Breathing New Life into Old Rocks: A Study of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Site of Abri des Merveilles in the Vézère Valley, France.

by Sheila Mary Koons

B.A. in Anthropology, May 2000, New York University

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

August 31, 2018

Thesis directed by

Alison S. Brooks Professor of Anthropology

Dedication

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to everyone who has supported me on this long journey. To my husband, Erik: you are my sunshine and with you at my side, anything is possible. To my dashingly handsome sons, Thomas and Cathal: you make this all worthwhile. Keep loading your pockets with rocks…the washing machine can take it.

To my mom, Joan: you were the toughest teacher I ever had but also the best. I am still waiting to hear where Paul Revere is buried. Finally, in memory of my dad, Sean, who bravely fought the hardest battle of them all with a smile and a twinkle in his eye. You always believed in me even when I was out for the count. Dad, this one is for you.

ii

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their help with this undertaking. Sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr. Alison Brooks, for her patience and guidance along the way and for taking a second chance on me and Merveilles. Sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. Randall White, for guiding me towards this project and for all his advice and words of wisdom. Dr. White’s undergraduate anthropology courses changed my path in college and led me into the field of archaeology. Many thanks to the staff at the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum Support Center, the Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, Yale University Peabody Museum, and the University of Michigan museum. Special thanks to the Gelman Library staff for all your help over the years. Thanks also to Professors Joel Kuipers and Susan Johnston for your time and guidance. Many thanks to Don Hitchcock for his photos, wisdom, and educational website. Finally, the author would like to express her deepest heartfelt gratitude to the late Dr. Harold Dibble for his invaluable help with the lithic analysis and for his massive contributions to the field of archaeology.

iii

Abstract

Breathing New Life into Old Rocks: A Study of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Site of Abri des Merveilles in the Vézère Valley, France

As museum shelves buckle under the weight of thousands of unstudied and

virtually forgotten boxes of artifacts, many institutions are questioning the utility and benefit of future curation of these historically excavated materials. Much of the material

in question is comprised of lithic artifacts excavated during the infancy of American

archaeology abroad. This project was undertaken to evaluate the integrity of such a lithic

collection and to examine the efficacy of utilizing the resulting data for larger research

questions. This thesis will provide a detailed history of the site of Abri des Merveilles,

including the American and French excavations and subsequent dispersal of the

collections abroad. In addition to the historical account, it is important to describe the prehistoric environmental context within which the site was formed. Abri des Merveilles

was one of the few sites in southwestern France containing both Middle and Upper

Paleolithic layers of deposition and thus may contribute significantly to the understanding

of the transition between these two periods throughout the region. Next, the thorough

examination of specific attributes was performed on the Merveilles lithic collection,

curated at three different museums. Finally, the lithic analysis of a large collection of

lithic artifacts excavated from Merveilles in the 1920s combined with a comparison of

data sets from other similar sites provide a unique opportunity to assess the integrity and

future research potential of old museum collections.

iv Table of Contents

Dedication ……………………………………………………………………….….ii

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………...... iii

Abstract of Thesis ………………………………………………………………….iv

List of Figures ...……………………………………………………………………vi

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………..viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………..1

Chapter 2: Environmental Setting: Site Location and Paleoenvironment ………….6

Chapter 3: Historical Setting ………………………………………………………19

Chapter 4: Middle and Upper Paleolithic Technologies …………………………..62

Chapter 5: Methodology ………………………………………………………...…75

Chapter 6: Results and Discussion …………………………………………………93

Chapter 7: Conclusion …………………………………………………………….129

References …………………………………………………………………………134

Appendices ………………………………………………………………………...169

v List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the site of Abri des Merveilles 169

Figure 2: Location of the Dordogne region (outline in green) 170

Figure 3: Laville’s 1973 map of the ancient Perigord region. 171

Figure 4: Troglodytic dwelling near Les Eyzies. 172

Figure 5: Hand-drawn map of Abri des Merveilles 1930. 173

Figure 6: 1925 Trench dug by MacCurdy and Castanet. 174

Figure 7: Hand-drawn map of the sites of the Castel-Merle. 175

Figure 8: Figure 7 with northing fixed by Don Hitchcock. 175

Figure 9: Hand-drawn profile view with cultural levels. 176

Figure 10: Hand-drawn 1931 plan view by MacCurdy. 176

Figure 11: Callout depicting the GIS overlay of Abri des Merveilles. 177

vi

Figure 12: Aerial view of Castel-Merle. 178

Figure 13: Overlay of MacCurdy’s 1930 site plan 178

Figure 14: Lithics from Abri des Merveilles. 179

Figure 15: Merveilles lithics at Sergeac. 179

Figure 16: Merveilles lithic scrapers at Sergeac. 179

Figure 17: George Grant MacCurdy, December 22, 1927. 180

Figure 18: Adele “Kitty” Crockett at La Ferrassie in 1921. 180

Figure 19: Adele “Kitty” Crockett at Grotte de la Mouthe, 1921. 181

Figure 20: Adele “Kitty” Crockett (in The Orchard ). 181

Figure 21: Adele “Kitty” Crockett (in Measuring Time by an Hourglass ). 182

Figure 22: Adele “Kitty” Crockett (in Measuring Time by an Hourglass ). 183

Figure 23: Mouth and talus slope of Abri des Merveilles rockshelter in recent years. 184

vii

Figure 24: Map of all sites at Castel-Merle. 185

Figure 25: Rock crystal lithics located at MAN. 186

Figure 26:Rock crystal scraper located at MAN. 186

Figure 27: Rock crystal convergent scraper located at MAN. 187

Figure 28: Rock crystal scraper located at MAN. 188

Figure 29: Rock crystal scraper located at MAN. 188

Figure 30: Stratigraphic profile created from MacCurdy 1931; Delage 1936. 189

Figure 31: Distribution of lithics with cortex on side opposite cutting edge. 189

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Bordes’ 1961 Typology List. 190

Table 2: LM Level Dimensional Data for all 3 Museums’ Measurable Lithics. 190

Table 3: UM Level Dimensional Data for all 3 Museums’ Measurable Lithics. 191

Table 4: A Level Dimensional Data for all 3 Museums’ Measurable Lithics. 191

Table 5: Lower Mousterian Lithic Assemblage Composition by Museum. 192

Table 6: Upper Mousterian Lithic Assemblage Composition by Museum. 192

Table 7: Aurignacian Lithic Assemblage Composition by Museum. 192

Table 8: Amount of Dorsal Cortex on Complete Flakes across all 3 Museums by

Technology. 193

Table 9: Comparison of Levallois versus non-Levallois technologies across the LM

assemblages (in percentages). 193

ix

Table 10: Dimensional Data for Levallois and non-Levallois complete lithics

for the LM across all 3 museums (in mm). 193

Table 11: Platform Type Counts and Percentages for LM Complete Flakes

per Museum and Total Abri des Merveilles LM Collection. 194

Table 12: Platform Type Counts for LM Complete Flakes by Technology. 194

Table 13: Platform Type across NMNH LM with the Amount of Dorsal Cortex as

Variable. 195

Table 14: Platform Type across Yale LM with Dorsal Cortex as Variable. 195

Table 15: Platform Type across UMich LM with Dorsal Cortex as Variable. 196

Table 16: Amount of Dorsal Cortex on Complete Flakes from UM across

all 3 Museums by Technology. 196

Table 17: Comparison of Levallois versus non-Levallois Technologies

x

across the UM Assemblages (in percentages). 196

Table 18: Dimensional Data for Levallois and non-Levallois Complete Lithics

for the UM across all 3 museums (in mm). 197

Table 19: Platform Type Counts and Percentages for UM Complete Flakes

per Museum and Total Abri des Merveilles UM Collection. 197

Table 20: Platform Type Counts for UM Complete Flakes by Technology. 197

Table 21: Platform Type across NMNH UM with Dorsal Cortex as Variable. 198

Table 22: Platform Type across Yale UM with Dorsal Cortex as Variable. 198

Table 23: Platform Type across UMich UM with Dorsal Cortex as Variable. 198

Table 24: Distribution of Levallois and non-Levallois technology across the A

Level Assemblages and Platform Types per Technology and Museum. 199

xi

Table 25: Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables per Museum. 200

Table 26: Frequency of the Shape of the Longest Edge Type per Museum. 200

Table 27: Frequency of Technology Type per Museum. 200

Table 28: Frequency of Raw Material Type per Museum. 200

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables per Cultural Level. 201

Table 30: Frequency of Shape of Longest Edge Type per Cultural Level. 201

Table 31: Frequency of Technology Type per Cultural Level. 201

Table 32: Frequency of Raw Material per Cultural Level. 201

Table 33: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Exterior Platform Angle

(N=1206). 202

Table 34: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Platform Thickness. 202

Table 35: Summary of Ordinal Regression for the Shape of the Longest Edge. 202

xii

Table 36: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Axis of Flaking. 202

Table 37: Bivariate Correlations between Two Continuous Variables of

Interest for all Merveilles Bifaces (N=21). 203

Table 38: Bivariate Correlations between Two Continuous Variables of Interest

for all Merveilles Cores (N=69). 203

Table 39: Details for all Variables across Museum Type (Tables 25-28). 203

Table 40: Details for all Variables across Cultural Level (Tables 29-32). 204

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Within the walls of numerous American museums and institutions, old Paleolithic collections from excavations carried out during the first half of the 20th century in

Europe remain largely unaddressed and ignored. One such collection is the lithic assemblage from the Abri des Merveilles site in southwestern France. Like many old

Paleolithic collections, the Merveilles lithic material has been deemed useless or deficient due to the stigma of rudimentary and inadequate recovery methods and techniques attached to early 20th century archaeological investigations. This project aims to demonstrate that the Merveilles lithic collection still retains important archaeological information that can be of broad utility in Paleolithic research studies.

Due to the Eurocentric agenda of early twentieth century archaeology and paleoanthropology, a significant proportion of these old collections under curation in

American museums derives from Europe (particularly France). The vast number of collections were excavated or acquired from stone-age or Paleolithic sites. The goal at the time was to find evidence to legitimize the claim of a western European origin of humankind (MacCurdy 1924). Fortunately for overseas researchers, French funding for archaeological projects and acquisition of excavated material was rather paltry especially in the early 1920s. As a result, wealthy foreign investors (particularly American) accumulated major collections and funded further excavations across Europe (White

1992). While significant quantities of artifacts flowed out of France, certain objects were not permitted to leave the country ( Ibid. ). Only the most aesthetically appealing and readily identifiable objects or types ( i.e. handaxes, unbroken blades, bladelets, stone tools

1 of exotic or unusual raw material and some portable art) remained in French museums or

Gallic personal collections.

In addition to the stigma of inadequate archaeological fieldwork early on, there is also considerable concern regarding the chain of custody for old museum collections from the field to the museum shelf. In some cases of historically excavated materials, artifacts from the same archaeological site were dispersed post-excavation to different institutions in return for financial support of the excavation. In other cases, assemblages of artifacts were divided up by a major museum and sent to other institutions as reference or study collections. Another museum-level scenario that is cause for concern was the post-accession culling of artifacts due to lack of experience with the types of artifacts at hand or unavailability of storage space. Some artifacts were even discarded because they were deemed incompatible with pre-designed exhibits. Even after museum accessioning and cataloging, these collections were subjected to further depredation in the form of misplacement or removal from storage drawers or facilities. Undoubtedly, in combination with unsophisticated field and laboratory methods, these dispersal, culling, and mishandling events resulted in the discard of potentially crucial aspects of the archaeological record. This has cast doubt on the utility of studying these collections at all, especially when they contain organic archaeological material (Knoll 2011; Jones and

Gabe 2015).

Fortunately, it has been demonstrated that deficient museum collections of any kind still contain valuable information for interpreting the past (Dibble et al. 2005:319;

Conkey 1981; Maureille 2002; Knoll 2011; Chilton 1992; Suarez and Tsutsui 2004; Jones and Gabe 2015; Gibson 2011; Abraham and Araujo 2015). Research on old museum

2 collections elucidates the biases and the extent to which these collections have been compromised. According to Dibble et al. , “The question is not whether a collection is biased, but rather in what way and to what degree, and whether the biases can be corrected” (2005:319). Once research potential has been assessed, then these old museum collections can be utilized in different ways to answer, refute, or generate questions about the past. This approach to old museum collections can be useful for dealing with the substantial assemblages of lithic artifacts shipped to US museums from European prehistoric sites in the early twentieth century. Organizing and inventorying the old museum lithic collections are particularly important because many were recovered from sites that no longer exist or were fully excavated. Such is the case with the collection from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic site of Abri des Merveilles in the Vézère Valley in southwestern France.

This research paper begins with a description of the geographical location of the

Abri des Merveilles rockshelter site in Sergeac in southwestern France. This is followed by a discussion of the geological processes involved in the formation of the rockshelter and the area surrounding the site. Next, a detailed account of the paleoenvironment is provided. This draws from a prodigious body of paleoclimatic data that is constantly growing and rapidly advancing as new techniques are introduced and evolve. Situating

Abri des Merveilles within its paleoenvironmental context exposes potential geological, climatic, and ecological explanations for Paleolithic hominin activity at the site. Since a

Neanderthal molar was recovered from the lowest occupation layer, it is assumed that

Neanderthals were at least visiting the rockshelter during the last interglacial period that began around 125 kya.

3

The paleoenvironmental discussion is followed by an in-depth historical account of the archaeologists who were involved with the project in the 1920s and 1930s, particularly George Grant MacCurdy and his American School of Prehistoric Research

(ASPR) summer field crews. A discussion of MacCurdy’s educational background and enthusiastic interest in human origins helps to explain his scientific approach towards archaeology and exposes his research motivations in France (and at Abri des Merveilles specifically). Historical documentation of the excavations at Abri des Merveilles from

1924-1930 (under ASPR direction) and 1933-1934 (under French direction) provides a stratigraphic profile for the site and gives insight into the chain of custody of the recovered lithic and faunal material through time. The largest portion of the excavated lithic material would eventually end up in American museums and was studied for this project.

After detailing the historical background of the early twentieth century activity at

Merveilles, there is a review of the different lithic technologies typical of the period of time that the site was occupied or visited, specifically the Middle and early Upper

Paleolithic. The lithic artifacts recovered during the early twentieth century excavations were extracted from three layers that MacCurdy identified as separate occupation layers based on soil color changes and artifact type densities. A detailed examination is provided of the historical classification of Middle or Upper Paleolithic lithic types. That is followed by a document review of modern research on Paleolithic lithic chaȋne opératoire and data from recent meticulously excavated sites.

Finally, a description of the methodology guiding the lithic analysis of the artifacts from Abi des Merveilles is given. It is followed by the results of the metric and

4 attribute analysis of over 2000 lithic artifacts and a discussion of artifact variability identified through time at Merveilles and across the museum collections based on the lithic analysis.

Portions of the Abri des Merveilles collection are in curation at three different museums in the United States. This project was undertaken to assess the integrity and future research potential of the Abri des Merveilles collection through the lithic analysis of the artifacts held at these three museums. One strategy for gauging collection bias would be a comparative study of subsets of data from the same archaeological site which were disbursed to several museums post-excavation season. Therefore, it was important to first compare data sets collected from each museum’s Merveilles lithic assemblage by year of excavation and historically-assigned cultural levels. The purpose of this comparison was to expose subtle and grand scale biases. Finally, combining the artifact information retrieved from each museum assemblage into one dataset allowed a more complete understanding of the archaeological record of Abri des Merveilles through time.

5

CHAPTER 2

Environmental Setting: Site Location and Paleoenvironment

Site Location

The site of Abri des Merveilles is situated on the eastern cliff face of a “flat-iron shaped” rock formation approximately 50 meters from the left bank of the Vézère River (Figure 1 in Appendix 1). The Vézère Valley site of Abri des Merveilles is located in the commune of Sergeac within the administrative department of Dordogne in the Aquitaine region in southwestern France (Figure 2 in Appendix 1). The Dordogne department corresponds approximately to the ancient territory of Périgord (Figure 3 in Appendix 1). The Périgord

“lies between the Massif Central highlands to the east and the Atlantic coastal plain to the west” (Blades 1999: 712). According to White, the Périgord is characterized by three main types of landforms (1985:31-32). These landforms are: 1.) valleys and interfluves

(typically higher than valley bottoms), 2.) steep cliffs, and 3.) plateaus between the four major rivers of the Périgord: the Dronne, the Isle, the Vézère, and the Dordogne

(Ibid. 25). White states that the drainage pattern of the Périgord region today is the result of tectonic activity while the remaining topographic features (such as caves and rockshelters) are due to karstic dissolution ( Ibid. 31-32). Scargill offers that the “broad limestone plateau, deeply dissected by wide river valleys, can be regarded as the most common element in the physical geography of Périgord” (1974:11).

As mentioned above, the Vézère River is one of the four major rivers running through the Périgord. This 211-mile long meandering river is “entrenched in a deep valley with steep limestone cliffs” (Roebroeks et al. 2009: 41). Its source is in the Plateau de Millesvaches of the northwestern Massif Central in the Limousin region. It feeds into

6 the Corrèze River at Brive and the Dordogne River near Le Bugue (Dollfus 1924). The

Vézère Valley cuts through the area known as the Périgord Noir which is currently dominated by dense forests of “oak, chestnut and pine with juniper and other scrub vegetation” (Scargill 26). The soils characteristic of the region are described “as acidic brown forest soils and podsols” and “calcareous (rendzina) or basic soils” (White

1985:32). The acidic brown soils and layered podsols appear in interfluves and valley bottoms and are not ideal soils for the preservations of organic material over time ( Ibid. ).

These soils occur where drainage is typically good. The basic calcareous or limestone- rich soils appear on slopes and steep cliffs and preserve organic material very well over time ( Ibid. ).

There are three other Paleolithic sites located within the Castel-Merle rock formation (Figure7 in Appendix 1). These include Sous Castel-Merle, Abri Blanchard, and Abri Castanet. The Ruisseau des Roches, a small branch of the Vézère River separates these sites from the remaining constituent sites of Castel-Merle (MacCurdy

1931). MacCurdy pointed out:

On the opposite margin of the little valley of Ruisseau des Roches, are five more prehistoric stations. The Abri des Merveilles is thus one of a group of nine Paleolithic stations, all which have yielded important data on the Old Stone Age. It and the one adjoining (No. 9), known as Blanchard II, or Sous Castel Merle, are the only ones of the group that were inhabited by Neanderthal man (Mousterian Epoch)” (1931:12).

The concentration of Paleolithic stations at Castel-Merle and in other smaller valleys (or rather the preference by hominin groups to choose these areas) has been the topic of much debate (Mellars 1996:249; White 1985; Blades 1999). The natural protection from harsh climate extends around the perimeter of the rock formation in the

7 form of rock shelters. Previous geological studies on the collapse of the ceiling at Abri

Castanet on the opposite side of Castel-Merle have provided information on the formation of these rockshelters (Mensan et al. 2012). In particular, it was confirmed that the rockshelter is composed of Coniacian limestone and formed between the Middle and

Upper Coniacian ( Ibid .).

It has also been shown that many of these sites are situated on the south or south- southeast facing valley slopes in order to maximize exposure to sunlight and higher temperatures all year (Mellars 1996; White 1985). However, the only two stations yielding Mousterian layers (Abri des Merveilles and Sous-Castel-Merle) are situated on the opposite face of the rock formation. A network of faults that run through the Vézère

Valley helped create fords near which many Upper Paleolithic sites have been documented (White 1985; Roebroeks et al. 2009). These shallow crossings would have enabled easy passage back and forth across the river following game during their migration routes or catching fish (Roebroeks et al. 2009). At the Middle Paleolithic site of Jonzac located approximately 130 km northwest of Abri des Merveilles, isotope analyses of reindeer teeth indicated that intercepting reindeer during their migration was a long-term subsistence strategy for Neanderthals at Mousterian sites (Britton et al.

2011:183). An additional advantage to these shallow fords would be easier access to flint sources (Hussain and Floss 2015).

It should be noted here that MacCurdy’s 1931 hand- drawn map of the Castel-

Merle formation must have been drawn from memory upon his return to the United States as the northing is incorrect. Hitchcock rotated the 1931 map drawn by MacCurdy to correctly orient the Castel-Merle formation to the north (Figure 8 in Appendix 1).

8

Paleoenvironment

The climate leading up to and during the occupation of Abri des Merveilles will be inferred from the vast database of interdisciplinary information that has been accumulated in the past fifty years. The site of Abri des Merveilles is at a disadvantage from its historical excavations because paleoenvironmental research was not conducted at the site. Absolute dating was not and still has not been performed at Merveilles. The site was dated by MacCurdy and Delage utilizing the cultural sequence based on the lithics and biostratigraphy(although the faunal analysis was cursory and not well researched).

Therefore, the following proposed climatic chronology for Abri des Merveilles provides a general idea of the climatic variability that the inhabitants of the site might have been exposed to throughout different occupations of the site. The climatic chronology also unearths potential reasons for site abandonment or gaps in the archaeological record over time. As a reference point for the following paleoclimate discussion (when present day climate is referred to from this point on), the European climate of today is best described by Davies and Gollop:

The European climate is dominated by two major gradients, a strong N-S gradient from arctic Scandinavia to the subtropical Mediterranean, and an equally strong transition from the maritime Atlantic coasts to the continental conditions in the east. The N-S gradient is disrupted by the high W-E mountain barrier of the Pyrenees, Alps and Carpathians, which separates the temperate European zone from the hot, summer-dry Mediterranean zone. Farther east, beyond the 25 th meridian, the subarctic climate zone passes more gradually into the subtropical Mediterranean. (2003:132)

For the purposes of this paper, the pertinent period of time encompasses part of the

Middle to early Upper Paleolithic time frame of approximately130kya-25kya. It bears mentioning that this period of time is arbitrary and corresponds with a potential time

9 frame for Abri des Merveilles based on its archaeological record. According to

MacCurdy, the lowest stratigraphic layers at the site were not associated with an

Acheulean component (1931:14).

It is important to review how global shifts in climate interacted to influence

Pleistocene Europe’s marine, glacial, and terrestrial environments over time. Mellars provides the most concise description of these processes (1996). It bears mentioning that the climate progression is constantly updated and fine-tuned as new data emerge from new methods and new sites. Some of the most recent discoveries and changes will be addressed here as well. Mellars stated:

The Pleistocene period as a whole was characterized by a long succession of climatic oscillations in which conditions shifted repeatedly between periods of very cold, ‘glacial’ climate, leading to major expansions of the ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres, and intervening ‘interglacial’ episodes in which the climate returned to conditions broadly similar to those of the present day. (1996:9)

As new methods of reconstructing past climates are introduced, and older methods are refined, the timing and duration of warming and cooling events become clearer (Oppo et al. 2006; Genty 2003; Bertran et al. 2013). It is the timing of these events (also known as

Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events) that appears to coincide with the archaeological record of Neanderthals in southern Europe, particularly southwestern

France. The span of time that is of primary relevance to this paper is the period between the permeation of Neanderthal groups across the European landscape and the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) across the same region.

Through global comparisons of deep sea cores, ice cores, sea level oscillations, and pollen and faunal sequences, the climate progression for the Middle through Upper

10

Paleolithic periods has been reconstructed for different parts of Europe (Mellars 1996;

Zagwijn 1996; Shackleton 1967; White 1985; Tzedakis 2003; Sier et al. 2015; van Andel and Davies 2003). The climatic progression for the specified time frame in Europe commences with a warming trend during summer months by ~131kya followed by a cooling trend between 115-110kya (Tzedakis 2003:764). Based on the research of

Shackleton et al. in Portugal, this warming trend continued slowly resulting in “small increases in tree populations” in southern Europe by ~129kya leading up to the full onset of the last interglacial (Eemian) ~126kya ( Ibid. ). Stalagmite isotopic composition and growth rates from the cave, Antro del Corchia in Italy provide evidence that “warm-wet interglacial conditions in southern Europe were reached by 128.6 +/- 0.7kya” (Drysdale et al. 2005:3).

The last interglacial has been correlated with Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e and was preceded by a very cold dry climate MIS 6 ( Ibid. ). The global annual mean surface temperature by ~128.5kya has been reconstructed through climate simulations to approximately 16.6°C or almost 62°F (Loutre et al. 2014:1547). Global climate reconstructions for this period indicate that the maximum temperatures were anywhere from 2-5°C higher than modern pre-industrial indices (Bakker et al. 2014: 225). For western France, the simulations indicate that at the maximum of the last interglacial, the mean surface summer temperatures were higher than modern pre-industrial temperatures by approximately 4.4°C ( Ibid. ). By ~126kya, the major ice sheets had completely melted

(Shackleton 2003:154). The effect was that by ~125kya, steppic conditions were replaced by Eurosiberian vegetation (like deciduous trees) in the north and Mediterranean vegetation (like olive trees) in the south ( Ibid. ; Tzedakis 2003:766).

11

According to Tzedakis, due to orbital changes ~120kya, a decrease in solar radiation during the summers in the Northern Hemisphere resulted in the gradual drop of sea-surface temperatures (2003:767). The outcome was the reduction of the necessary warmth needed for trees to survive in northern Europe by ~115kya ( Ibid. ). At the same time, southern European vegetation continued to thrive due to winter storms providing enough precipitation ( Ibid. ). This was until ice sheet expansion in the North Atlantic drastically reduced the availability of moisture and resulted in the disappearance of tree populations by~110kya ( Ibid. ). Therefore, although the end of the last interglacial in northern Europe is considered to be during MIS 5e, it did not finally wind down until early in the MIS 5d in southern Europe (at the latitude of Portugal at least) (Shackelton

2003:155).

The progression of colder temperatures combined with drier conditions, lower sea-levels, and dwindling forest vegetation characterizes the next climatic phase, the

Last-glacial or Weichselian, beginning with MIS 5d (Mellars 1996). The early part of the last glaciation (also known as the Early-glacial) lasted from ~110-70kya and was punctuated by 2 cold stages (MIS 5d and 5b) and two warm stages (MIS 5c and 5a)

(Mellars 1996:14-23; Roebroeks et al. 1992:555). During the Early-glacial, northern

Europe was still covered in coniferous forests. However, by the end of MIS 5a, the environment is characterized by an increase in steppic soils across Europe (Locht et al.

2015:8).

MIS 5d and 5b were cold and dry and characterized by open vegetation and deforestation ( Ibid. ). During MIS 5d, marine core samples support the spread of ice sheets in addition to the production of large icebergs and decreasing sea surface

12 temperatures globally (Wohlfarth 2013:25). Winter temperatures have been reconstructed via simulations to support between -12 to 2°C whereas summer temperatures across

Europe reach ~10-20°C ( Ibid. 53). The climate reconstructions during MIS 5b appear to support increased temperatures of 1-2°C across Europe ( Ibid. ). According to Mellars, the most interesting aspect of the Early-glacial interstadials 5c and 5a was the surprising warmth at the time (1996). These warm periods caused the ice sheets to recede several hundred miles north and sea-level rose by ~10-20m ( Ibid. ). As a result, the landscape was composed of a mixture of Boreal forests and steppic environments (Locht et al.

2016:142). Temperature reconstructions for northern Europe during MIS 5c and 5a indicate that summer surface temperatures reached ~13°C while winter surface temperatures reached approximately 8-9°C (Wohlfarth 2013:26). Clearly, winter temperatures were not nearly as cold as during the two stadials.

Between ~70-60kya, the next phase of climatic progression is marked by severe cold and dry conditions (Mellars 1996; Locht et al. 2016; Fletcher et al. 2010). During this period associated with MIS 4 (also known as the Lower Pleniglacial), the expansion of the ice sheets reached at least 500 miles south and sea-levels dropped by 60-80m

(Locht et al. 2016; Mellars 1996). The Atlantic coastline of France is believed to have extended approximately 30-40km west ( Ibid. ). According to the stalagmite research at

Villars Cave in the Dordogne area, an extremely cold period occurred between 67.4 and

61kya (Genty 2008:189-190). Speleothem growth was halted during this time (the Villars

Cold Phase) because of permafrost ( Ibid. ). The continuous permafrost zone extended across Europe in “a northerly direction towards the ice-sheet margin in southern Denmark and northern Germany” (Huijzer and Vandenberghe 1998:412). Climatic reconstructions

13 of temperatures for the warmest month in northwestern Europe has been estimated between 10° to 13°C ( Ibid. 396). Estimates for the coldest month range from -26° to -

20°C ( Ibid. ).

The environment during this time can best be described as open tundra or

“Mammoth steppe” and is identified through loess deposits. According to Tsoar and Pye,

“Loess can only form on the semi-arid margins where vegetation can trap the dust”

(1987:147). The mammals equipped to handle these cold temperatures include Bison priscus (steppe bison), Coelodonta antiquitatis (woolly rhino), and Elephant primigenius

(woolly mammoth) (Huijzer and Vandenberghe 1998:397). There is a notable absence of

Neanderthals in the archaeological record of northwestern Europe during the coldest parts of this period (Hublin and Roebroeks 2009:504). Given the rich layers of loess deposition and the high potential for preservation, taphonomic processes simply cannot explain this gap in the archaeological record ( Ibid. ).

For the purposes of this research project, the final climatic period (the Middle

Pleniglacial) to be discussed here occurred during MIS 3 (between ~60-25kya) (Lahr and

Foley 2003:241). The Stage 3 project utilized several climatic simulations to reconstruct the climatic variability during MIS 3 and the timing and duration of such changes (van

Andel and Davies 2003). According to van Andel et al. , the beginning of the Middle

Pleniglacial from ~59- 44kya is referred to as the Stage 3 Stable Warm Phase (2003:33).

The climate during this phase is depicted as similar to present-day conditions with slightly lower average temperatures ( Ibid. ). This is also supported at Villars Cave where the speleothem record indicates the occurrence of a noticeably defined warm event between ~46.6 and ~43kya (Genty 2008:190-191). Winter temperatures during this

14 period ranged from -4° to 1.5°C and summer temperatures ranged from 16° to 18°C

(Davies et al. 2003:194). From ~45.5 to ~31.5kya, the stalagmites point to a cooling trend that occurred at Villars Cave, possibly due to a regional climatic change because of the area’s proximity to the Atlantic Ocean ( Ibid. ). This cooling correlates with the

Transitional (~44-37kya) and Early Cold (~37-27kya) Phases of the Stage 3 project (van

Andel et al. 2003:33). Temperatures during these two phases would have reached 11° -

14°C in the summers and -3°to -5°C in the winters (Davies et al. 2003:194). These temperatures would not have been quite as harsh as one would have expected.

Hominin Settlement of Southwestern France

There has been much debate about Neanderthal settlement patterns throughout

Europe. Based on what appeared to be a dearth of archaeological sites, the idea was promulgated that Neanderthals were incapable of surviving forested environments associated with the warmer climates (Gamble 1986). According to Gamble, the climate during the last interglacial would seem to have been the most favorable for Neanderthals during the upper and lower margins of the period (see also Dusseldorp 2009:18). At the beginning of this interglacial, the climate would have still been cold and dry and the steppe- or tundra- type vegetation and environments were receding toward the north.

Thus, as steppic or tundra vegetation were replaced by forests and Mediterranean vegetation in a northerly direction, Neanderthal populations were retreating accordingly into northern and central Europe following mammoth and other large grazing fauna.

Towards the end of the interglacial, the opposite pattern has been proposed-a slow spread toward the south during the last 5ooo years of the interglacial.

15

Gamble’s idea that Middle Paleolithic hominin populations could not have survived in forested areas during the last interglacial has been challenged given the sheer number of archaeological sites in central and northern Europe (Roebroeks et al. 1992).

The authors claim that given the oscillation of cold and warm periods during the last interglacial combined with the archaeological, palynlogical, and faunal evidence,

Neanderthals were well able to adapt to the harsh climates and environments of both the interglacial (i.e. at Caours, France) and glacial periods ( i.e. Beauvais and Havrincourt in northern France) (Locht et al. 2016). Floral and faunal remains from Caours support a full interglacial occupancy during the Middle Paleolithic ( Ibid. ). The interglacial fauna recovered from sites in western and central Europe include Dama dama (fallow deer),

Cervus elaphus (red deer), Capreolus capreolus (roe deer), Alces alces (elk), Sus scrofa

(wild boar), Paleoloxodon antiquus (straight-tusked elephant), Dihoplus kirchbergensis

(Merck rhino), Bos /bison, Castor fiber (beaver), and Ursus spelaeus (cave bear) (cited in

Ibid. ). Faunal remains from sites (like Beauvais and Havrincourt) occupied during the last glacial indicate hominin exploitation of large and small-medium sized herbivores

(including horse and steppe bison) as well as an emphasis on reindeer during the phases leading up to peak glacial temperatures (Stewart et al. 2003:114-119).

It has also been suggested that there may have been a preference by these archaic hominins for periglacial conditions with open vegetation and the plains (Bruxelles and

Jarry 2011:543). According to Gaudzinski-Windheuser and Roebroeks,

“In contrast to the open mammoth steppe environments, herbivore mass in forested environments would have been significantly lower, while medium-sized and large mammals would have been dispersed in forested environments. Large prey animals were rare and difficult to find…The large species that roamed these forested environments, such as forest elephant and rhinoceros, furthermore had

16

long life spans and low reproduction rates, which made sustained hunting of them a risky strategy.” (2011:63)

As discussed previously, the beginning of the Last Glacial was characterized by similar temperatures as those of the present day. This Stable Warm Phase of MIS 3 allowed an increase and expansion of Mousterian sites across Europe (van Andel et al. 2003:34).

Described as a re-colonization, the spread of Neanderthal sites appears to follow a west- ward expansion along the Danube, Main, and Rhine rivers from points as far east as the

Crimea and the Black Sea ( Ibid. ). However, there seems to be a northern limit of the

50°N parallel to the expansion until after the beginning of the cooling trend of MIS 3

(Ibid. ). Bruxelles and Jarry offer evidence from the Garone valley to support their claim that not all of southwestern France would have been attractive or served as “refugia” during glacial periods for any species of hominin (2011). In addition, Bertran et al. proposed that the Landes de Gascogne was a sand dune-dominated desert during the Last

Glacial and was virtually inhospitable for hunter-gatherer type groups in the Upper

Paleolithic (2013: 2275-2282). Ecological niche preference in southwestern France would have been for alluvial valleys with caves and rockshelters ( Ibid. 2284). These types of conditions and consequent settlement patterns during the glacial periods are also suggested for the Lower and Middle Paleolithic ( Ibid. ).

According to Davies et al. , the only two Mousterian sites in the Dordogne/Vézère area that date to MIS 4 are Combe Grenal and Pech de l’Azé II whereas the number of

Mousterian sites greatly increases towards the end of the Stable Warm Phase of MIS 3

(2003:197-198). Gaudzinski-Windheuser and Roebroeks suggest that low population densities of Neanderthals may be responsible for their low visibility in the archaeological

17 record of the last interglacial (2011: 69). These low population densities across the

European landscape during warmer climates may be linked to “high residential mobility” in response to “dispersed animal resources” within densely forested landscapes ( Ibid. ).

The presence of Neanderthals in Europe dwindled during the Early Cold Phase of the last glacial ~37kya and continued to decline until approximately 28kya ( Ibid. 39). Except for southern France and Portugal, most of Europe and the Black Sea region were already deserted prior to the coldest peak of the Last Glacial Maximum between 25 and 23kya

(Ibid. ).

The Middle Paleolithic occupation of Abri des Merveilles may have occurred at some point during the last interglacial period that began around 125 kya and was much longer than the Upper Paleolithic sequence. The site of Abri Castanet (located on the other side of the Castel Merle rock formation) has recently had radiocarbon dating of its

Aurignacian level with “an average non-calibrated age of 32,400 BP, with very tight margins” (Mensan et al. 2012:83). Therefore, it is suggested here that an Upper

Paleolithic occupation of the site would have most likely ended during the MIS-3 between 32-30 kya. . There is reason to believe that the site was revisited by later groups of humans. According to Scargil, many of the rockshelters in the area served as refuges during Perigordian besiegements and as the foundations for troglydytic homes over time and up until the discovery of the site in 1878 (1974) (Figure 4 in Appendix 1). Since the

American and French excavations, the site has overgrown but is frequently visited by locals for barbeques during the summer months (Hitchcock, Personal communication,

9/6/2015).

18

CHAPTER 3

Historical Setting

Introduction

The initial step in the analysis of the Merveilles lithic collections was to determine if the project would be an exercise in futility. There would be no point in studying the numerous boxes of ancient chipped rocks weighing down museum shelves all over the United States and Europe if the collections retained little or no integrity. It seemed logical that the key to deducing the current research value of the collections was to understand the historical context within which the site was excavated, particularly the people involved. The journey led to Dr. George Grant MacCurdy who directed the project from 1924-1930. The integrity of the artifacts rested heavily on his shoulders. His actions and decisions guided how the artifacts were removed from the dirt and eventually ended up on American museum shelves. The following chapter describes the history of

MacCurdy’s archaeological endeavors and his involvement with the archaeological excavation of the site of Abri des Merveilles, resulting in the dispersal of the artifacts across the Atlantic.

This chapter begins with a review of the historical events leading up to

MacCurdy’s participation in the Merveilles field seasons from 1924-1930 and the subsequent French-led excavations at the site in 1933 and 1934. It is shown that

MacCurdy’s post-graduate European education and introduction to fieldwork paved the way for him to be able to excavate at Merveilles or in France at all for that matter.

MacCurdy’s time in Europe afforded him a unique opportunity to visit most of the

19 important prehistoric sites. As a result, he developed a working knowledge of those sites, catapulting him to the top of his field in the US. Along the way, he built a network of people who would eventually open the door for MacCurdy to work at Merveilles.

Additionally, the European influence on MacCurdy academic pursuits enabled him to espouse archaeological research as science back in the United States.

The legitimization of the field of archaeology as a science contributed to the founding of the American School of Prehistoric Research by MacCurdy and two other

AAA members. It is important to discuss the ASPR field schools prior to Merveilles for several reasons. For instance, it was during MacCurdy’s directorship of the first field season in 1921 that he became aware of the rockshelter sites near the Vézère Valley, including Merveilles. Next, while he did not return as the director for the second and third seasons, his letters of correspondence show that he spent a good deal of time working from abroad on attaining the right to dig at Merveilles. Additionally, the correspondence between the new directors and other members of the ASPR board of directors also show that he kept a good eye on the excavations. These letters indicate that many logistical issues pertaining to running a field school abroad had been worked out.

Most notably, the experiences from the three field seasons from 1921 through 1923 are important to include in this chapter because they guided how MacCurdy ran future

Merveilles excavations.

It is also imperative to detail MacCurdy’s and the ASPR field work at Merveilles, including field and lab methods, artifact descriptions, the interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence, and the overall scope of the project from 1924-1930. This provides the bulk of information needed to assess the integrity of the lithic collections

20 studied. The majority of this information was discovered in MacCurdy’s personal journals and letters of correspondence at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology. Unfortunately, an actual description of the ASPR excavation methods was not determined from MacCurdy’s papers, except that at least one trench had been dug in

1925 (the extent of which is visible on MacCurdy’s 1931 plan map of the site) (Figure 5 in Appendix 1). It is assumed that he continued on with the “trench” style excavations characteristic of the first 3 ASPR field seasons and at future sites (Figure 6 in Appendix

1).

MacCurdy provided a thorough description of recovered artifacts from each season in his field journal (1921-1928) (ASPR Records 1919-1947, n.d. Box 4). The field journal is stored at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard

University, along with most of the ASPR published and unpublished material. The

Merveilles field journal proved to be an invaluable tool for understanding the history of the excavations and provided detailed information on the recovered artifacts. This crucial information included basic provenience of “highly coveted” artifacts, artifacts type counts, and end-of-season packaging and shipment specifics. In addition to the field journal, the most comprehensive published accounts of the ASPR work at Merveilles were submitted by MacCurdy (MacCurdy 1922; 1924; 1925-1931). However, as will be further elaborated upon in this chapter, MacCurdy was not always accurate when reporting on the site upon his return to the US (especially when drawing site maps from memory). Therefore, it was imperative to compare his actual field journal recordation to recipient institutions’ accession records and published seasonal reports on the ASPR

21 work at Merveilles (also see Hough 1926; Peabody 1922; Unknown author in Notes and

News 1929: 575, 829).

In his field journal, MacCurdy took detailed notes on the pace of digging at the site in addition to the artifact yield at the end of each season. It is very important to note that MacCurdy stated that artifacts were labelled based on the stratigraphic layer from which they came out of the ground (Figure 9 in Appendix 1). This information speaks to the stratigraphic integrity of the collections studied. Also, MacCurdy’s description of the stratigraphic sequence and the recovered artifacts provided a dataset that was then compared with the data retrieved from the current analysis of the same lithics undertaken for this project. MacCurdy’s drawings are informative and relevant because they give an idea of the scope of the ASPR’s excavations across the landform. The drawings generated invaluable information on future excavation potential and artifact provenience.

MacCurdy’s drawings enabled the opportunity to figure out what the extent of the site might look like on a modern map and to evaluate future excavation potential.

Utilizing the ArcGIS mapping program, it was possible to superimpose MacCurdy’s most detailed 1931 hand-drawn map of all the field work done at Abri des Merveilles (Figure

10 in Appendix 1) over a modern aerial image of the area (Figure 12 and 13 in Appendix

1). This experiment elucidated some rather glaring mistakes in his drawings which needed explanation. It became evident from several attempts to plot specific geographical features from MacCurdy’s 1931 plan view map in into ArcGIS and his incorrect northing for the 1930 site map that MacCurdy drew his maps from memory (rather than from accurate cartographic information while physically being at the site). As a result, the

22 hand-drawn 1931 map and the GIS map do not correspond exactly in space (see Figure

13 in Appendix 1).

An essential component of this chapter is the discussion of the 1931-1932 field seasons of the ASPR after Merveilles for several reasons. First, it is not to be glossed over that the Great Depression was at its height during the years after the ASPR excavations at Merveilles had ceased. This certainly played a role in MacCurdy’s inability to go to back to France as most likely did his age. He was in his late sixties by the onset of the Great Depression (Bricker 2002). The ASPR seasons of 1931 and 1932 at other sites in France and Europe were run by former ASPR students handpicked by

MacCurdy for specific reasons. He had already had good results from allowing

Merveilles to be run by former students quite efficiently for brief absences in the past.

Correspondence letters between MacCurdy and the ASPR field crew working in other parts of France (not Merveilles) during 1931 and 1932 suggest that he was still acting in some sort of advisory role from the US. Thus, it is evident that he was comfortable with allowing former students to supervise ASPR excavations and expected the digs to run as well as he would have directed them himself. Therefore, a site’s integrity would not be undermined by his physical absence. His former students had unparalleled training by his own hand and he readily handed over his trowel to them. Many of his former students went on to work in academia, museums, and or direct their own field/research projects.

It is important to mention here that MacCurdy’s relationships with French colleagues, like Peyrony, were growing more tense with each passing field season.

MacCurdy had already begun to worry about Merveilles. In 1928, he discovered that unauthorized digging was being conducted at the site by French and Dutch tourists during

23 the off seasons (MacCurdy to Russell 4/17/1933). It seems that what was particularly worrisome was the unauthorized digging for and the unauthorized removal of additional rock crystal tools (Ibid .). As a result of some duplicitous actions taken by the local

French government officials (namely Peyrony), it can be argued that French interference with the site contributed to the end of the ASPR involvement at Merveilles (Ibid .).

MacCurdy officially relinquished the ASPR’s sole right to continue excavations shortly thereafter to the French government (MacCurdy to de LaBoulaye 4/17/1933).

After MacCurdy and the ASPR ceased excavations at Merveilles, French archaeologists performed two more field seasons there in 1933 and 1934 (Delage 1935:

1936). Historical documents and site reports by the French do not support that any further artifacts were shipped abroad from Merveilles. However, the work performed there post-

ASPR is relevant for several reasons. First, the report for the two French- led seasons provided detailed accounts of the previous ASPR seasons with historical information neglected by MacCurdy in his papers (Ibid .). In addition, the description of the work performed there included specific references to geological processes occurring around and in the rockshelter not previously recorded (Delage 1936: 581-583). Another important outcome of the French field seasons was the validation of MacCurdy’s stratigraphic sequence for Merveilles (Ibid. ). The French fieldwork provided additional support for the stratigraphic integrity of the Merveilles collections studied in this project.

It has not been determined where the artifacts from the French 1933-1934 seasons are presently curated. Presumably, their potential research value for future studies of the site is high. Lastly, the two French seasons provided further information on the final scope of

24 work that was completed at the Merveilles before it was shut down for good (Delage

1936). This information will aide in the assessment of future excavations at Merveilles.

A review of the historical documentation describing the international distribution of the Merveilles artifacts from the ASPR field seasons is also vital to this project. The dispersal of the Merveilles collection is recorded in multiple museums’ accession records, correspondence letters between MacCurdy and multiple museums’ directors, MacCurdy’s field school journal (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947), and interviews completed over the course of this project. These will all be discussed within this chapter.

It is also important to revisit the initial agreement between ASPR and the French government pertaining to the removal of artifacts from France and the subsequent abandonment of that agreement (MacCurdy to de LaBoulaye 1933). In addition, a discussion of the ASPR’s agreement with the US National Museum (renamed the

National Museum of Natural History or NMNH in 1969) is crucial to understanding the historical handling and accessioning of incoming artifacts from Merveilles. The US

National Museum played a huge role in the history of the Merveilles excavations because the bulk of the Merveilles collections were shipped there each season. The records show that the rest of the artifacts were shipped elsewhere every season to specific US museums and institutions in gratitude for donations to the ASPR. A detailed account of these institutions is provided in this chapter. This will enable future researchers to be able to access the whereabouts of the majority of the Merveilles collections in one document.

It is also necessary to understand the impact that museum curatorial practices had on the integrity of the collections once they were received in the US. The documented

25 practice of culling the assemblages by either destruction or redistribution to other institutions introduced new biases that in turn created the collection which is currently housed in the NMNH. Finally, much was learned about the French curation of Merveilles artifacts by document review in addition to interviews with Rene Castanet (Marcel

Castanet’s son) during two site visits to Castel-Merle and Sergeac on 6/15/2001 and

7/19/2001. When Monsieur Castanet was a young boy, he was present for many of the

ASPR and subsequent French excavations at Merveilles during the 1920-30s. In addition, significant details about the history of Abri des Merveilles were transmitted through personal communications with Dr. Randall White (New York University) on many occasions from September 2000 through September 2002, but particularly on 6/15/2001,

7/19/2001, and 7/20/2001 while still in France. Dr. White has directed the Abri Castanet field project since 1994. Abri Castanet is located on the other side of the Castel-Merle rock formation from Merveilles. His knowledge and advice during the initial stages of this project were critical for putting it into motion.

The evidence points to a good portion of the Merveilles collection having never left France, particularly the faunal material. Aside from the initial excavations at

Merveilles in the 1890s and then unauthorized excavations during the late 1920s into the

1930s, Rene’s father, Marcel, also curated Merveilles lithic material for his own museum in Sergeac. It is likely that this was material discarded by MacCurdy at the end of each field season or picked up from field walking over the Castanet property. Monsieur

Castanet made his personal collection of Merveilles lithics available for viewing on

7/19/2001 (Figures 14-16 in Appendix 1). The sheer number of unprovenienced lithics in

26

Sergeac offers further evidence for excavator/collector bias on site during the ASPR lease and was a concern for the lithic analysis of the NMNH artifacts for this project.

MacCurdy’s Formative Years in Europe

“Well I’m a very ordinary fellow after all. I once thought I was a genius; later I thought I had talent. Now all I can lay claim to is honest effort and a (noble) worthy ancestry. It is good to records the birth of one’s thoughts. I shall make this book such a record.” (George Grant MacCurdy, January 2 nd ,1894).

Born in Missouri in 1863, George Grant MacCurdy grew up in the aftermath of the Civil War in a world that desperately needed explanation (McCown 1948).

Gravitating toward a career in education early on, he pursued undergraduate and graduate studies in the sciences at Harvard University in the 1890s ( Ibid .). He had studied geology and zoology before realizing he had an interest in paleoanthropology and prehistoric research (Bricker 2002: 268) (Figure 17 in Appendix 1). While in graduate school, he encountered a distant relative, Evelyn MacCurdy Salisbury, who along with her husband,

Edward Elbridge Salisbury, took great interest in MacCurdy and in furthering his education (Ibid . 267). After taking him into their home, the Salisburys nurtured

MacCurdy’s interest in the sciences and funded MacCurdy’s travels and education in

Europe in the 1890s (Ibid .). He was quite fortunate to have been given this opportunity.

It enabled him to train under some of the most highly-regarded European scientists at the time including most notably Gabriel de Mortillet, Albert Gaudry, Leonce Manouvrier,

Louis Capitan, and Eduard Seler ( Ibid. 271). He took courses in paleontology, archaeology, physical anthropology, ethnology, and comparative anatomy ( Ibid. ). His multidisciplinary education in Europe “gave MacCurdy unmatched qualifications to pursue a career of research and teaching in palaeoanthropology” ( Ibid. 272).

27

In addition, his time in Europe allowed him to build a vast network of colleagues and professional contacts in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the United

Kingdom ( Ibid. 273). According to Bricker, “These contacts, nourished and extended through the years, would be essential to the success of his later career, particularly the field activities of the American School of Prehistoric Research” (2002: 273). In fact,

MacCurdy would never have been given the lease to dig at Merveilles if he had not fortuitously encountered his benefactors, the Salisburys. They provided him with the means to go and study in Europe (Ibid. ). The opportunities provided by the Salisburys enabled MacCurdy to build important professional relationships throughout the world, particularly in France (Ibid. ).

Following his formal training in Europe, MacCurdy spent the next few summers before World War I visiting archaeological sites across the European continent (Ibid .). Of high importance to him was the compilation of a working knowledge of as many

Paleolithic sites as possible for comparative studies (MacCurdy 1914: 184). He was chiefly interested in whether the sequence of different human occupation levels changed from site to site (Ibid. ). Interestingly, it was not until 1912 that MacCurdy actually participated in an excavation (Bricker 2002: 278). This was fourteen years after he finished his formal training in paleoanthropology. His first dig was with Hugo Obermaier at El Castillo in Spain that was sponsored by the Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in

Paris ( Ibid . 276).

Shortly after the El Castillo excavation season, he conducted his first independent excavations at a small rockshelter, La Combe, located about 4km south of Les Eyzies and approximately 17km southwest of Merveilles (Ibid. 278; MacCurdy 1914). He was

28 able to secure a lease on the site through Denis Peyrony and proceeded to excavate on

August 5 (MacCurdy 1914:157). He was accompanied by two workmen, Marcelin

Berniche and Casimir Mercier ( Ibid .). MacCurdy’s excavation at La Combe allowed him to perform “a personal test of the European system of classification” (MacCurdy 1914:

184). He described the Paleolithic sequence visible from the differentiation in the color of soils and type of artifacts within each stratum ( Ibid .). He would later use this same sequence to describe the occupation levels at Merveilles. He also mentioned that his excavation was “systematic” and the collection of artifacts was “authentic” ( Ibid .).

However, the excavation “completely emptied” La Combe in a short period of time

(Bricker 2002:278). This significantly casts doubt on the meticulousness of MacCurdy’s initial excavation methods because the site was excavated so quickly (Ibid. ).

It can be surmised that perhaps since it was his first excavation he may not have been in complete control of the pace of digging. He described Berniche as being a very experienced excavator (MacCurdy 1914:158). Berniche and Mercier were in the business of selling Paleolithic property and antiquities ( Ibid .). Their motives for moving quickly through the site might well have been associated more with monetary gain than with

MacCurdy’s scholarly pursuits. It should be stated here that MacCurdy did also purchase antiquities from various French dealers over the next several years for the Peabody

Museum’s collections (White 1992). This was the avaricious climate that the field of prehistoric research would operate within through World War I and up until the Great

Depression (White 1992: 2, 30). At some point after excavating La Combe in 1912,

MacCurdy created a basic set of instructions for field assistants (MacCurdy 1912, ASPR

Records Box 2.7). Those instructions were amended and updated in 1930 by MacCurdy

29 and will be detailed later in this chapter. It would appear then that by the end of his directorship at the ASPR and at Merveilles, he had gained vast tactical knowledge for doing fieldwork. In addition, he had learned the importance of methodical excavation and its impact on site interpretation.

The American School of Prehistoric Research 1918-1923

Once World War I broke out, MacCurdy was unable to travel back to Europe for some time (Bricker 2002: 279). During this time, plans were coming together to create the American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) ( Ibid .). The ASPR was founded in

February 1921 by MacCurdy and Charles Peabody at the request of Dr. Louis Henri-

Martin who was working at La Quina (Ibid. ). Charles Peabody was the only son of

Robert Singleton Peabody who created the Peabody Museum of Archaeology at the

Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts in 1901 (Hamilton and Winter Jr. 2018: 5-

7)). Charles was instrumental in the construction of his father’s museum and eventually became the director ( Ibid .). He was also one of the first American archaeologists to implement a grid system as part of his excavation procedure as well as incorporate the stratigraphic method and meticulous record keeping ( Ibid .).

Charles Peabody and MacCurdy had known each other for a long time and had worked together in the field in Europe (Browman and Williams 2013: 218, 223). Peabody was instrumental in motivating MacCurdy to focus his attention on the French prehistoric record ( Ibid .). Peabody was named the first chairman of the ASPR, MacCurdy was the first director, and Mrs. MacCurdy was the first secretary (Unknown author, News about the Peabody Museum and Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Winter

1971:3). The by-laws of the ASPR dictated that the school would “give instruction and

30 conduct researches in the prehistoric field and to afford opportunity for fieldwork and training to students of prehistory and related branches of the Science of Man” (Unknown author, News about the Peabody Museum and Department of Anthropology, Harvard

University, Winter 1971:3; ASPR Records 1919-1947 Boxes 1.3, 1.5, 6.14).

The ASPR was one of five schools associated with the Archaeological Institute of

America at this time (MacCurdy 1926:75). Most of all, MacCurdy was interested in inculcating American students with the knowledge and systematic excavation procedures he had learned in Europe (Ibid .). He believed that the best method of learning was to bring students (especially American) out of the stagnant classroom atmosphere (Ibid .). In the field, they could actually touch prehistory ( Ibid. ). He stated, “We Americans are so far removed geographically from the ground out of which the relics are being dug that it is very easy for us to be ignorant of their existence as well as their significance” ( Ibid.

78). He also firmly believed that the origins of humankind were rooted in Europe. In reference to the ASPR, MacCurdy wrote, “Its field is the Old World, for it is to the Old

World we must turn in seeking the solution of the problems bearing on human origins

(1926: 75).

The first three field seasons of the ASPR taught MacCurdy how not to run the field schools at Merveilles. This is evident from his personal letters back and forth to the other members of the ASPR board and French colleagues [MacCurdy personal letters,

George Grant MacCurdy Papers, 1886-1983 (inclusive), Box 6.7, Accession # 995-3 ].

According to the initial correspondence between members of the ASPR board, there were immediately several items that needed to be taken care of before the first field season could take place ( Ibid. ). The most pressing issue was fundraising for field operations

31 abroad. The first field school was primarily funded by Charles Peabody (Bricker 2002:

278). Peabody had already told prospective students that instruction and tuition were free and he did not want to charge students attending the first field school (Peabody to

MacCurdy 2/19/21). The backing of the field school students’ tuition by Peabody may also have contributed to the relatively small number of students chosen to attend

(MacCurdy 1922: 61; Bricker 2002). This number not including MacCurdy, his wife, friends and other family, totaled two students for the ASPR 1921 field season (Bricker

2002: 280).

Another issue that arose was the fraternization or intermingling of young men and women in the field setting. According to personal correspondence between Peabody and

MacCurdy, there was concern over the inclusion of any female students in the field school (1921). As of February 10, 1921, between four or five females had applied ( Ibid ).

Peabody wrote, “Unless the foundation takes some care of the physique and morals of these young women, I am afraid we shall encounter parental opposition”

(Ibid .).Therefore, he requested that MacCurdy’s wife (Janet) or Dr. Henri-Martin’s wife be present at the site and in lodging for the entirety of the first field season (Ibid. ). In

MacCurdy’s response letter, he informed Peabody that Mrs. MacCurdy had agreed to be the female sponsor/chaperone (MacCurdy to Peabody 2/12/1921).

According to Bricker’s taped interview with the other student who attended that year, Alonzo W. Pond, a female student was accepted for the first field season (2002:

280). Pond’s interview referred to the other student by a nickname, “K. Crockett”, whom

Bricker theorized must be an “Adele Crockett” (Ibid. ). Adele was listed as a former

ASPR student ( Ibid. ). Recent research has identified two biographical works authored by

32 an Adele “Kitty” Crockett Robinson. These books were posthumously published by the author’s daughter after her death. Her books document Kitty’s experiences living through the Great Depression. It is a contention of this project that this is the same person who accompanied Alonzo Pond during that first field school. She is pictured in Figures 3 and

4 in White 1992 pages 5-6 (Figures 18-22 in Appendix 1). In fact, the photos bear such an uncanny resemblance to Kitty Crockett that it would be difficult to refute that contention. In her novel, The Orchard , Kitty mentions taking tours in Europe as a young woman and that she spoke French. Prior to taking over running her family’s farm and apple orchard after the death of her father, Kitty was employed by the Hartford Museum

(Crockett Robinson 1995: 11). While she never dug at Merveilles, she most certainly visited it on one of the ASPR’s sightseeing trips to the Vézère Valley in 1921.

The first field season of the ASPR began on July 2, 1921 at the site of La Quina in

Charente with MacCurdy as director (MacCurdy 1922:61). According to MacCurdy, the first field school activities were “undertaken in the spirit of the pioneer, who has no precedents to break and none to observe” (MacCurdy 1922:71). Nine weeks were spent in the area with La Quina being the base for their activities. During that time the students toured other sites nearby and had full use of Dr. Henri-Martin’s laboratory. They toured through southwestern France down as far as the French Pyrenees and interacted with many European prehistorians ( Ibid .).

It was during the first ASPR field season that MacCurdy initially learned about

Merveilles. MacCurdy’s journal first mentions Marcel Castanet in August of 1921

(MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). According to MacCurdy’s journal, Castanet owned a significant amount of property in the area (Ibid .) He owned

33 rockshelters on both sides of Abri Blanchard II and he was willing to lease them to the

ASPR (Ibid .). Even though he was a local farmer, Monsieur Castanet had been assisting the amateur archaeologist, Louis Didon, from Pergieux on several excavations in the area since 1910 (White 1992: 8, 97). The most notable was the Aurignacian site of Abri

Blanchard ( Ibid. ). Since Didon lived a considerable distance away, he hired Castanet to conduct excavations for him (Ibid .). As a result, Castanet gained considerable experience in the field and learned how to make meticulous site drawings (White 1992; MacCurdy

1919-1921). Given Castanet’s vast knowledge of the local area’s prehistoric sites, particularly the sites of his own Castel-Merle, he knew that Merveilles would be a site that would keep MacCurdy and his students busy.

Subsequent ASPR field schools generated more students and many changes were implemented regarding funding. Charles Peabody was dissatisfied with changes to the

ASPR curriculum (more lectures and touring than digging) and malcontent was developing between the French and American scholars (Petraglia and Potts 2004: 30).

Thus, Peabody refused to fund the school any further ( Ibid .). As the director for the second season, Peabody reported that 15 students applied for 3 scholarships while an additional 4 students were accepted into the 1922 program (Peabody 1922: 66). The students who did not receive scholarships had to pay their own way. However, “the lectures and all the privileges of the School” were free (Ibid. ). Institutional funding appeared to take over the main financial burden for those students.

The 1922 field school included excavations at La Quina, lab work, excursions to

Les Eyzies and to caves in the Pyrenees, lectures by Dr. Henri Martin, and study in museums (Peabody 1922: 493-494). There was extensive testing and a written thesis was

34 required to finish the program (Ibid .). This field school required a one-year commitment from July 1, 1922 to July 1, 1923 (Ibid .).It appeared to have been run much more efficiently than the previous field season. Jelinek (2013) surmises that during the 1921 season MacCurdy had been more interested in excavating elsewhere in the area (most likely Merveilles). This idea is supported by the brevity of MacCurdy’s report for the

1921 season versus Peabody’s lengthy account of the 1922 field season. MacCurdy’s report focused more on thanking the Henri-Martins and other French colleagues than on publishing excavation details and artifact types. On the other hand, Peabody provided a more thorough account of the 1922 field season. According to Peabody’s description,

“All the digging is done by the students and Director themselves; the technique of excavating a rock-shelter is different from that of all classical excavations, and from that of a prehistoric site in the open and even from the methods of clearing out a prehistoric cavern; as always, the utmost rigorousness of observation and control is expected of the Director and he in turn will require it of those under him” (1922: 65).

The 1923 season did not go as well as the previous two. Based on correspondence between the ASPR board members, there was considerable concern over whether Dr.

Henri-Martin was the only person making money out of the field schools (letter Nelson to

MacCurdy 3/27/23). This was because Henri-Martin held the leases to excavate. An additional concern was that the it appeared that the American anthropological societies

(AAA or AIA) supporting the ASPR were losing money on the endeavor by 1923 (Ibid. ).

Other complications occurred for the 1923 season. During that field season (1923), Alex

Hrdlicka was to serve as director, mainly at La Quina (Jelinek 2013). The excavations were supposed to last 3.5 months. By May of 1923, Hrdlicka had cut back the school’s time in France to 2 months. Jelinek states that “the American School’s participation in the excavations at La Quina terminated with Hrdlicka’s few days of work with Dr. Henri-

35

Martin…” (2013: 18). As a result, Hrdlicka did not have much to publish in the way of findings. Jelinek surmises Hrdlicka was so disinterested in the excavations at La Quina from the beginning that perhaps he never desired to be director of the field school in

France at all ( Ibid. ). On the other hand, Hrdlicka’s main problem may have been that of

“too many cooks in the kitchen’. Henri Martin was unwilling to surrender control of the excavations at La Quina to the ASPR during the summer season and asserted his dominance both in writing and in person (Petraglia and Potts 2004).

During the period that MacCurdy was not the acting ASPR supervisor, he directed most of his time toward publishing a book which documented all the Paleolithic sites in

Europe that he had visited (Bricker 2002:276; Petraglia and Potts 2004). Based on a course he taught by the same title, MacCurdy’s book, Human Origins , provided one of the first written accounts of “the adoption of the stratigraphic method by American archaeologists” (Bricker 2002: 276-277). By incorporating Nicolaus Steno’s Principles of Sedimentary Layers (particularly the Law of Superposition) into field methodology, archaeology was promoted to a scientific endeavor (Bricker 2002:277; Prodromus of

Nicolaus Steno 1669 tr. 1916). Steno’s law stated, “At the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the material resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lowest stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed” (Steno

1669). In other words, the layers deeper in the ground will be older than the overlaying top layers. MacCurdy had studied geology at Harvard so he was familiar with Steno’s work (Bricker 2002).

Digging stratigraphically would also allow for one to see different epochs back through time (MacCurdy 1913). The most important outcome of using the stratigraphic

36 method in excavation was recording an artifact’s provenience. This meant there would be documentation of the level in the ground an object was discovered. This would be compared with associated artifacts from the same level to figure out hominin cultural levels at Merveilles. MacCurdy’s focus on integrating real science with prehistoric research and excavation in his book is demonstrated in his later excavations with ASPR, particularly at Merveilles (MacCurdy 1931:16).

MacCurdy did not return as director until the 1924 opening season of the

Merveilles excavations. While it can be said that Peabody outperformed MacCurdy during his reign as director of the ASPR in 1922, Peabody and Hrdlicka were not interested in returning to head up the program because their interests lay elsewhere

(Bricker 2002; Petraglia and Potts 2004). Of importance for this project, MacCurdy was the perfect fit to be the ASPR director at Merveilles. He was convinced that the cradle of humankind lay in Europe, particularly France (MacCurdy 1924). He was certain that the

ASPR’s field work at Merveilles would prove him right (Bricker 2002).

