Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:49:53.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the Middle Palaeolithic assemblage typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Colin Campbell Moyer  and
Nicolas Rolland
Colin Campbell Moyer
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England.
Nicolas Rolland
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3050, Victoria BC V8W 3P5, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Middle Palaeolithic tool assemblages have a long history of controversy. This new analysis employing principal components addresses the recurrent issues of comparing tool assemblages from different sites, whilst retaining support from the seminal study of Bordes.

Keywords

Middle Palaeolithiceconomizing behaviourBordesprincipal components analysis

Information

Type
News & Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 75 , Issue 287 , March 2001 , pp. 39 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, W.Y. & Adams, E.W.. 1991. Archaeological typology and practical reality. A dialectial approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. 1994. Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1958. Le passage du Paléolithique Moyen au Paléolithique Supérieur, in Koenigswald, G.H.R. von (ed.), Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler 175–81. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1960. Evolution in Paleolithic cultures, in Tax, S. (ed.), Evolution after Darwin: 99–110. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago. The University of Chicago Centennial.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1969. Reflections on typology and techniques in the Palaeolithic, Arctic Anthropology 7: 1–29.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. & Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages, World Archaeology 2: 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourlon, M. 1906. Les industries Moustériennes au Moustier. Paper presented to the Congés International d’Anthropologie et Archéologie Préhistorique, Monaco.Google Scholar
Callow, P. & Webb, R.E.. 1981. The application of multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern France, Revue d’Archéometrie 5:129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H.L. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology, American Antiquity 52: 109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. & Purcell, R.. 1994. Pride of place. Science without taxonomy is blind, The Sciences 34: 38–9.Google Scholar
Grayson, D.K. & Cole, S.C.. 1998. Stone tool assemblage richness during the Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic in France, Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 927–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P. 1996. The Neanderthal legacy. An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P. 1988. The chronology of the southwest French Mousterian. A review of the current debate, in Otte, M. (ed.), La Technique. L’Homme de Néandertal: 97–120. Liège: Université de Liège. ERAUL.Google Scholar
Mellars, P. & Grün, R.. 1991. A comparison of the electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence dating methods. The results of ESR dating at le Moustier (France), Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, C.C. 1998. The structure of Middle Palaeolithic variability. A multivariate assessment. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Peyrony, D. 1930. Le Moustier, ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches géologiques, Revue d’Anthropologie 40: 48–76, 155–76.Google Scholar
Rolland, N. 1977. New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic variability in Western Europe, Nature 266: 251–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, N. 1981. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic variability, Man (n.s.) 16: 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, N. & Dibble, H.L.. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic variability, American Antiquity 55: 480–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turq, A. 1989. Approche technologique et économique du faciès Moustérien de type Quina: étude préliminaire, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86: 244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar