (Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble and Rolland, 1992).

The Rolland and Dibble model is plausible but, as is clear from the lengthycritique by Mellars (1996), it is not yet proven. Like the others, it employs theBordes types as basic analytical units. Although Dibble has provided devastatingevidence of the logical and practical flaws of Bordes’ scraper types, (1989, 1991,1995a), he is strangely reluctant to call for a revision of our descriptive meth-ods even though both he and Rolland recognize the “coarseness” of our presentmethodology (Dibble and Rolland, 1992, p. 18). Indeed, Dibbles’ (1987) mostconvincing evidence for the impact of the reduction process comes through theanalysis of attribute relationships rather than the types themselves. If more de-tailed, attribute-based artifact descriptions were available, the impact of reductionon each individual tool could be more accurately assessed, placing the reductionhypothesis on firmer footing.

In France, the past 35 years have also seen an increasing interest in recon-structing behavior, although this has taken a somewhat different trajectory fromthe North American emphasis on cultural ecology and function. This began in the1960s with the publication of scenarios reconstructing what happened at particularsites, however, prior to the 1990s, this was usually presented within the context ofthe traditional culture-historical orientation. By the 1980s, many French prehisto-rians had come to the conclusion that “conventional typologies were not capableof revealing those aspects of variation that might be ethnically (or functionally)significant” (Villa, 1991, p. 208). As early as 1983, Villa argued that technologyand function should be controlled prior to assuming that assemblage patterns areindicative of ethnicity. This realization led to a gradual decline in the use of Bordes’method as researchers became more aware of the multiple factors that influenceassemblage variability. One consequence of this has been that interassemblagecomparisons have been restricted to limited regions or a single technological trait,with patterns across regions being assumed (Villa, 1991).

At the same time, French archaeology turned its attention to the internal con-tent of technological systems. This is typified by Leroi-Gourhan’s (1964, 1965)

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

22 Bisson

chaıne operatoireconcept, which has now become a dominant analytical paradigm.The success of this concept is based on its close fit with the French interest in tech-nology because it is very efficient in creating highly detailed reconstructions of theentire life-history of an artifact from raw material acquisition through blank andtool production strategies, any use and renewal episodes, and ultimately discard(Audouze, 1999). Although Leroi-Gourhan used the concept to understand cogni-tive evolution over time, more recent uses tend to focus on shorter time spans andindividual technological systems. This is typified by the core reduction studies ofBoeda, and his definition of the Levallois concept (1994, pp. 12–13).

The chaıne operatoire concept has not been free from criticism. Audouzenotes that, as with the ideas of Bordes, it was over three decades before the episte-mological underpinnings of thechaıne operatoirewere subject to analysis and thatthis process began outside of France. The concept has “led to an almost infinitenumber of solutions and did not assist in understanding the rationale behind Mid-dle Paleolithic technology.. . .Given the fact that a given object could be obtainedby different technical processes and could perform different functions, [Frenchprehistorians] concluded that an object cannot be satisfactorily described and itsfunction deduced from its typology. It can only be defined by its position in a suc-cession of technical stages and by the purposes for which it was created” [Audouze(1999, p. 171), citing an unpublished dissertation by Bo¨eda]. It is argued here thatthe failure of traditional typology to provide adequate description does not meanthat artifacts cannot be satisfactorily described. Moreover, although thechaıneoperatoire concept is an extremely valuable tool, it is essentially an analyticalrather than a descriptive method, and is therefore at a higher level of analysis. It isthus not a competing paradigm to the attribute-based descriptions advocated here.

MOUSTERIAN TOOLS AS FUNCTIONAL EDGES

The assertion that many Mousterian tools do not reflect mental templates doesnot mean that their entire form is random. Retouch was applied to transform a blankinto a useful object, and even the most pessimistic views of the cognitive abilitiesof ArchaicHomo sapiensmust admit that they were capable of creating effectiveimplements within their limited technological repertoire. The key question is notwhether imposed form exists on Middle Paleolithic tools, but at what level, the edgeor the tool, it operates and according to what rules it was applied. This questioncannot be answered if tools are considered as discrete units because that wouldconstitute analytical circularity, with the types being used to test for their ownexistence. Subdivision of tools into their constituent attributes is necessary to testfor the reality of any higher-level patterning.

No descriptive system can be formulated in a theoretical vacuum and beentirely free of ideological biases. The system proposed here is an attribute typol-ogy rather than an artifact typology because the implications of all recent studies

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

of the determinants of Middle Paleolithic tool morphology are that attributes aremore important manifestations of behavior than is total tool morphology (Freeman,1966; Jelinek, 1976; Fish, 1979; Djindjian, 1987; Cowgill, 1989; Barton, 1991;Marks, 1992; Mellars, 1996). Artifact “types,” empirically verifiable, mutuallyexclusive polythetic sets of attributes, may be constructed from the associationsof attributes using a variety of quantitative techniques, bearing in mind that someattribute combinations will have no behavioral meaning in and of themselves, andrepresent “stochastic regularities” (Bell, 1994), the chance combination of inde-pendent variables that are an artifact of the classificatory process. We would notexpect types to be identical from one study to the next, because research goalswill vary. This is the advantage of an attribute combination-based description. Theinitial study of a site may wish to reveal change over time, and thus the typescan be constructed from attributes which are time sensitive. Yet if the full setof attribute combinations is published, someone interested in the relationship oflithic raw materials to particular edge forms could identify completely differenttypes appropriate to that question without having to independently inspect the col-lection and rerecord the data. In addition, meaningful regional and interregionalcomparisons could be carried out to test relationships that are impossible to in-vestigate under the present system. For those who are interested in the continuedstudy of Bordes’ assemblage groups, the attribute associations could be used torefine Bordes’ types and, perhaps, help resolve some outstanding questions withinthe “cultural” paradigm. Far from intrinsically being an attack on the “stylistic”interpretation of types, the analysis of attribute associations provides a means forsupporters of style to demonstrate the kinds of nonrandom patterning that we wouldexpect in stylistic behavior. Calls to investigate which attributes and attribute com-binations are the causes of interassemblage variability extend back more than twodecades (Fish, 1979; Gardin, 1980; Jelinek, 1988a; Sackett, 1988). By requiringa more comprehensive list of individual attribute frequencies and their combina-tions to be a routine part of descriptive publications, some of the “coarseness” andlack of flexibility that has characterized databases in the past (Dibble and Rolland,1992) can be remedied.

The selection of variables to be included in the standard list is of criticalimportance. Each variable and the attributes defined within it must have a reason-able probability of having been influenced by prehistoric behavior or the naturalconstraints acting on that behavior. Attribute based classifications are no more au-tomatic and value free than were Bordes’ types. Variable and attribute definition iswhere archaeological expertise enters the process and where biases must be madeexplicit (Djindjian, 1987).

My own bias sees Middle Paleolithic tools as functional edges shaped andpositioned best to facilitate their use for one or more tasks (Freeman, 1966; Binfordand Binford, 1966 and elsewhere; Dibble, 1987, 1989; Mellars, 1991, 1996; Barton,1991). Middle Paleolithic subsistence and technology were significantly simplerthan those of subsequent periods. Traits subject to functional constraints also tend

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

24 Bisson

to be highly conservative (Kuhn and Stiner, 1998). This is reflected in the remark-able uniformity in the designs of these artifacts across space and over time. Thisview reflects the current consensus that there is a fundamental continuity betweenLower and Middle Paleolithic tool technologies (e.g., Breuil and Lantier, 1959;Combier, 1962; J. D. Clark, 1982; Binford, 1989) that contrasts with the disconti-nuity marking the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition (Mellars, 1989; but foran opposing view see Clark, 1997) and that imposed form is significantly lessprevalent in these earlier industries (e.g., Toth, 1985).

The degree to which form was imposed on Middle Paleolithic tools varied.In the case of most scrapers, the imposed form consisted of the production of auniform, smoothly profiled retouched edge situated on the longest, most acutelyangled edge of the original flake blank (Dibble, 1995; Mellars, 1996; Bisson, 1997).The actual shape of the retouched edge was strongly influenced by the original formof the blank (Kuhn, 1992), which may have been intentionally selected (Geneste,1989). The edge may initially have been straight or slightly convex, but any subse-quent renewal of the edge, combined with the need to retain the striking platformas a grip, would create a convex, increasingly steeper edge. Among “straight” and“convex” scrapers, the specific shape of the edge is not imposed form but, instead,a consequence of a complex relationship among raw material characteristics, deb-itage technology, desired function, and reduction history (Dibble, 1987, 1989), inwhich the relative weight of these influences will vary with each case.

Another example of how form is imposed solely on the functional edge, or toaid in hafting or prehension, is backed knives. In that case, the imposition of formconsisted of selecting a blank with a uniform and sharp lateral edge, and bluntingthe opposite edge. The shape of the original flake blank entirely determines theoverall shape of the tool (Monnier, 1992; cited by Mellars, 1996). In these and manyother cases, imposed form is minimal and lies in the selection of an appropriateblank and in the three-dimensional characteristics of the edge itself. In these tools,only the edge morphology may reflect the intent of the makers, and even then, thefunctional constraints shaping that intent are likely to be very wide.

Imposed form is more important in the overall form of other tools, but inmany cases this is also directly related to function and blank form. One class oftools that would seem to follow norms of symmetry and profile are the Mousterianpoints. However, this can be seen as a more tightly constrained combination ofthe functional requirements of the tool edges (to pierce) and the need to have anappropriate base shape for hafting. Mellars (1996) notes that blank form stronglyinfluences both length–width ratios, and the profile of the margins of Mousterianpoints, and contrasts this with the homogeneity found in more recent projectilepoint types. Nevertheless, the entire specimen might be considered a “mental tem-plate” to the extent that the entire morphology of the tool expresses its functionalaspect. In Bordes’ terms, the active part and the part of prehension constitute theentire tool. However, given the close relationship between blank form and pointform, even in this case imposed form is not particularly strong.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

The “bias” of the system proposed here is simply that the entire tool was notthe desired end product, but that the working edge or edges were. The workingedge did not stand alone. The “part of prehension” was also important, as Bordescorrectly recognized. In addition to the working edge and part of prehension, otherbehaviorally significant variables include the raw material and technology of theflake blank, as well as its size.

REPLACING THE BORDES TYPOLOGY

In summary, the system proposed here is designed provide an adequate sum-mary description as well as more comprehensive documentation of an assemblage,rather than a classification as defined by Dunnell (1971) and Gardin (1980). Sinceits goal is universal applicability, the basic paradigmatic difference between Anglo-American and European research traditions cannot be ignored, and neither sideshould be shortchanged. In order to include information relevant to multiple re-search objectives and be capable of being dissected to extract meaningful data,it must be more detailed rather than less. Flexibility must also go hand in handwith methodological objectivity, i.e., criteria employed in constructing descrip-tions should be amenable to as little interclassifier variability as possible. Thesystematic use of attributes to describe artifacts is the only viable way to achievethese goals. The attribute combinations created by this method should at the outsetbe considered “descriptive classes” (Spaulding, 1982) created from a matrix ofpossibilities defined by the variable and attribute lists, and not “types” in the sensethat the term has been commonly used in the past. The greater detail required bythis system is unavoidable. If we have learned anything about methods in the past50 years, it is that our predecessors often neglected to record data that today areconsidered essential. Our own dissatisfaction with the flaws of “old data” shouldspur archaeologists to go beyond their own particular research objectives in record-ing descriptive data on collections. Reanalysis of collections is a time-consumingtask that can be avoided if sound descriptions are published at the start.

As argued above, Bordes’ typology assumes that the overall morphology ofa tool carries stylistic but not functional information. While there are no attributesthat are either inherently stylistic, in the sense of isochrestic variation as definedby Sackett (1982), or purely functional, the failure of Bordes’ typology to ad-dress successfully functional issues makes it an insufficient tool for investigatingPaleolithic behavior. Likewise, the assertion that Bordes’ types are designed ex-pressions of mental templates is neither true nor false a priori. It is a hypothesisthat requires testing and confirmationbeforeit can serve as the basis for the inter-pretation of assemblage patterns, just as the various raw material constraint andtool life-history models have been subject to intensive empirical testing (Dibble,1995; Kuhn, 1992). By describing artifacts as attribute combinations, and explic-itly including variables such as the angle of the effective edge, which is much more

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

26 Bisson

likely to reflect a combination of desired use and reduction history than sociallystructured choices, the system proposed here permits a much wider range of behav-iors to be investigated. This will help facilitate the behavioral orientation that nowdominates paleoanthropology in both Europe (Villa, 1991; Audouze, 1999) andNorth America (Kuhn and Stiner 1998). Current research objectives range fromidentification of the functions of tools, to understanding patterns of acquisition,conservation and reuse of raw materials, to adaptations to local ecological con-ditions. These research goals are now so widespread that a universal descriptivesystem must provide data relevant to them.

The attribute list presented below, which was inspired by the system employedby Jelinek (1975) to code data on tools from Tabun cave, Israel, is designed forthe description of flake tools, and not for core tools. It is in two parts. The firstis the Restricted List, a set of variables and attributes to be used in constructingdescriptive classes permitting a general characterization of an assemblage in muchthe same manner as the Bordes typology served. The second is the Extended List,consisting of a much longer list of variables, as well as finer-scale subdivisions ofsome variables on the restricted list, whose attribute states should be documentedfor each artifact. Flake landmarks and most of the variables and attributes aredrawn directly from the terminology and definitions of Bordes (1961a) as theyare currently employed in Paleolithic research (Inizanet al., 1992; Debenath andDibble, 1994). Individual attributes will be described only if they differ fromcurrent terminology. Bordes designation of “atypical” has been excluded since itis unacceptably vague. It is replaced with a less ambiguous, metrically definedcategory “irregular” (see below). Terms with functional implications are avoidedwherever possible. The one exception is the term “burin,” a distinctive retouch typefor which there is no available alternative name. Removing the familiar functionalterms will make object descriptions more abstract, and this is precisely what isintended. Archaeologists should create their functional classes as a conscious actof interpretation rather than as an automatic consequence of a terminology.

RESTRICTED LIST

Because the Restricted List is designed to facilitate a basic description of theretouched flake tools in an assemblage, it includes the six variables that contributemost to the overall appearance of the artifact. Attribute combinations of the firstthree of these should be sufficient for purposes of summary description to providea “mental picture” of an artifact to someone reading a report. To reduce the numberof potential combinations, some variables and attributes have been condensed intobroader categories for this list. The Restricted List is not designed simply to recreateBordes’ types, although most of Bordes’ types can be defined using this list.

A crucial question is whether the use of combinations of the restricted listattributes will so greatly expand the number of descriptive classes that the type

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

of shorthand characterization of assemblages that was so easy under the Borde-sian system will become impractical. Theoretically, this is possible. There are 276combinations of the attributes in the first three variables alone, compared to the63 Bordes tool types. However, some of the retouch categories cannot logicallybe linked to some of the tool form categories. For example, although continuousregularizing retouch can be used to create a compound notch, the other notched cat-egories are normally created by irregular or serrated retouch. Likewise, Clactoniannotches can only be used to create notched forms, and burination blows create onlyburins. As a result, even in a very large assemblage, the attribute combinations ofthese three variables will normally create no more than 80 descriptive classes,only marginally larger than Bordes’ list. Thus a significant increase in both theinformation content and the objectivity (because metrical criteria are used to de-cide ambiguous cases) is gained at only slightly greater cost in the complexity ofdescription. These descriptive classes can be combined in various ways to generatethe equivalent of some of Bordes’ typological and group indices.

Another important point is the consistency of observations. Consistency in-creases as the number of potential choices decreases (Whittakeret al., 1998). Onepotential criticism of the system proposed here is that the number of decisions(i.e., judgments of the presence or absence of each attribute state) necessary tocreate a descriptive class using the essential list is potentially 276 (all possibleattribute combinations), whereas in Bordes’ typology there are only 53 categoriesof retouched flake tools. This is a false distinction, because most Bordesian typesare a combination of attributes, each of which requires proper recognition. Thismultiplies the number of decisions necessary to type each artifact. Calculating thepotential number of decisions in a Bordesian analysis is complicated by overlap-ping categories and the hierarchical nature of the method (see Fig. 1), but a plausiblecount of potential decisions is 234. Although this is a lower number, Bordes’ ty-pology ignores edge angle in all but four types. An equivalent comparison lumpingthe edge angle variable (R3) into the two categories employed by Bordes (abruptvs. nonabrupt) shows that the attribute system requires only 184 decisions to createa description that conveys more information than is currently possible.

It should be noted that although the attributes themselves are mutually ex-clusive categories, it is possible for a specimen to exhibit more than one attributein some of the variables. For example, a specimen may have continuous regu-larizing retouch on one edge, and a single-blow (“Clactonian”) notch or burinblow on a different edge. In the Bordes typology (1961a), these “multiple tools”are a potential source of confusion, because in his statistical techniques, a spec-imen could only be counted once. The rules he employed to determine the typewere that the better-executed retouched edge was given preference, and if bothwere equal in quality, rare forms were counted over common forms. In this case,the specimen would be called a “Clactonian notch,” and the other retouched edgewould disappear from the analysis (for this example see Debenath and Dibble,1994, p. 105, Fig.). This list applies only to retouched artifacts, specimens that

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

28 Bisson

under Bordes’ typology would constitute his “essential” list. Finally, in the defi-nitions below, the “primary edge” is arbitrarily defined as the longest segment ofretouch.

Variable 1: Number and Form of the Retouched Edge(s)

This variable describes the overall shape of the retouched portion of the toolwhen viewed from a position perpendicular to the flake surface. It was decided tocombine three attribute states (the number of retouched edges and their shape andorientation) in order to simplify the coding scheme. Because all of the combinationsof these attributes known to be present in Middle Paleolithic assemblages areincluded as separate categories, no information is lost by this lumping procedure.Describing form has proved to be a major source of intertypologist variation,particularly in the distinctions between “straight” and “convex” edges and between“convergent” and “pointed” forms. In the former case, arbitrary metrical definitionsare proposed based on an index of curvature computed by dividing the maximumperpendicular distance from a line connecting the ends of a retouched edge by thelength of the line. The index is “positive” if the edge is convex and “negative”if it is concave. Continuous retouch may extend for a short distance around thedistal or proximal ends of a tool. This will inflate the index of curvature. FollowingBordes’ advice (1961a, p. 20, Fig. 2.10), this incidental retouch should be ignoredin defining the line used to compute the index. For “double” forms, it is the primaryedge that determines the shape.

R1.1. Single Straight (an index of curvature not exceeding±0.05).R1.2. Single Convex (index of curvature,>+0.05)R1.3. Single Concave (index of curvature, between−0.05 and−0.15)R1.4. Single Sinuous (any edge that is part convex and part concave)R1.5. Double Straight (the retouched edges do not intersect)R1.6. Double ConvexR1.7. Double ConcaveR1.8. Double SinuousR1.9. Convergent, One End (retouched edges that meet at one extremity

of the piece not meeting the criteria for inclusion in attribute R1.11,including Bordes’ “convergent” and “d´ejete” scrapers)

R1.10. Convergent, Two Ends (elongated oval or blunt “limace” forms)R1.11. Double Convergent (three intersecting retouched edges)R1.12. Convergent, One End—Pointed [Two retouched edges intersecting

to form a symmetrical pointed tip. The interior angle formed by thetwo retouched sides, measured by lines originating at the midpoint ofeach retouched side and intersecting at the apex of the tool, must notexceed 75◦. Although this form is a necessary condition for an artifactto be equivalent to a “Mousterian point,” a true point must also have

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

an acute “tip angle” (Variable R3). This definition will identify pointscapable of passing Bordes’ “bear” test (1961a, p. 37).]

R1.13. Convergent, Two Ends—Pointed (Any specimen with two retouchededges that meet at both extremities. At least one end must meet thecriteria for R2.9. Unifacial specimens will include some “limaces”;bifacial specimens will correspond to the “leaf-shaped points.”)

R1.14. Single Notch (Index of curvature>−0.15. A notch created by the“Clactonian” technique need not achieve this metrical definition.)

R1.15. Multiple Separated NotchesR1.16. Multiple Contiguous NotchesR1.17. Uniform Serration (protrusions between notches are equal in length)R1.18. Converging Serrated EdgesR1.19. Burin Bit(s)R1.20. Spine (a single pointed protrusion; equivalent to “per¸coir” or “bec”)R1.21. Uniform Edge Combined with NotchR1.22. Truncation (abrupt retouch removing the distal or proximal end of an

otherwise unretouched piece)R1.23. Backing (abrupt retouch opposite a sharp noncortical edge)R1.99. Miscellaneous [Rare forms that are judged to be behaviorally signifi-

cant should be described in supplementary information. Examples arethe “carinated” forms found in northern Spain (Valdes and de Quiros,1992) and “Vasconian” cleavers (Bordes, 1953).]

Variable R2: Nature of Retouch, Primary Edge

R2.1. Continuous—Regularizing (A series of connected retouch scars pro-ducing a uniform retouched edge. This would characterize most ofBordes’ “scrapers,” “ordinary notches,” “percoirs” “becs,” and“stems.”)

R2.2. Irregular or Serrated (Connected retouch scars producing two or moreprojections or indentations>1.5 mm on the edge of the tool. This doesnot include multiple discontinuous notches.)

R2.3. Single Blow—“Clactonian” Notch (notch>1.5 mm in depth)R2.4. Single or Multiple Burin Blows

Variable R3: Angle of the Effective Edge, Point, or Tip

This variable adds the third dimension to descriptions constructed from theRestricted List. To ensure consistency, the “effective edge” is arbitrarily definedas the longest retouched edge. In pointed forms and burins, the tip is consideredto be the “effective” part of the tool. On backed pieces, this measurement is takenon the sharp edge opposite the backing. The angles of other retouched edges are

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

30 Bisson

not insignificant but are omitted here to simplify the basic description of the tool.Numerical values for all retouched edge angles are recorded in the Extended List(Variable E23).

This variable is probably sensitive to a combination of factors, including theblank shape and thickness, the functional requirements of the tool, and its reductionhistory. The angle measured is the “edge angle” of Wilmsen (1968), rather than the“spine-plane” angle (Tringhamet al., 1974), and is the interior angle formed by theintersection of the plane of the interior (usually unretouched) surface and the planeof the retouched surface. These measurements are collapsed into three nominalcategories based on a single reading, taken at the midpoint of the longest retouchededge or at the apex of the tip or point (specimens with attributes R1.12, R1.13,R1.19, and R1.20). In the case of multiple notches, the angle should be measuredat the center of the largest notch, but for edges with “multiple contiguous notches”and “uniform serration” (attributes R1.16 and R1.17) the measurement should betaken at the midpoint of the entire retouched edge because of the probability thattoothed or serrated edges were used with a longitudinal rather than a transversemotion (see Grace, 1989, pp. 160–169). The increments chosen reflect the range ofvariation of edge angles commonly found on Middle Paleolithic retouched tools,in which angles less than 20◦ are not common. All measurements should be takenat increments no greater than 10◦ employing either a goniometer or calipers (seeDibble and Bernard, 1980).

R3.1. Acute (angle,<50◦)R3.2. Medium (angle, 50 to 75◦)R3.3. Steep (angle,>76◦)

Variable R4: Subsidiary Retouch

This is the “retouch of accommodation” of Bordes. To some extent, this isa subjective category, although the various types of thinning are unambiguous.“Blunting opposite the effective edge” refers to crushing or abrupt retouch whichremoves a sharp edge, spur, or other irregularity that would interfere with manualprehension or hafting. It is distinguished from backing in that it is not necessarilyopposite the effective edge and is more limited in extent. As Bordes provided nospecific rule defining the extent of backing, here if the abrupt retouch extends morethan half the length of the edge opposite the effective edge, then it is “backed.” Ifit is less than half, it is considered “blunted.” In “limited distal retouch creating apoint,” a similar rule applies. The retouch should extend less than half the lengthof the specimen.

R4.1. BackingR4.2. Thinned BulbR4.3. Thinned Back

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

R4.4. StemR4.5. Thinned PlatformR4.6. Distal ThinningR4.7. Limited Blunting Opposite Effective EdgeR4.8. Limited Distal Retouch Creating PointR4.9. Distal or Proximal Truncation (this is considered “subsidiary” only if

there is a longer retouched edge on the tool)

Variable R5: Position of the Primary Retouched Edge

This variable is significantly different from Bordes’ system because positionis defined relative to a line perpendicular to the plane of the longest blunt edge ofthe tool, either unretouched or deliberately blunted, rather than to the platform andthe axis of flaking as Bordes (1961a) used to differentiate lateral and transverseforms. The rationale for this is the hypothesis (Bisson, 1997) that the blunt edge isas behaviorally significant as the retouched edge because it is often the “part ofprehension.” In many cases the longest blunt edge will be the platform. To deter-mine whether the platform constitutes the most blunt edge, the exterior platformangle (Debenath and Dibble, 1994, p. 13) is compared to angles on the margins ofthe flake.

R5.1. Perpendicular (The retouched edge or edges intersect the line perpen-dicular to the plane of the blunt edge at an angle of 45◦ or less. Thisis also the default attribute for elongated specimens that have beenretouched on two or more edges.)

R5.2. Opposed (angle of intersection,>45◦)

Variable R6: Retouched Surface—Primary Edge

These attributes are unambiguous. “simultaneous exterior and interior” occursduring burination and is a definitive attribute of that technique.

R6.1. ExteriorR6.2. InteriorR6.3. Alternate and AlternatingR6.4. BifacialR6.5. Simultaneous Exterior and Interior

EXTENDED LIST

The Extended List provides a more detailed description of each artifact. Sum-mary statistics similar or identical to Bordes’ indices can be computed from thesevariables. This list is not exhaustive or intended to preclude any other observations

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

32 Bisson

relevant to a particular study. Attributes in these variables can also be subdividedinto finer-scale units if appropriate. Parts of the Extended List can also be usedto describe the technological “artifacts” such as unretouched Levallois flakes andpoints, “naturally backed knives,” and ordinary flakes.

Variable E1: Raw Material

Because of the importance of the type and quality of lithic raw material tohypotheses that stress reduction history and raw material economy (Dibble andRolland, 1992 and elsewhere) and/or the influence of blank form on assemblagecomposition (Kuhn, 1991, 1992), recording the specific type and characteristicsof the raw material of each tool is essential. Raw material should be characterizedboth mineralogically and, if possible, by geological source. The texture of the rawmaterial types represented in the site should also be described.

Variable E2: Blank Technology

This is the technique of debitage used to produce the flake blank, or un-retouched flake in the case of “technological tools.” The basic morphologies ofpieces produced by the blank technologies listed below are described and illus-trated by Debenath and Dibble (1994). The “Levallois,” “Typological Levallois,”and “Blade” indices can be computed from this variable. Note that the Levalloistechnique has been under considerable scrutiny recently (Bo¨eda, 1995 and else-where), and we are far from agreement on its definition and the identification ofits products (see Dibble and Bar-Yosef, 1995).

E2.1. LevalloisE2.2. Blade (scars are unidirectional, straight, and parallel to the long axis)E2.3. Salami Slice [“en tranche de saucisson” (see Turq, 1992)]E2.4. Kombewa Flake (“Janus flake”)E2.5. Other (this is the default attribute for this variable)E2.6. Indeterminate

Variable E3: Blank Form

The outline shape of the flake in plan form. Measurements are made relativeto the “axis of flaking” (Bordes, 1961a).

E3.1. End-Struck Oval or Irregular (length,>10% width)E3.2. Side-Struck Oval or Irregular (width,>10% length)E3.3. Circular (width must not exceed±10% length)E3.4. Triangular or Subtriangular (Levallois point if associated with E2.A)E3.5. Blade (see Bordes, 1960)E3.6. Rectangular or Subrectangular

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

E3.7. Flake FragmentE3.8. Blade SegmentE3.9. Overstruck

E3.10. Indeterminate

Variable E4: Blank Cross Section (Fig. 2)

Blank cross section is estimated along a line perpendicular to, and at the mid-point of, the long axis of the tool. This variable has not been frequently recorded,yet it may have an important influence on both the position (Bisson, 1997) andamount of retouch (Dibble, 1995; Turq, 1995) applied to a tool. In almost all cases,retouch will have removed part of the cross section, thus requiring an estimate ofthe position of the original edge.

E4.1. Triangular SymmetricalE4.2. Triangular AsymmetricalE4.3. Wedge-shapedE4.4. Convex SymmetricalE4.5. Convex AsymmetricalE4.6. Double RidgeE4.7. OtherE4.8. Indeterminate

Fig. 2. Variable E4: blank cross section. The blank cross section is measured at the midpoint ofthe flake perpendicular to the axis of flaking. For symmetrical specimens, the greatest thicknessoccurs within the middle third of the width of the piece. For wedge-shaped specimens, the maximumthickness occurs less than 15% of the width of the specimen from one edge.

Variable E5: Cortex (see Fish, 1979)

E5.1. Noncortical (Under 10% cortex. This is the default attribute.)E5.2. Naturally Backed (a cortical side opposite a noncortical side)

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

34 Bisson

E5.3. Partially Cortical (10 to 90% of the flake exterior is cortex)E5.4. Cortical (over 90% cortex)E5.5. Totally Cortical

Variable E6: Exterior Scar Pattern

This variable describes the orientation and direction of scars on the exteriorsurface of the flake. This list is slightly modified from Baumler (1988).

E6.1. UnidirectionalE6.2. Radial and SubradialE6.3. Bidirectional OpposedE6.4. IrregularE6.5. Converging

Variable E7: Striking Platform Morphology (see Debenath and Dibble, 1994)

E7.1. Plain (Single Facet)E7.2. DihedralE7.3. FacetedE7.4. Faceted—“chapeau de gendarme”E7.5. PunctiformE7.6. LipE7.7. CorticalE8.8. Indeterminate

Variable E8: Retouch Morphology

This describes the appearance and relationships of the flake scars created byretouch on the primary edge of the tool (see Bordes, 1961a).

E8.1. ScalarE8.2. Hinge or SteppedE8.3. SubparallelE8.4. ParallelE8.5. Nibbling

Variable E9: Extent of Retouch

This describes the amount of surface area of the tool that is covered by scarsfrom a continuously retouched edge. [Definitions are modified from Inizanet al.(Roche and Tixier, 1992).]

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

E9.1. Short (most scars terminate less than 5 mm from the edge)E9.2. Moderately Invasive (scars terminate before reaching the midline)E9.3. Invasive (scars terminate after reaching the midline of the blank)E9.4. Covering (scars extend across the entire surface of the blank)

Variable E10: Retouch Intensity

This variable is an estimate of the degree to which retouch has altered theform and volume of the blank and is critical in testing the reduction hypothesis.Both intuitive categories (Dibble, 1987) and metrical indices (Kuhn, 1992) havebeen employed to measure intensity. One problem in assessing retouch intensity isthat different blank cross sections and edge thicknesses require different amountsof retouch to achieve the same result (see Turq, 1992). The attributes given beloware the categories and definitions employed by Dibble and Lenoir (1995, p. 38).The “Quina Index” can be computed from this variable.

E10.1. LightE10.2. NormalE10.3. HeavyE10.4. Demi-QuinaE10.5. QuinaE10.6. BackingE10.7. Damaged

Variable E11: Form of Retouch, Secondary Edge (see Variable R1)

A “secondary edge” is shorter than the primary edge and separated from it.Note that other than notches or specimens with platform modification, there are sofew Middle Paleolithic artifacts with a third independent retouched edge (“tertiaryedge”) that these can be described in the “Miscellaneous” category.

Variable E12: Nature of Retouch, Secondary Edge (see Variable R2)

Variable E13: Retouched Surface, Secondary Edge (see Variable R6)

Variable E14: Platform Alteration

This refers to removal or modification of the platform after the blank hasbeen produced. If this occurs on a blank that bears other retouch, it becomes the“secondary” or “tertiary” edge.

E14.1. Total—Intentional (removed by an independent retouch episode)E14.2. Partial—Intentional

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

36 Bisson

E14.3. Partial—Incidental (caused by retouch of an adjacent edge)E14.4. Total—Incidental

Variable E15: Utilization

E15.1. PresentE15.2. Absent

Variable E17: Length (mm; Measured from the Point of Percussionto the Distal Extremity)

Variable E18: Width (mm; Measured at the Midpoint of, and Perpendicularto, the Length)

Variable E19: Maximum Width (mm; Measured at the Widest PointPerpendicular to the Length)

Variable E20: Thickness (mm; Measured at the Midpointof the Maximum Length)

Variable E21: Platform Width (mm; see Debenath and Dibble, 1994)

Variable E22: Platform Thickness (mm; see Debenath and Dibble, 1994)

Variable E23: Index of Curvature, Primary, Secondary, and TertiaryEdges (mm)

Variable E24: Edge Angle of the Primary, Secondary, and TertiaryRetouched Edges (mm)

Variable E25: Length of Retouched Edges (mm)

Variable E26: Weight (g)

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The foregoing attribute list is significantly longer and will take more time torecord for each artifact than almost all previously published descriptions other thanthose presented for individual artifacts in use-wear studies (e.g., Beyries, 1987).Yet it does not represent that great an increase in the amount of data recordedover what is now being routinely done (see Dibble and Lenoir, 1995). A testby the author found that with experience it takes approximately 5–8 min per

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

artifact to record these data. It could be argued that this much detail is unnecessaryfor most analyses and, thus, represents extraneous work. Indeed, the maxim thatclassifications are designed with particular research goals in mind would suggestthat detailed description of this type would be redundant. This criticism holds,however, only if the identification of types is seen as the goal of a descriptiveanalysis. As Jelinek (1976, 1988a) wisely cautioned, no single typology is adequateto investigate all problems. The implication of virtually all recent research is that acareful study of the interaction of morphological attributes can tell us much moreabout ancient behavioral processes than can standard typological analysis (e.g.,Dibble, 1987 and elsewhere; Turq, 1989; Barton, 1991; Marks, 1992). The samepoint has been made in a non-European context by Cowgill (1989).

A second potential problem is that the use of attribute combinations of Vari-ables R1–R3 will so proliferate the number of descriptive classes in any largeassemblage as to inhibit the type of shorthand summary that was so easy underBordes’ system. The theoretical limits on the number of attribute combinationslikely to occur have been discussed above, but a concrete example will help illus-trate how the new system will increase the number of identified categories, but notto the extent of rendering summary description impossible. Table III compares acollection of 192 Middle Paleolithic tools from Beds 5 to 60 (Layers C and C–D)in Tabun Cave, Israel (Jelinek, 1982), classified by the present author accordingto the Bordes system and the proposed attribute list. A total of 32 Bordes’ typeswas identified, as opposed to 49 attribute combinations, 18 of which were vari-ants of notches and denticulates. These combinations carry more information thanBordes’ types at little additional cost in time or space.

A third and very important concern is that these attribute combinations aretoo abstract and do not provide the intuitively satisfying descriptive language thatis a feature of the Bordes typology. Although it was argued above that the currentnomenclature carries unwarranted functional connotations, the system proposedhere recognizes the need for common names applicable to sets of attribute com-binations that link them to the traditional typology. This is easily done with theattribute list and actually requires less memorization of code numbers than doesthe current 62-type list. The order of the variables is a logical progression from theoverall shape of the specimen, to the nature of the retouch, to the profile angle ofthe effective edge. The first variable (R1) alone is sufficient to provide common de-scriptive names, with the second two variables adding significant detail concealedby the traditional typology. Within variable R1, attribute codes 1–4 correspondto “single scrapers”; 5–8 are “double scrapers”; 9–11 are “convergent scrapers”;12 and 13 are “points”; 14 and 15 are “notches”; 16–18 are “denticulates”; 19is “burins”; 20 includes “spines, per¸coirs, or becs”; 21 is “scraper combined withnotch tools”; 22 is “truncations”; and 23 is “backed knives.” These formal attributecategories are arranged in a similar, although not identical, order to the analogoustypes in Bordes’ list. The differences are, however, intentional. “Points” werelisted next to “convergent scrapers” because of their morphological similarity,

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

38 Bisson

Table III. Comparison of Bordes’ Types and Attribute Combinations in a Collection from Beds 5to 60, Tabun Cave, Israela

Bordes Attribute combinations

type No. Frequency % R1 (form) R2 (retouch) R3 (angle) Frequency %

Single scrapers

4 6 3.1 1 1 1 4 2.16 1 0.5 1 1 2 12 6.37 5 2.6 1 1 3 2 1.08 1 0.5 2 1 1 17 8.99 18 9.4 2 1 2 24 12.5

10 31 16.1 2 1 3 1 0.511 3 1.6 3 1 2 3 1.612 3 1.6 4 1 1 3 1.613 2 1.0 4 1 2 1 0.5

Double scrapers14 1 0.5

5 1 115 8 4.2

5 1 217 2 1.0

1 0.518 1 0.5

3 1.619 3 1.6

3 1.621 1 0.5

6 3.122 1 0.5

Convergent scrapers

23 4 2.1

1 0.524 1 0.5

1 0.525 4 2.1

10 1 3

Points

31 1 0.5

12 1 1

32 2 1.0

12 2 2

Single notch

36 2 1.0

14 1 2

3 1.637 3 1.6

14 1 3

1 0.539 3 1.6

14 3 2

40 2 1.0

14 3 3

Multiple notches

42 35 18.2

15 1 1

12 6.343 35 18.2

15 1 2

1 0.550 1 0.5

15 1 3

51 1 0.5

15 3 2

Denticulates

54 3 1.6

16 1 1

9 4.762 4 2.1

16 1 2

Total 192

16 1 3

10 5.2

16 2 2

16 2 316 3 216 3 3

1 0.51 0.53 1.61 0.5

1 0.52 1.02 1.08 4.22 1.04 2.12 1.0

(Continued)

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Table III. (Continued)

Bordes Attribute combinations

type No. Frequency % R1 (form) R2 (retouch) R3 (angle) Frequency %

Serration

17 1 1 3 1.617 2 1 5 2.617 2 2 3 1.6

Burins

19 4 2 1 0.519 4 3 1 0.5

20 1 3 2 1.0

Scraper w. notch

21 2 2 1 0.521 2 3 1 0.5

Truncation

22 1 2 1 0.522 1 3 3 1.6

Backed knife

23 1 1 6 3.1

Miscellaneous

99 1 2 3 1.699 2 2 1 0.5

Total 192

aTraditional names for many of the attribute combinations are added for clarity.

and “denticulates” were placed before “Upper Paleolithic” types because they aregenerally more frequent. The 11 common names suggested here provide a morerealistic picture of the behaviorally significant categories of Middle Paleolithictools than do the 53 flake tool categories in Bordes’ essential list, although theauthor would personally prefer the customary term “scraper” be replaced with themore abstract but functionally neutral term “regularized edge.”

The extra effort in recording these combinations is fully justified. Archaeol-ogists today must accept a responsibility to their present and future colleagues interms of the data they collect during artifact analysis. One of the standard com-plaints about archaeology conducted before World War II was that fieldworkersroutinely failed to record sufficient data on the spatial relationships of artifactsand neglected some classes of data altogether (Daniel, 1975; Trigger, 1989). Wemay excuse at least the more conscientious of our predecessors for being productsof the prevailing intellectual climate and for the limitations of pre-World War IIscience. Yet with the advantage of hindsight, we know that much more could have

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

40 Bisson

been done. By publishing classifications but omitting descriptions we risk doingsomething similar to 19th century archaeologists, whose primary research objec-tive was chronostratigraphy and whose types were designed accordingly. We haveno excuse for making the same error. If our present analyses are indeed “coarse”and “rudimentary” (Dibble and Rolland, 1992; Mellars, 1996), we know that thefirst steps to correct this problem must include both the recording and the pub-lication of more detailed artifact descriptions, even if those descriptions are notentirely relevant to our specific research topic. This cannot be too strongly stated.Normal professional responsibility should include the publication of sufficientlyfine-grained description to allow others to “mine” data to find relationships relevantto research objectives that differ from those of the original excavator. Given thegrowing body of material being published, this is the only practical way of facili-tating large-scale comparative analyses. We are past the days when a small numberof savants could havefirst-handknowledge of all of the relevant collections.

An “open sharing of information and ideas” (Jelinek, 1988a, p. 289) charac-terized the work of Bordes himself. If that process is to flourish, an important issueto resolve is the proprietary right to data. Archaeologists have come a long waysince artifacts and sometimes even sites were the personal property of the exca-vator. Now, once the original excavators have finished their analysis, collectionsare routinely considered public property, available for study by any appropriatelyqualified scholar. It could be argued that the publication of the more detailed de-scriptions advocated here would constitute doing other peoples work for them andthat the original excavator or research team might not receive appropriate creditfor that work. This is a legitimate concern, particularly when publication recordis critical for research funding and professional advancement. Two related thingsare necessary for there to be appropriate incentive to do this additional work.First, universities and granting agencies must recognize the scholarly value of thepublication of detailed descriptions of collections, recognize this as an “originalcontribution to scholarship,” and reward it appropriately. A major criticism of the“old archaeology” by Binford (1962) and others was that it was overly descriptiveand atheoretical. This was indeed true, and a return to the days of description forits own sake is not advocated here. Nevertheless, both the quantity and the qualityof description will need to be improved if progress is to be made in the testing oftheory.

Second, authors employing a substantial amount of raw data published bysomeone else should offer secondary coauthor status to the person or personsresponsible for that data. A time limit might be placed on this requirement, perhapsa decade. This would not apply to the use of limited parts of a published database,which would be covered by normal citation conventions. The potential for receivingcredit for additional publications would be a major incentive to make a widerrange of data available to the professional community and help foster the activeinterchange of data and ideas that were hallmarks of Bordes’ career.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

One final objection to the publication of more detailed artifact descriptionsare the limits of space in currently available print media. This is indeed a prob-lem. Lengthy artifact descriptions employing the Extended List would normallybe included only in inventories, databases, and monographs rather than topi-cally oriented articles and shorter syntheses. In this respect the new informationtechnologies are a resource that is fundamentally different from the past and areideally suited to the dissemination of large texts and databases. Although theyare in their infancy, refereed publications available by subscription on the internetor distributed by electronic means including CDRom will supplement or perhapseven replace the current printed journal format within the first decades of thiscentury. This will provide for an exponential increase in the amount of availableinformation. Publication will be limited only by the speed with which the peerreview process can be carried out, rather than by the physical limits of the mono-graph or printed journal formats. As long as due credit is given these publicationsby university and granting authorities, this should at last create a vehicle by whichmore complex and detailed comparative analyses can become a reality.

CONCLUSION

In 1978, Martin Wobst wrote a brief but perceptive article in which he warnedthat the ethnographic record exercises a “tyranny” over archaeology in which the“form and structure of the ethnographic record (is) reproduced in the archaeologicalone,” which through circular reasoning “spuriously confirm(s) the ethnographicallyderived theoretical expectations” (1978, p. 303). The present article has arguedthat typological principles ultimately derived from a biological analogy and 19thcentury research goals have exercised a similar tyranny over the interpretationof Middle Paleolithic assemblages. Challenging the utility of Francois Bordes’typological method should not be seen as a rejection of the great contributions hemade to paleoanthropology. It is simply a recognition that his work represents theculmination of a research tradition that has been rendered obsolete by the veryinsights into the nature of prehistoric technology that it generated. Without theorder, rigor, and technological expertise that Bordes brought to lithic analysis,we would not be in a position to understand as many of the causes of variabilityin lithics as we do, even though these understandings have served to underminesome of the fundamental assumptions on which his typology is based. As Sackett(1988) noted, Bordes himself considered his type-list as a systematic means fororganizing data for further analysis, and not as an end in itself.

In proposing the common use of a relatively detailed attribute list to de-scribe artifacts, I am suggesting a specific strategy for deriving hidden behavioralinformation from Middle Paleolithic lithic data. This strategy rests on theinitialassumption that Middle Paleolithic toolmaking behavior involved a much smaller

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

42 Bisson

component of imposed form than did that of the Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Mellars,1996). Although this does not necessarily mean that archaicHomo sapienscog-nitive processes were fundamentally different from those of anatomically modernHomo sapiens, as has been proposed by Mithen (1996), it does imply that less for-malization and structure will be found in attribute associations in Middle Paleolithictools. This “null hypothesis” may not be true, but only if we use it as the startingpoint can we prove that it is not true by the discovery of statistically meaningfulpatterning.

The goal of lithic analysis should therefore be to identify patterns (if any)of attribute associations or individual attributes and associated circumstances ofdeposition and/or environment. Because attribute analysis will create a more de-tailed picture of the nature of a pattern, it is more likely that its causes can beisolated and explained. Additional insight can be gained by a search for variationsor exceptions to patterns.

Stone tools are the most direct evidence of Middle Paleolithic behavior thatwe have, but there are no guarantees that they are the sole, or even the primary,source that will permit further advances in our knowledge of the lives of these earlyhominids. They are, after all, primarily technomic artifacts (Binford, 1962, 1966)and were probably employed for a relatively limited range of scraping, planing,cutting, sawing, and piercing functions (Mellars, 1996; Kuhn and Stiner, 1998).Unfortunately, the types created by Bordes are not, and were never designed as,functional categories (Shea, 1989). Raw material, function, and reduction historyare related in such a complex way that the morphology of tools in a component,howsoever it may be analyzed, will not in itself reveal the behaviors that createdthat particular archaeological record. The reality is that stone tools may be themost direct evidence of Middle Paleolithic behavior, but they may not be themost revealing. Rolland (1988) and many others have stressed that many lines ofevidence must be followed, and Kuhn (1995) has questioned the centrality and eventhe relevance of lithic studies to this endeavor. Typological analysis may well end uptelling us relatively little about the behavior of Middle Paleolithic hominids. Muchmore may be learned from studies of lithic production grammars; raw materialsources, and the transport and use of those materials across the landscape; forensicanalysis of tool edges; the careful study of any features or intrasite artifact patternsthat have survived the Pleistocene taphonomic grinder; site distributions in time andspace, particularly when correlated with paleoenvironmental data; and evidence forsubsistence practices derived from faunal and floral as well as technological data.

This article has been offered not in the spirit of criticism, but in the interestsof moving the discipline in more productive directions. It has focused on Bordes’typology because of the dominant role it has played in Middle Paleolithic research.Bordes’ contributions cannot be denied, and one of his most important was hispractical grasp of the need for a workable system of artifact description. In thisspirit, we should follow his example, not his methodology.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to many colleagues who have discussed typological issues withme over the years. These include Harold Dibble, Steven Kuhn, Amilcare Bietti,and, most important, Arthur Jelinek, who first introduced me to Bordes’ typology,as well as many of the variables and attributes that are employed in this paper,and generously allowed me to study the Tabun collection. Important feedback onthis paper was provided by Silvia Tomaskova, April Nowell, Steven Chrisomalis,and undergraduate students in two of my seminars. The anonymous reviewers fortheJournal of Archaeological Method and Theoryprovided helpful suggestions,which are also gratefully acknowledged. Funding for some of the research reportedhere was provided by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research and the De-partment of Anthropology, McGill University. Any errors or omissions are solelythe responsibility of the author.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, W. Y., and Adams, E. W. (1991).Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A DialecticalApproach to Artifact Classification and Sorting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1990). Aspects of behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: Functional analysis ofstone tools from southwest France. In Mellars, P. (ed.),The Emergence of Modern Humans: AnArchaeological Perspective, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389–418.

Audouze, F. (1999). New advances in French prehistory.Antiquity73: 167–175.Audouze, F., and Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1981). France: A continental insularity.World Archaeology13(2):

170–189.Barton, C. (1988).Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior, British Archaeological Reports

International Series No. 408, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Barton, C. (1991). Retouched tools, fact or fiction? Paradigms for interpreting paleolithic chipped

stone. In Clark, G. (ed.),Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,pp. 143–163.

Baumler, M. (1988). Core reduction, flake production and the Middle Paleolithic industry of Zobiste(Yugoslavia). In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of WesternEurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 255–274.

Bell, J. (1994).Reconstructing Prehistory: Scientific Method in Archaeology,Temple University Press,Philadelphia.

Beyries, S. (1987).Variabilite de l’Industrie Lithique au Mousterien: approche fonctionelle surquelques gisements Franc¸aise. British Archaeological Reports International Series 328, BAR,Oxford.

Bietti, A. (1991). Normal science and paradigmatic biases in Italian hunter-gatherer prehistory. InClark, G. (ed.),Perspectives on the Past, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 258–281.

Bietti, A., and Bietti-Sestieri, A. (1985). Problemi di teoria e di metodo in Archaeologia Preistorica.In Liverani, M., Palmieri, A., and Peroni, R. (eds.),Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di SalvatoreM Puglisi, Universita di Roma, Rome.

Binford, L. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology.American Antiquity28: 217–225.Binford, L. (1972). Models and paradigms in paleolithic archaeology. In Clarke, D. (ed.),Models in

Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 109–166.Binford, L. (1973). Interassemblage variability—The Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In

Renfrew, C. (ed.),The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, pp. 227–254.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

44 Bisson

Binford, L. (1989). Isolating the transition to cultural adaptation: An organizational approach. InTrinkhaus, E. (ed.),The Emergence of Modern Humans, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 18–41.

Binford, L., and Binford, S. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterianof Levallois facies.American Anthropologist68(2, Part 2): 238–295.

Bisson, M. S. (1997). Interview with a Neanderthal: The role of blank morphology and prehension indetermining Middle Paleolithic scraper forms. Paper delivered to the Paleoanthropology SocietyAnnual Meeting.

Boeda, E. (1994).Le concept Levallois: variabilite des methodes, CRA Monograph 19, Editions duCNRS, Paris.

Boeda, E. (1995). Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In Dibble, H., andBar-Yosef, O. (eds.),The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Prehistory Press,Madison, WI, pp. 41–68.

Bordes, F. (1950). Principes d’une m´ethode d’etude des techniques de d´ebitage et de la typologie duPaleolithique ancien et moyen.L’Anthropologie54: 19–34.

Bordes, F. (1953). Essai de classification des industries moust´eriennes.Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Franc¸aise50: 457–466.

Bordes, F. (1961a).Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen, Publications de l’Institut de Pr´ehistoirede l”Universite de Bordeaux, M´emoire 1, Delmas, Bordeaux.

Bordes, F. (1961b). Mousterian cultures in France.Science134: 803–810.Bordes, F. (1965). A propos de typologie.L’Anthropologie69: 369–377.Bordes, F. (1968).The Old Stone Age, McGraw Hill, New York.Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on typology and techniques in the Paleolithic.Arctic Anthropology6:

1–29.Bordes, F. (1977). Time and space limits in the Mousterian. In Wright, R. V. S. (ed.),Stone Tools as

Cultural Markers, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 37–39.Bordes, F., and Bourgon, M. (1951). Le complexe mousterien: Mousterien, Levalloisian et Tayacien.

L’Anthropologie55: 1–23.Breuil, H., and Lantier, R. (1959).The Men of the Old Stone Age, St. Martins Press, New York.Brezillon, M. (1968).La denomination des objets de pierre taillee: materiaux pour un vocabulaire

des prehistoriens de langue Franc¸aise, Gallia Prehistoire Suppl´ement 4, Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique, Paris.

Brown, J. (1982). On the structure of artifact typologies. In Whallon, R., and Brown, J. (eds.),Essayson Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, IL, pp. 176–189.

Callow, P., and Webb, R. (1981). The application multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Paleolithicassemblages from southwestern France.Revue d’ Archeometrie5: 129–138.

Chase, P. (1986). Relationships between Mousterian Lithic and Faunal Assemblages at Combe Grenal.Current Anthropology27: 69–71.

Chase, P., and Dibble, H. (1987). Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence andinterpretations.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology6: 263–296.

Chase, P., and Dibble, H. (1992). Scientific archaeology and the origins of symbolism: A reply toBednarik.Cambridge Archaeological Journal2: 43–51.

Clark, G. (1987). From the Mousterian to the Metal Ages: Long-term change in the human diet ofnorthern Spain. In Soffer, O. (ed.),The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, Plenum,New York, pp. 293–316.

Clark, G. (1993). Paradigms in science and archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Research1: 203–234.

Clark, G. (1994). Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology.Journal of Archae-ological Method and Theory1: 305–344.

Clark, G. (1997). Through a glass darkly: Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. In Clark,G. A., and Willermet, C. M. (eds.),Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Aldinede Gruyter, New York, pp. 60–76.

Clark, G. A., and Willermet, C. M. (eds.) (1997).Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Re-search, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Clark, J. D. (1974).Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Clark, J. D. (1982). The cultures of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age. In Clark, J. D. (ed.),

Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 284–341.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Clarke, D. L. (1978).Analytical Archaeology, 2nd ed., Columbia University Press, New York.Combier, J. (1962). Chronologie et systématique du Moustérien occidental: données et conceptions

nouvelles.Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche (Rome)1: 77–96.

Commomt, V. (1914). Les Hommes contemporains du renne dans la vall´ee de la Somme.Memoires dela Societe des Antiquaires de Picardie (4th ser.)7: 207–646.

Cowgill, G. (1968). Archaeological applications of factor, cluster, and proximity analysis.AmericanAntiquity33: 367–375.

Cowgill, G. (1989). Formal approaches in archaeology. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (ed.),ArchaeologicalThought in America.

Daniel, G. (1975).A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. 2nd ed., Duckworth, London.Debenath, A., and Dibble, H. (1994).Handbook of Paleolithic Archaeology Volume One: The Lower

and Middle Paleolithic of Europe, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.Deetz, J. (1967).Invitation to Archaeology, Natural History Press, New York.de Lumley, H. (1971–1972).Le Paleolithique inferieur et moyen du Midi mediterraneen dans son

Cadre geologique, GP Suppl´ement 5e (1 and 2), CNRS, Paris.de Mortillet, G. (1883).Le Prehistorique: Antiquite de l’Homme, Reinwald, Paris.Dibble, H. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or

sequence of reduction.Journal of Field Archaeology11: 431–436.Dibble, H. (1987). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology.American Antiquity

52: 109–117.Dibble, H. (1988). Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources

in the French Mousterian. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Pre-history of Western Eurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 181–194.

Dibble, H. (1989). The implications of stone tool types for the presence of language during the MiddlePaleolithic. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.),The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Bio-logical Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh,pp. 415–432.

Dibble, H. (1991). Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale.Journal of Anthropo-logical Research47: 239–257.

Dibble, H. (1995a). Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and a review ofthe evidence to date.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory2: 299–368.

Dibble, H. (1995b). Biache Saint-Vaast, level IIA: A comparison of analytical approaches. In Dibble,H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.),The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, PrehistoryPress, Madison, WI, pp. 93–116.

Dibble, H., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1995).The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology,Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Dibble, H., and Bernard, M. (1980). A comparative study of basic edge angle measurement techniques.American Antiquity45(4): 857–865.

Dibble, H., and Debenath, A. (1991). Paradigmatic differences in a collaborativeresearch project. InClark, G. (ed.),Perspectives on the Past, Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 217–226.

Dibble, H., and Lenoir, M. (eds.) (1995).The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France),University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.

Dibble, H., and Rolland, N. (1992). On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of westernEurope: History, perspectives and a new synthesis. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.),TheMiddle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University of Pennsylvania MuseumPress, Philadelphia, pp. 1–28.

Djindjian, F. (1987). Identification, characterization and evolution of material culture. In Djindjian,F., and Ducasse, H. (eds.),Data Processing and Mathematics Applied to Archaeology, EuropeanUniversity Center for the Cultural Heritage, Ravello, pp. 393–421.

Doran, J., and Hodson, F. (1966). A digital computer analysis of Paleolithic flint assemblages.Nature210: 688–689.

Dunnell, R. C. (1971).Systematics in Prehistory, Free Press, New York.Fish, P. (1978). Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: A pilot study.American

Antiquity43: 86–88.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

46 Bisson

Fish, P. (1979).The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage, Arizona State University Anthro-pological Research Papers 16, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Ford, J. (1952). Measurements of some prehistoric design developments in the southeastern states.Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 44, American Museumof Natural History, New York.

Ford, J. (1954). On the concept of types.American Anthropologist56: 42–54.Freeman, L. (1966). The nature of Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain.American Anthropologist

68(2): 230–237.Freeman, L. (1992). Mousterian facies in space: New data from Morin level 16. In Dibble, H., and

Mellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, University ofPennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 113–126.

Gardin, J. C. (1980).Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Gardin, J. C. (1987). Aid to reasoning in archaeology. In Djindjin, F., and Ducasse, H. (eds.),Data

Processing and Mathematics Applied to Archaeology, European University Center for the CulturalHeritage, Ravello, pp. 195–212.

Geneste, J.-M. (1989). Economie des ressources lithiques dans le Moust´erien du Sud-Ouest de laFrance. In Otte, M. (ed.),L’Homme de Neanderthal, Vol. 6. La subsistence, Etudes et RecherchesArcheologiques de l’Universit´e de Liege, Liege, pp. 75–98.

Grace, R. (1989).Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools, BAR International Series 474, Oxford.Gould, R. (1980).Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Hammond, M. (1982). The expulsion of the Neanderthals from human ancestry: Marcellin Boule and

the social context of scientific research.Social Studies of Science12: 1–36.Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool functions in the Western Desert. In Wright, R. (ed.),Stone Tools as

Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,Canberra, pp. 178–188.

Hayden, B. (1979).Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation Amongthe Australian Aborigines, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J. (1992).Technology of Knapped Stone(translation ofPrehistoirede la Pierre Taillee), Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Pr´ehistoriques CNRS, Meudon.

Jelinek, A. (1975). A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic industries from theTabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In Wendorf, F., and Marks, A. (eds.),Problems in Prehistory:North Africa and the Levant, SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 279–316.

Jelinek, A. (1976). Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cleland, C. (ed.),Cultural Changeand Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, Academic Press, New York, pp. 19–33.