MacCurdy’s Directorship at Abri des Merveilles 1924-1930

By all accounts, MacCurdy seemed drawn to southwestern France from early on in his career. In his letter to the French ambassador to the US, André de LaBoulaye,

MacCurdy wrote,

“In 1896-97 my professors at the Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris first aroused my interest in the prehistory of the Vézère Valley. My first visit to that region was in 1903 (just 30 years ago). Since the latter date, I have spent parts of 9 summers (1918, 1921, 1924-1930) excavating at two sites and conducting many students of prehistory on excursions to al important sites as well as instructing them in French methods of excavation” (4/17/1933).

37

The very first ASPR field school excavations at Merveilles began shortly after

MacCurdy physically obtained the 10-year lease for sole permission to dig there. On

August 4, 1924, MacCurdy was accompanied by Prof. Mitchell Carroll to obtain the lease from Castanet (MacCurdy 1946:164). The lessee was listed as the Archaeological Society of Washington D.C. which granted the ASPR the privilege to excavate the site. The lease was paid in full in 1924 to Castanet and approved by the local inspector of Prehistoric monuments at the time, Denis Peyrony (MacCurdy letter to de LaBoulaye 4/17/33). The expiration date of the lease was set for October 5, 1934. MacCurdy described being given

“carte blanche” as director of the ASPR (MacCurdy 1924:121) for the duration of the 10- year lease on Merveilles. As a result, he was “left single handed to provide funds for the year’s work” ( Ibid. ). However, the Petraglia and Potts work indicated it was Hrdlicka who successfully secured funding for that first year at Merveilles (2004:31). Either way, the help was enlisted of a trustee of the Archaeological Society of Washington, Colonel

William Eric Fowler, for the funding of the ASPR’s 1924 field school for one year ( Ibid. ;

MacCurdy 1925).

All the ASPR field sessions from 1924-1930 began either in London or Paris with visits to many museums and sites (including some excavation) before the school headed to Merveilles (1924). In addition, they toured around France and Switzerland.

Approximately 12 students participated in the field school throughout the first year

(Ibid .). However, it is unclear how many students actually excavated at Merveilles that summer. Hrdlicka’s letter to Peyrony on June 25, 1924 indicated the excavation crew might have numbered 7 or 8 students (in Petraglia and Potts 2004: 31). On August 5,

1924, MacCurdy noted that the ASPR team began digging at Merveilles (although he

38 referred to it as Castel-Merle) (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947).

According to MacCurdy’s journal, “the digging began in the afternoon with wine in the presence of the director, Mrs. MacCurdy, Mrs. A.C.L. Donohugh, Miss Carol D., Master

Crawford E. Donohugh, Mr. and Mrs. A.L. Green of Holyoke, Mrs. Horace Cheney, Miss

Cheney of Manchester, Prof. B.B. Boltwood of Yale, Castanet, and Adolph” (Ibid .).

According to MacCurdy, they “christened’ the site, “Castel- Merle” (1925:122).

During the first summer at Merveilles, “enough digging was done to reveal three relic-bearing horizons, all of Paleolithic age, two representing the Mousterian culture left by the Neanderthal race and one the Aurignacian culture left by an early Cro-Magnon race” (MacCurdy 1925:122). The excavations ran from August 5-21 (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). As a gauge of the daily artifact recovery rate, at least 166 flint and quartzite lithic implements were recovered on August 21( Ibid .). In fact, MacCurdy wrote to Hrdlicka on August 10 th , estimating that in just one week at

Merveilles, his team had recovered a similar number of artifacts that ten weeks of work at

La Quina had yielded (Petraglia and Potts 2004:31-32). From the Mousterian layers, the most fascinating find was the first complete rock crystal tool found that summer and was described as yellowish in color, almost like topaz (MacCurdy 1925:1931). It was classified as a scraper by MacCurdy (Ibid .). According to MacCurdy, another half of a rock crystal scraper was found in a field below the rockshelter and adjacent to the leased property (1931:18).

By the end of the nearly two weeks of excavation, 1020 flint scrapers were found

MacCurdy journal (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). He pointed out that most of the flint scrapers have a nodular crust on the back of the tool,

39 opposite the scraping edge (MacCurdy 1931: 16-17). It was believed that the scrapers could then be used without harm to the hand nor was much further retouch needed (Ibid .).

MacCurdy stated that the source of the flint raw material must be from the plateau above where they were digging because there were many flint nodules (Ibid . 16). MacCurdy also made note of a unique small scraper that retained no cortex and had two bulbs of percussion (Ibid .). He typed this scraper as a double scraper or a point (Ibid. ). MacCurdy observed that the Aurignacian layer was not as artifact-rich as the Mousterian layers

(Ibid. 21). Flint gravers and knives were the most abundant types of artifacts recovered from this layer (Ibid .). Lastly, the faunal remains recovered from both layers were identified as horse, mammoth, reindeer, bison, auroch, cave hyena, wolf, and elk or moose (Ibid . 23).

At the end of the 1924 field season, five boxes of artifacts were sent from

Perigeux to the USNM (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). Box I contained material from the “Middle Mousterian” (Ibid .). Box 2 contained material from the Upper Mousterian (Ibid .). Box 3 contained hammerstones from all 3 levels (Ibid .).

Box 4 contained artifacts from the Middle Mousterian, Aurignacian, and a collection from La Souquette (Middle Aurignacian) (Ibid .). Box 5 contained faunal remains and one paper box of miscellaneous items (Ibid .). MacCurdy remarked in his journal that all the artifacts were from Castel-Merle unless otherwise marked. It can be interpreted that this shipment encompassed the collection which was accessioned by USNM as #84988. The records indicate that this collection included faunal material (88 teeth and 18 bones), 806 chipped stones, and 34 hammerstones (Smithsonian Institution Archives Accession

#84988).

40

The next summer ASPR field school of 1925 bore witness to an increase in student enrollment (MacCurdy 1926). According to MacCurdy, 15 students including those who were “interested professionally in prehistory” and “amateurs” participated in the ASPR field school that summer (1926:77). In addition to touring sites in France, the students visited important prehistoric sites and museums in England, Spain, Switzerland,

Germany, and Belgium ( Ibid. ). Clearly the geographical scope of the field school was expanding across Europe. Approximately 8 out of the 15 students eventually participated in the excavations at Merveilles (Ibid .; MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0,

1919-1947). The fieldwork began on August 6 and finished on August 27 (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). According to MacCurdy, “a trench was cut at right angles to the rock ledge from the foot of the talus slope all the way up to the overhanging rock, revealing evidence of two relic-bearing horizons: a lower belonging to the Mousterian Epoch and an upper referable to the Aurignacian” (MacCurdy 1926: 79).

The artifact yield was greater than the previous season, although the total is not discernible from examined documents at either the NMNH or Peabody museums. Flint scrapers coming out of the lower Mousterian layer outnumbered most other artifact types

(Ibid. ). Quartzite hammerstones were the next greatest in number (Ibid .). It was also noted that large animal bones were recovered and seemed to exhibit use wear (Ibid. ;

MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). No rock crystal implements were recovered from this season.

According to MacCurdy’s journal, the artifacts from the 1925 Merveilles season were shipped out on August 29 from St. Léon (ASPR Records 1919-1947, n.d. Box

4/21). Case I was sent to the US National Museum and contained Mousterian level

41 hammerstones and Aurignacian level flint knives. Case II was also sent to the US

National Museum and contained Middle and Upper Mousterian lithics. Case III was also shipped to DC contained Aurignacian level flint lithics and faunal material from both

Aurignacian and Mousterian levels. According to the accession records, the USNM received 745 chipped stones and 20 hammerstones as part of accession # 90005

(Smithsonian Institute Archives). Case IV was shipped to the Peabody Museum at Yale

University in New Haven, Connecticut. Case V was shipped to the Phillips Academy in

Andover, Massachusetts. The ultimate destination for Case V was most likely the Robert

S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at the Phillips Academy. Case VI was sent to the

Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences in Davenport, Iowa. (According to the Putnam

Museum website, the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences became the Davenport

Public Museum in 1927 and has since been renamed the Putnam Museum and Science

Center. The Putnam became a Smithsonian Institute affiliate in 2010.) Case VII was shipped to the University of Michigan Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Case VIII was shipped to the Valentine Museum in Richmond, Virginia. Lastly, Case IX was sent to the

Leland Museum at Stanford University, Stanford, California. This institution is now known as the Cantor Arts Center. It is assumed from MacCurdy’s letters that each of these institutions received a similar representative sample of what the USNM had received.

As of the 1926 summer season at Merveilles, 42 students had participated in the

ASPR field school since its inception in 1921 (MacCurdy 1926: 454). The syllabus for the entirety of the summer program does not appear to have changed from the 1925 season (Ibid .). Seven students participated in the 1926 program (Ibid .). It is important to

42 point out that it was during this season that J.T. Russell excavated as a student with

MacCurdy (Petraglia and Potts 2004; Bricker 2002). Russell later took on a directorship role for ASPR field seasons and curated the Merveilles material that was shipped back to the USNM (Petraglia and Potts 2004). The excavations at Merveilles were conducted from August 16- September 15. The period from September 16-22 involved getting the artifacts ready for shipment abroad (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-

1947). This was a fruitful summer. The team recovered another rock crystal scraper that exhibited use-wear along the edges (MacCurdy 1931:18). Unlike the other rock crystal tools previously discovered, this lithic was pure crystal “without a tinge of color” ( Ibid. ).

A day later, Castanet found a hominin tooth (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box

4.0, 1919-1947: 9/2/1926). This tooth would later turn out to be the only hominin skeletal material recovered from Merveilles. The tooth was deemed to be more closely associated with Homo neanderthalensis than with modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens (Trinkaus

1975). Both the hominin tooth and rock crystal scraper were found in the Lower

Mousterian layer, approximately 1 meter apart from each other (presumably horizontally, although this is never explicitly stated by MacCurdy) (MacCurdy 1931: 23).

In addition to many flint scrapers, debitage, and faunal remains, MacCurdy reported finding a triangular hand axe in the Upper Mousterian level that appeared ground at the base (Ibid . 21). He surmised this ground base would allow for the tool to be hafted ( Ibid .). Handaxes and similar scrapers and tools were recovered from both the

Lower and Upper Mousterian levels. Both levels yielded similar faunal remains of reindeer, red deer, bison, and horse species ( Ibid . 23; MacCurdy “Steps leading to ASPR incorporation” document 1926: 4, ASPR Records (unaccd.) Box 1.3-1.5)). MacCurdy

43 provided an inventory of groups of recovered lithics (and mineral deposits like manganese oxide and iron ore) which totaled 2,175 artifacts. This did not include faunal material or the hominin tooth. Each grouping of lithics was marked with the level it came out of in the ground. In his journal, MacCurdy remarked that Geo. Baye from Epine sur

Seine filmed part of the excavations from this season in August (MacCurdy journal in

ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). White proposes that the film footage might be held within the Smithsonian Institute Archives but it was not found during the course of this project (1992: 30).

According to correspondence letters and USNM accession records, nine cases of

Merveilles material were shipped abroad on September 22, 1926. The first 3 cases were sent to USNM. Case I was contained hammerstones and “nuclei” (probably cores). Case

II contained hammerstones, scrapers, knives, bolas, spoke shaves, disks, and points. Case

III contained faunal material from the Mousterian levels and flint tools and “nuclei” from the Aurignacian level. According to the accession records from the USNM, the collection received by USNM (#95150) included 694 chipped stones, 3 hammerstones, 104 bones, 1 horn, and 168 teeth. (USNM accession records). Case IV was sent to the ASPR in New

Haven, Connecticut, presumably to MacCurdy’s own office for his personal study as director of the ASPR. Case V was sent to Yale University in New Haven Connecticut.

Case VI was shipped to the Davenport Academy of Sciences in Davenport, Iowa (now the Putnam Museum and Science Center). Case VII was sent to Vassar College in

Poughkeepsie, New York. Case VIII was sent to Miss Edna Thuner at the Liggett School in Detroit, Michigan. The Liggett School had been an all-girls school from 1914 until it merged with the Grosse Point University school in 1969 to become the University Liggett

44

School (ULS) (ULS website). Thuner is listed as one of the students who attended an

ASPR field school at some point. It is known that she married a George Woodbury in

1926 who is also listed on the ASPR manifest of former students (Browman 2013: 119-

120). It is also known that they both attended the 1928 ASPR in Palestine as students

(Bricker 2002). Thuner and Woodbury were very interested in archaeology and received their PhDs shortly after their time in Palestine (Browman 2013). Ms. Thuner was a member of the Board of Trustees of the ASPR and she visited Merveilles during the summer term (Ibid .). It is presumed either she or the Liggett School provided a donation to the school and received the shipment of Merveilles artifacts in return.

The final shipment was of Case IX which was sent to the Moravske Zemske

Museum in Brno, Moravia presumably for exhibit. Based on Bricker’s compilation of

ASPR students through the years, it is also surmised that Oleh Kandyba attended the

1926 field season and was responsible for the remittance of Merveilles artifacts to the museum in Czechoslovakia (2002). He is noted here because his enrollment in the ASPR field school is of significant importance to researchers of Eastern European history as well as for tracking the dispersal of the Merveilles collection. Kandyba (A.K.A. Oleh

Olzhych) had immigrated to Czechoslavakia from Ukraine in 1924 (The Ukranian

Weekly, July 15th, 1990: 6). He was an archaeologist as well as a poet who was executed by the Nazis at Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1944 for subversive activities on behalf of the Organization of Ukranian Nationalists (OUN) ( Ibid. ). The museum in Brno has no accession records for the Merveilles shipment.

The 1927 ASPR field school was different from the previous years. According to

MacCurdy, “In addition to the regular program there were four prospecting parties in the

45 field. Moreover, during the term, the group of students was successfully turned over twice to former students of the School” (MacCurdy 1928: 351; 1928: 3). Ten students visited Paleolithic and Neolithic sites in France, Romania, Austria, and Greece

(MacCurdy 1928:7). It appeared that the ASPR was branching out from MacCurdy’s narrow focus on southwestern France. The excavations at Merveilles began on July 26 and ended August 15 (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). This season is the first season that MacCurdy calls Castel-Merle by the name “Les Merveilles” in his journal (Ibid . 2/26/1927). He recorded in his journal that there were many visits by prominent scholars including Abbe Breuil and Peyrony (Ibid .). He also mentioned that certain days there was no digging (Ibid . 8/14/1927). Instead, he created lab days where students labeled artifacts by stratigraphic layers (Ibid. ). In addition to Merveilles, the students also dug for a few days with Russell at his site Civray (Vienne) (MacCurdy

1928: 352). It seems that MacCurdy was preoccupied with other matters and neglected to mention any of the recovered artifacts from this season. However, it can be noted with some confidence that no rock crystal tools were found this season.

MacCurdy’s journal and his 1928 report in American Anthropologist are not in accordance regarding the number of institutions to which ASPR shipped artifacts towards the end of the 1927 season. While the report claims that collections were sent to seven contributing institutions, MacCurdy’s journal only records six. Two cases seem to have been left out of his journal based on his case label designation. On August 17, Case A was sent to the USNM in the care of Walter Hough. Case B was sent to the Yale Peabody

Museum in the care of Oscar Gustafson. Case C was sent to the newly renamed

Davenport Public Museum in the care of E.K. Putnam. Putnam was on the governing

46 board of the ASPR (ASPR Records (unaccd.) Box 1, 1927). Case D was shipped to

Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, in the care of Professor Mignon

Talbot. Case E was sent to Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, in the care of

Professor Aaron Treadwell. Case H was shipped to the University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the care of Professor Frank G. Speck. As one can see,

Cases F and G are missing from this list. The whereabouts of these cases are unknown at this time.

Form letters were sent to Gustafson, Talbot, Putnam, Treadwell, and Speck thanking them for their subscription of $200. In return for the shipments, each institution received a case of artifacts from Merveilles containing “three lots of stone implements and fossil bones and teeth, as per the sheet of paper which you will find on opening to unpack the specimens” (1927 letter; Smithsonian Institute Archives Accession Record #

98484). Hough received a modified letter thanking the Washington Archaeological

Society for its subscription. The case that was sent to the USNM contained two lots of stone implements. No faunal material was listed. However, the USNM accession memorandum from May 1928 shows the accession of

“a collection of 672 specimens of bone and stone implements, and teeth, from Castel-Merle, near Sergeac, Dordogne, France, secured in 1927 by the American School of Prehistoric Research, under Dr. George Grant MacCurdy, Director” (Accession Record # 98484).

It is also recorded that all lithic artifacts were marked according to their corresponding stratigraphic levels.

The next ASPR field season in 1928 welcomed at least 6 students. Unlike the previous season, the students travelled and worked in only England, France, and Spain

47

(1928: 345). For the first time in his journal, MacCurdy refers to the site as the “Abri des

Merveilles” (its current title) (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947:

7/20/1928). The excavations at Merveilles began on July 20 and ended August 15 (Ibid .).

On July 29, MacCurdy noted that the students left for Altamira but that the excavations continued anyway ( Ibid .). He reported that there were no visitors this season (Ibid. ). He wrote that he visited the site of Reverdit and saw Castanet’s personal collection of artifacts (Ibid. 8/7/1928, 8/8/1928). On August 14, he wrote that Frederica (presumably the same Frederica de Laguna listed in the ASPR manifest of field school students) found a double scraper of rock crystal (Ibid .; Bricker 2002). It is unclear if this was the first or second of the two rock crystal tools recovered from the lower Mousterian level all season. The first rock crystal tool found in 1928 was described by MacCurdy as having a purple or amethyst color to it (1931: 635; 1931:18). The second rock crystal tool was more yellowish in color like the very first one recovered in 1924 but slightly paler

(Ibid. 18).

In his journal this summer, MacCurdy was much more meticulous about recording the types of artifacts recovered from each designated level. In the lower

Mousterian level, he recorded 390 “firsts” including formal tools and hammerstones, 250

“seconds” including debitage, and 76 burnt flints (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records

Box 4.0, 1919-1947). In the upper Mousterian level, he recorded 209 “firsts” including formal tools and hammerstones, 81 “seconds” including debitage, 24 burnt flints, 3 pieces of manganese oxides, and 1 piece of red ocher (Ibid. ). In the Aurignacian level, there were 87 flint blades, 11 “nuclei” and 2 hammerstones (Ibid. ).

48

The 1928 field season rock crystal tools were brought back to the US with

MacCurdy which may have been to safeguard them from sale by his French colleagues.

MacCurdy states in a letter to Hough that all artifacts were marked according to the stratigraphic level from which they were removed. The rest of the artifacts were packed up (8/22-27/1928) and shipped on August 28. The first collection went to the USNM in the care of Walter Hough and was labelled “N”. The second collection went to Yale to

Gustafson and was labelled “A”. The third shipment was to Putnam at the Davenport

Public Museum and was labelled “D”. The fourth box was labelled “H” and was sent to

Talbot at Mount Holyoke. The fifth box was labelled “V” and went to Treadwell at

Vassar. And lastly, the final box was labelled “W” and was sent to Dutcher (presumably

George Dutcher) at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. According to the accession records for Accession # 103151 at the USNM, the shipment contained flint implements, burnt flint, flint “nuclei”, quartzite hammerstones, faunal remains, and artifacts from the site of La Madeleine. No literature provides evidence that MacCurdy or the ASPR actually excavated at La Madeleine and by 1928, the French had begun to restrict foreigners, especially Americans, from digging at places like La Ruth (White

1992). Foreign institutions were amassing large collections of French artifacts for enormous sums of money ( Ibid .). Their representatives travelling to France were stepping over each other and their French counterparts to purchase the biggest and most impressive collections money could buy. Therefore, it is speculated here that the La

Madeleine artifacts were purchased by MacCurdy and shipped back with the Merveilles material out of convenience.

49

The 1929 field school had the distinction of being the last ASPR season prior to the Great Stock Market Crash of October 24, 1929. MacCurdy’s summer journal-keeping ceased after the 1928 field season so there is no detailed account of future excavations at

Merveilles. The field school started again in London and travelled throughout England,

Spain, and France (MacCurdy 1929: 5). MacCurdy also noted that former students were now heading up excavations in Iraq and Palestine. The team reached Merveilles on

August 1 and stayed there until the end of August (Ibid . 6). For the first time since the

ASPR began in 1921, there is a roster of the enrolled students (Ibid .). They include,

Professor and Mrs. Frank Carney, Professor James B. Bullitt, Professor H.R. Fairclough,

Dean Homer P. Little, Henry M. Kendall, Anthony D. Eastman, Malcolm Lloyd, Dean

Harriet M. Allyn, and Dr. Martha Hackett ( Ibid .). The intensive international program through ASPR was now attracting academics as well as undergraduate and graduate students for fieldwork. Such an experience would undoubtedly have influenced the formation of many new anthropology departments in the US.

As with the previous ASPR field schools at Merveilles, boxes of artifacts were shipped to institutions which had financially contributed to the ASPR. The USNM accession log indicates that the artifacts from the 1929 season were part of Accession

Record #107359. The collection included 422 chipped stones, 27 bones, and 76 teeth. In addition, three rock crystal tools were found this season also, again from the Lower

Mousterian level. MacCurdy described one as pure crystal and another as somewhat yellowish. The other rock crystal tool was described as the poorest in terms of the quality of the crystal (MacCurdy 1931:635-636; MacCurdy 1931:18-19). It is presumed that these rock crystal tools returned to the US with MacCurdy like those recovered during the

50

1928 season. The rock crystal tools were later returned to France via personal escort by

Andre de LaBoulaye, the French ambassador to the US (MacCurdy to de LaBoulaye

4/17/1933). All together seven rock crystal tools were recovered from the Lower

Mousterian level at Merveilles between 1924-1929. In addition to the formal tools, debitage from the reduction of the rock crystal was found in the same level (MacCurdy

1931). This indicates that lithic reduction events happened at Merveilles. MacCurdy also made note of the refitting of flint tools to their parent core (1931:636; 1931:19).

Interestingly, one tool was found only 15 cm away from its parent lithic (Ibid. ). This demonstrates that the excavators were meticulous enough in their digging to observe and record the provenience of artifacts in the dirt.

The last field school that MacCurdy directed at Merveilles was in the summer of

1930. There is not much documentation for this season. The ASPR seemed to have shifted its focus entirely to the Middle East (Unknown author, Discussion and

Correspondence, 1930:570). ). The 1930 field school opened in Paris instead of London

(Ibid. ). Three former students, including Russell and Fewkes, helped MacCurdy during this summer ( Ibid. ). Twelve students took part in the field school. Once again, MacCurdy provided a list of the students. They were L. Cabot Briggs, Jeanne Ernst, John Gillin,

Raymond M. Gillmore, Robert F. Greenlee, Robert H. Merrill, John Z. Miller, Panchanan

Mitra, Corenlius B. Osgood, Froelich G. Rainey, Lucile Serrem, and Theodore D.

McGown ( Ibid. ). MacCurdy notes that someone provided an anonymous donation in the form of an annual scholarship of $750 which had to be awarded to a Mount Holyoke student (Ibid .). For the 1930 ASPR field season, the scholarship was awarded to Jeanne

Ernst (Ibid. ). According to the Mount Holyoke’s Anthropology archives website, Ernst

51 reported that the field school dug at Merveilles for two weeks and that she was only one of two female students. The other female student was Catherine “Lucile” Serrem (later

Paterson) who went on to work at the University of Pennsylvania’s museum (Browman

2013: 226). The historical article written about Ernst included on the website implied that the 1930 field season at Merveilles was going to be the last held there.

By the end of the 1930 field season, MacCurdy revised his 1912 “Techniques for

Assistants” [ASPR Records (unaccd.) Box 2.8, 1930]. This revision now included methods for handling pottery, friable bone, wood, and basketry. In addition, he discussed the proper techniques of photography and calculating indices ( Ibid .). At the end of the digging at Merveilles in 1931, MacCurdy drew a map of the site which described the scope of work of each summer from 1924-1930 (which was drawn from his memory rather than in the field) [ASPR Records (unaccd.) Box 2.7, 1931). The documentation of the shipments of artifacts in exchange for financial support of the 1930 field school is scant. The Mt Holyoke article on Ernst reported that a collection of flint tools from

Ernst’s field school excavations were shipped to the school. The yield from this field school for the USNM was not as plentiful as previous seasons. The accession record number for the 1930 artifacts is #95604 (Smithsonian Institute Archives). It included 164 chipped stones and 5 hammerstones. It is highly likely that the onset of the Great

Depression impacted the finances of the ASPR and seriously reduced the funds for the shipments of artifacts.

The ASPR seasons in France after MacCurdy’s Directorship 1931-1932

Subsequent ASPR field schools embraced female directorship under Charlotte

Gower (later Chapman) and Dorothy Garrod. Throughout the course of ASPR’s work

52 abroad, at least 28 additional female students enrolled in the field schools (Bricker 2002).

It is my contention that the presence of Mrs. MacCurdy at the ASPR field sessions

(during her husband’s time as director) facilitated the enrollment of female students who were interested in the field school during the La Quina and Merveilles field seasons. This was something that was unthinkable in previous years. The date of Gower’s field season is not listed from the resources available. She may have started the summer of 1923 or

1924 based on letters she sent to the University of Chicago in 1977 (Lepowski 2000:127).

In her letters, Gower described her position as “an instructor in education at [the

University of] Texas” as a way to make money to cover her field school in Europe

(Lepowski 2000:126-127). This would put her either in the summer before ASPR started at Merveilles (1923) or during the first field season at Merveilles (1924). However, the research undertaken here suggests that Gower attended the first field season in 1924 at

Merveilles for several reasons. It is my contention that she was placed in directorship of the 1931 ASPR field school in France and Czechoslovakia due to her familiarity with

French Paleolithic sites from her prior field school experience with ASPR. In her letters mentioned above, she stated that during her field season in France she met Alonzo Pond who urged her to apply for a graduate degree from the University of Chicago (Ibid .).