Jelinek, A. (1982). The Tabun Cave and paleolithic man in the Levant.Science216: 1369–1375.Jelinek, A. (1984). Mousterian variability and reduction intensity: A comparison of Levantine and

Perigordian industries. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the SAA, Portland, OR.Jelinek, A. (1988a). Technology, typology, and culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H.,

and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University ofPennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 199–212.

Jelinek, A. (1988b). “Discussion” on “Functional Variability of Lithic Sets in the Middle Paleolithic” byS. Beyries. In Dibble, H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of WesternEurasia, University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, p. 221.

Kuhn, S. (1991). “Unpacking” lithic reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian ofWest-Central Italy.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology10: 76–106.

Kuhn, S. (1992). Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian scraper morphology.Amer-ican Antiquity57: 115–128.

Kuhn, S. (1995).Mousterian Lithic Technology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Kuhn, S., and Stiner, M. (1998). Middle Paleolithic ‘creativity’ reflections on an oxymoron? In

Mithen, S. (ed.),Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, Routledge, New York, pp. 143–164.

Kuhn, T. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Laplace, G. (1964). Essai de typologie syst´ematique.Annali Universita di Ferrara n.s.15: 1–86.Laplace, G. (1968). R´echerches de typologie analytique.Origini 2: 7–64.Levi-Sala, I. (1986). Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: A word of caution.Journal

of Archaeological Science13(3): 229–244.Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964).Le Geste et la Parole, Technique et Langage, Albin Michel, Paris.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

Marks, A. (1992). Typological variability in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H., andMellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University ofPennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 127–142.

McPherron, S. P., and Dibble, H. (1999). Stone tool analysis using digitized images: Examples fromthe Lower and Middle Paleolithic.Lithic Technology24(1): 38–52.

Mellars, P. (1969). The chronology of Mousterian industries in the P´erigord region of south-westFrance.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society35: 134–171.

Mellars, P. (1989). Technological changes across the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition: Techno-logical, social, and cognitive perspectives. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.),The HumanRevolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 338–365.

Mellars, P. (1991). Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans in Europe.CambridgeArchaeological Journal1: 63–76.

Mellars, P. (1992). Technological change in the Mousterian of southwest France. In Dibble, H., andMellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, University ofPennsylvania Museum Monograph 78, Philadelphia, pp. 29–43.

Mellars, P. (1996).The Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Mithen, S. (1996).The Prehistory of the Mind, Thames and Hudson, London.Moss, E. (1987). A review of “investigating microwear polishes with blind tests.”Journal of Archae-

ological Science14(3): 473–481.Newcomer, M. R. G., and Unger-Hamilton, R. (1986). Investigating microwear polishes with Blind

tests.Journal of Archaeological Science13(3): 203–218.Nitecki, M. H., and Nitecki, D. V. (eds.) (1994).Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, Plenum

Press, New York.Peyrony, D. (1921). Le Moustérien—Ses faciès. In Association Française pour l’Avancement des

Sciences, 44e session, Strassbourg, pp. 496–497.Rolland, N. (1977). New aspects of Middle Paleolithic variability in Western Europe.Nature266:

251–252.Rolland, N. (1981). The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic variability.Man16: 15–42.Rolland, N. (1988). Observations on some Middle Paleolithic time series in southern France. In Dibble,

H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory in Western Eurasia. University ofPennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 161–180.

Rolland, N., and Dibble, H. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability.AmericanAntiquity55: 480–499.

Sackett, J. (1973). Style, function and artifact variability in paleolithic assemblages. In Renfrew, C.(ed.),The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, pp. 317–325.

Sackett, J. (1981). From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French paleolithic research. In Daniel,G. (ed.),Toward a History of Archaeology, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 85–99.

Sackett, J. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1: 59–112.

Sackett, J. (1988). The Mousterian and its aftermath: A view from the Upper Paleolithic. In Dibble,H., and Montet-White, A. (eds.),Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University ofPennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 413–426.

Sackett, J. (1991). Straight archaeology french style: The phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective.In Clark, G. (ed.),Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-GathererResearch, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 109–140.

Salmon, M. (1982).Philosophy and Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.Shea, J. (1989). A functional study of the lithic industries associated with hominid fossils in Kebara and

Qafzeh caves, Israel. In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.),The Human Revolution: Behavioral andBiological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Princeton University Press, Princeton,NJ, pp. 611–625.

Shea, J., and Klenck, J. (1993). An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the resultsof lithic microwear analysis.Journal of Archaeological Science20: 175–194.

Skinner, J. (1965).The Flake Industries of Southwestern Asia: A Typological Study, Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Spaulding, A. (1953). Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types.American Antiquity18:305–313, 391–393.

P1: FLF/FLK P2: FNN

48 Bisson

Spaulding, A. (1982). Structure in archaeological data: Nominal variables. In Whallon, R., and Brown,J. (eds.),Essays in Archaeological Typology, Center for American Archaeology, Evanston, pp. 1–20.

Stringer, C. B., and Gamble, C. (1993).In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of HumanOrigins, Thames & Hudson, London.

Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at early stone artifacts.Journal of ArchaeologicalScience12: 101–121.

Trigger, B. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., and Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the

formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis.Journal of Field Archaeology1:171–196.

Trinkaus, E., and Shipman, P. (1993).The Neanderthals: Changing the Image of Mankind, Alfred AKnopf, New York.

Tuffreau, A. (1988). L’industrie lithique du niveau IIA. Le gisement pal´eolithique moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas de Calais), Vol. 1.Memoires de la Societe Prehistorique Franc¸aise 21, SPF,Paris.

Turq, A. (1979).L’ evolution du Mousterien de type Quina au Roc de Marsal et en Perigord, Thesis,l”Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Bordeaux.

Turq, A. (1992). Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord. InDibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability,University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 75–86.

Turq, A. (1995). Raw material sources in the region of Combe-Capelle Bas. InThe Middle PaleolithicSite of Combe-Capelle Bas (France), University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia,pp. 321–328.

Valdes, V., and de Quiros, F. (1992). Approaches to the Middle Paleolithic in northern Spain. In Dibble,H., and Mellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, Universityof Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 97–112.

Vaughan, P. (1985).Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Villa, P. (1983).Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France,

University of California Press, Berkeley.Villa, P. (1991). Middle Pleistocene prehistory in southwestern Europe: The state of our knowledge

and ignorance.Journal of Anthropological Research47: 193–217.White, J., and Thomas, D. (1972). What mean these stones: Ethno-taxonomic models and archaeological

interpretations in the New Guinea highlands. In Clarke, D. (ed.),Models in Prehistory, Methuen,London, pp. 275–308.

Whittaker, J. C., Caulkins, D., and Kamp, K. A. (1998). Evaluating consistency in typology andclassification.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory5(2): 129–164.

Wilmsen, E. (1968). Functional analysis of flaked stone artifacts.American Antiquity33: 156–161.Wobst, H. M. (1978). The ethno-archaeology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic

record in archaeology.American Antiquity43: 303–309.Wolpoff, M., and Caspari, R. (1997).Race and Human Evolution, Simon and Schuster, New York.Wright, G. (1966). The University of Michigan archaeological collections from et-Tabun, Palestine:

Levels F and E.Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters51: 407–423.

Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic typology...

Documents

18th century shipbuilding

21ST CENTURY EURODEM - JPND

François bordes et l’interprétation du changement entre le paléolithique moyen et le paléolithique supérieur

Seventeenth Century Venetian Manuscript

20th CENTURY NEW TOWNS

Cholesterol under oxidative stress – how lipid membranes sense oxidation as cholesterol is being replaced by oxysterols

20TH-CENTURY REPERTORY - Mikrokosmos

CENTURY - BSE

Haciendo una pasada: bordes, jerarquía y legitimación de la desigualdad social en un puerto argentino

A WD40 Repeat Protein Regulates Fungal Cell Differentiation and Can Be Replaced Functionally by the Mammalian Homologue Striatin

Replaced by a Robot? | NIU Newsroom

Can iodine-131 whole-body scan be replaced by thyroglobulin measurement in the post-surgical follow-up of differentiated thyroid carcinoma?

The 21st Century Business

Penjabaran Kasus Bank Century

Still the American Century

A STUDY ON STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPLACED WITH PONDASH AND REINFORCED WITH COIR FIBRE

From the 21st Century

December - 21ST CENTURY MUSIC

Note - Century Enka Ltd

19th century russian society