According to White, after Pond finished the ASPR field school in 1921, he went on to the Ecole de l’Anthropologie, Université de Paris and returned to the US in 1922

(1992: 2). He did not go back to France until his former professor, George Collie sent him over in 1924 to purchase artifacts for the personal collection of a wealthy investor,

Frank Logan (Ibid . 8). Pond was in the Les Eyzies area and was interested in purchasing artifacts from Abri Blanchard, La Souquette and other sites in the locality from Louis

53

Didon and Marcel Castanet for Logan during the summer of 1924 (Ibid .). It was Didon

(an amateur archaeologist) who introduced MacCurdy to Castanet, the lessor of the property Abri des Merveilles was located on. MacCurdy also mentioned in his field journal that Pond was at Merveilles on August 7 and 8, although he neglected to mention if Pond helped during the excavations (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0,

1919-1947). Therefore, Pond and Gower most likely met during these two days in 1924 at Merveilles, at which time Pond advised her to apply to the University of Chicago’s new archaeology program (Lepowski 2000:126-127).

Another piece of evidence that supports Gower’s attendance of the 1924

Merveilles field school is in a letter she wrote to the University of Chicago later on in life

(Lepowski 2000). In this letter, she specifically states that she joined the American

School of Prehistoric Research led by George Grant MacCurdy (Ibid .). This means that she could not have attended the 1923 field season because it had been under the directorship of Alex Hrdlicka that year. Finally, Gower began graduate school in 1924 and went on to obtain her Ph.D. in 1928. She most likely started after she got back from

France in the fall as she stated in her later letter that the new program was close to where her parents lived ( Ibid. ). She then served as the 1931 ASPR field school director (Handler

2000; Bricker 2002). Bricker also mentions that in the years after MacCurdy stopped traveling to France (most likely due to his age), he entrusted former students, like Gower, with supervisory roles in excavations abroad.

An interesting side note on the last American female director of excavations at

Merveilles is that her major contribution to the field of anthropology was the posthumous publication of one of the first ethnographic accounts of rural Sicily prior to modern

54 intervention (Lepowski 2000). In opposition to Bricker’s assertion that females were regarded as “leaders in the field”, Dr. Gower-Chapman, along with many of her female colleagues, encountered more adverse academic environments than their male counterparts ( Ibid. ). She was fired from her position with the University of Wisconsin at

Madison for unknown reasons. It appears that a soured romantic relationship with one or more senior male colleagues contributed to her dismissal as well as a general climate of misogyny rampant in academia at the time (Ibid. ).

Gower left the field of anthropology and it was assumed that she had disappeared or been killed during World War II (Ibid. ). However, recent research has revealed that she joined the CIA after being held as a POW by the Japanese in China while doing ethnographic fieldwork (Handler 2000). She certainly accomplished much in her life after her time in ASPR! After reading Kitty Crockett’s account of her life during the Great

Depression and Charlotte Gower-Chapman’s history , it is evident that the women who were chosen for ASPR were strong, dedicated, driven, and intelligent. These female students were making tremendous strides for women in a field that was notoriously male- dominated. It is important for future female anthropologists to be made aware of their life stories.

French Excavations at Merveilles 1933-1934

By the end of the 1931 field season, the correspondence between MacCurdy,

Nelson, Russell, and de LaBoulaye indicated that MacCurdy’s relationship with Peyrony was at an end [ASPR Records (unaccd.) Box 8.12]. There was serious disagreement about the official classification of the site as prehistoric for the French government between MacCurdy and Peyrony (Ibid.) . Peyrony’s classification of the site now meant

55 sign posts were littered all along the local roads informing tourists of the site and its antiquity ( Ibid. ). As a result, looting ensued (Ibid. ). The site was now known as Abri des

Merveilles, the title originating possibly from a type of cake, “merveille”, which French women of the area would bring to the farm workers in the area during harvest time or during Lent. It was reported that Dutch and French visitors were digging at the site without MacCurdy’s permission (Ibid .). Thus, the classification of the site posed a threat to the authenticity of the artifacts coming out of the site so MacCurdy forced Peyrony to remove the signs (Ibid. ). He relinquished his rights to fulfill the remainder of his lease at

Merveilles in 1932 and had de LaBoulaye personally escort the rock crystal tools to the

Musée des Antiquités Nationales in Paris (instead of handing off to Peyrony) ( Ibid .).

The excavations carried out by MacCurdy and the ASPR were resumed by

Delage, Peyrony, and Marcel Castanet in 1933 and 1934 (Delage 1936: 581). Since

Peyrony had excavated a small section of Merveilles in 1909 and had followed

MacCurdy’s work closely, he was familiar with what was left to dig. He also stated that artifacts from previous excavations (did not specify American or French) were located at

Le Musée de Perigueux and that he had studied them ( Ibid. ). These artifacts he mentioned included scrapers, hand-axes, and points and the collection numbers are 37679, 3873, and

3872 (Ibid. ).

The French team dug a trench to the right of the MacCurdy’s excavated area in addition to two “sondages” to the left of rockshelter ( Ibid. 591-592). Unfortunately,

Delage did not provide a site plan for the French excavations (see Figure 10 in Appendix

1 for MacCurdy’s 1931 site plan for reference). The archaeological levels measured 3.8 meters thick deep at the entrance to the rockshelter, dropping to 1 meter deep closer to

56 the road and adjoining field ( Ibid. 581). The French team identified the same three archaeological levels as MacCurdy, including a sterile layer (measuring 0.2 meters deep) between the two Mousterian layers ( Ibid. ). The French excavators measured the lower

Mousterian layer to be 0.3 meters deep at its center and the upper Mousterian layer to be

0.2meters deep ( Ibid. 583). Delage noted that there were large fragments of rock which he suggested were part of the rockshelter’s original overhang ( Ibid. ). Based on the position of the rocks, he believed that the overhang collapsed at some point during the

Mousterian occupations. Above the upper Mousterian layer, he noted another sterile layer of rock debris (0.4 meters). This was followed by a thin Aurignacian layer (0.05 meters)

(Ibid. ).

Delage’s description of the lower Mousterian layer is in accordance with that of the account given by MacCurdy. The lower Mousterian had a lithic rich layer of predominantly naturally-backed retouched scrapers with at least one rock crystal tool and debitage of the same material. This level was described as the classical Mousterian. The upper Mousterian layer also matches MacCurdy’s description- a sparser lithic layer with hand-axes, no rock crystal tools, and technologically poorer artifacts ( Ibid. 593). This level was assigned to the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition (MTA) due to the presence of the hand-axes. However, Delage noted that toward the top of the upper Mousterian layer during the 1926 field season, MacCurdy’s team had found knives described as being similar to those from Abri Audi (Ibid.). Delage mentioned that perhaps they looked more Chatelperronian but there were not enough of them to constitute assigning a new layer (Ibid. ). The fauna from both Mousterian levels were the same, including mammoth, bison, horse, bovine species, reindeer, deer species, bear, woolly rhino, hyena, wild boar,

57 and fox species ( Ibid. 592). The stratigraphy of the Middle Paleolithic sequence was problematic for Delage. He questioned why at some sites like l’Abri Classique du

Moustier, la Rochette, and la Ferrasie, the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition (containing handaxes) was found at the base of the depositions under the classical Mousterian (Ibid .).

Then at sites like Merveilles, Combe-Capelle, Pech de l’Azé, and Abri Audi, the

Mousterian of Acheulean tradition was found above the classical Mousterian (Ibid. ).

According to Delage, the top cultural layer at the site was the Aurignacian (Ibid .).

He pointed out that the thinness of the Aurignacian layer signified to him that the Upper

Paleolithic occupation at the site was ephemeral, especially when compared to the other rockshelters at Castel-Merle and the Vallon des Roches ( Ibid. 606). This layer, however, yielded burins (including the Noailles type), retouched knives, and points that were attributed to the Gravettian ( Ibid. 604). He noted very little worked bone (Ibid. ). The faunal material was predominantly reindeer and horse (Ibid .).

Fortunately, the continuation of the ASPR work at the site by Delage and the

French team verified MacCurdy’s stratigraphic description. Delage’s report attempted to compare Merveilles to other nearby sites and to make sense of the cultural sequence across the region. Unfortunately, Delage did not provide a description of the entire extent of the French excavations nor did he provide his own excavation map of the site. As a result, there is no way to determine if the site was 100% excavated except from accounts by Marcel Castanet. Perhaps, a future review of Delage’s personal papers might yield more information on Merveilles, including a map.

58

The Dispersal of the Merveilles Collections:

The historical context for the Merveilles excavations has already been discussed but it bears reemphasis. In the 1920s, French funding for archaeological projects and acquisition of excavated material in general was rather paltry. Thus, wealthy foreign investors (especially Americans) were able to acquire major collections and significant quantities of artifacts flowed out of France at least until the Great Depression hit in the early 1930s (White 1992). The bulk of the artifactual material from the 1924-1930 seasons was shipped to the United States National Museum, or as it is known today, the

Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. The majority of the Merveilles collection is now in storage at the Museum Support Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland.

The rest of the artifacts recovered during MacCurdy’s field seasons at Merveilles were shipped to various institutions in Europe and the US as “gifts” in return for generous donations to the ASPR. Boxes of artifacts were shipped to institutions who contributed $200 to the ASPR at the end of each field season. According to a standardized letter that MacCurdy sent out to several museums in 1927, the shipments usually contained “three lots of stone implements and fossil bones and teeth” accompanied by a sheet of paper detailing what was in each case (MacCurdy letter

8/16/27). On a historic side note, one shipment of artifacts from the ASPR during the

Merveilles field season can be traced to the 1926 maiden voyage of the S.S. Roma , an

Italian cruise liner (Smithsonian Institution Archives Accession # 84988 “4 cases fossils from Marseilles via S.S. Roma from Geo. G. MacCurdy”). It was later re-commissioned by the Italian navy as the first Italian aircraft carrier, Aquila , during World War II.

59

(Polmar 2008). It suffered from Allied air strikes during the war and was scrapped in

1951 ( Ibid. ).

The artifacts retrieved during the 1933 and 1934 seasons were probably divvied up between local French museums. It is postulated that at least portions of the 1933-1934 collections were sent to Le Musée de Perigueux and the museum in Les Eyzies. No records were found describing where they were sent to or where they are currently curated. Given MacCurdy’s letters to Castanet and Russell regarding the devolving relationship between himself and Peyrony toward the end of the ASPR involvement at

Merveilles, the rock crystal implement found in the Lower Mousterian layer by Delage probably ended up in Peyrony’s possession. However, its current provenience is not known.

Conclusion

Several factors influenced MacCurdy’s rise to success. First, it is extremely fortunate that while at Yale University he encountered the Salisburys who took him into their home and provided funding for his education and field excursions (Bricker 2002).

In addition, his prolific and varied training in several different fields of study combined with his many travels throughout Europe generated a massive archive of information for him to expound upon and teach about in the United States. His travels and education also enabled him to establish an extensive network of colleagues at home and abroad which he could draw on for help in securing site leases, field crew, local knowledge, interpretation, and financial and diplomatic aide. His inclusion of female students in the field school, helped usher in a new chapter in the field of anthropology and prehistoric research.

60

Women were able to participate in scholarly pursuits and take leadership roles as well as their male counterparts.

Finally, MacCurdy’s unbridled enthusiasm for prehistoric research led to the development of the ASPR in 1921 which created a new generation of archaeologists trained as scientists as well as historians. The excavations at Merveilles by MacCurdy and the ASPR between 1924 through 1930 yielded an artifact-rich site reoccupied over time by the manufacturers of Middle and Upper Paleolithic technologies (most likely

Neanderthals and modern humans respectively).

A lengthy register of students and academics engaged in the ASPR field seasons.

This allowed the ASPR and MacCurdy to develop working relationships between various institutions across Europe and the US. These connections precipitated the dispersal of artifacts out of France, specifically out of Merveilles. MacCurdy’s excavations were halted at the site mainly due to the unravelling nature of his relationship with the French, particularly Peyrony. In addition, any further work in France by MacCurdy was complicated by his advancing age, the worst years of the Great Depression, and the onset of World War II. He would never return to dig in France and died in a car accident in

1947. MacCurdy had relinquished the ASPR rights to Merveilles in 1933 so the excavations at Merveilles were taken over by the French from 1933-1934. These French excavations validated MacCurdy’s stratigraphic sequence for Merveilles and served as the conclusion of archaeological field work at the site. It is believed that between the

ASPR and the subsequent French excavations, Abri des Merveilles was completely emptied and no further field work was considered necessary (Figure 23 in Appendix 1).

61

CHAPTER 4

Middle and Upper Paleolithic Technologies

The site of Abri des Merveilles yielded artifacts that were purported to come from three distinct cultural levels as delineated by MacCurdy and further supported by the excavations of Delage and his team. Two of the three levels provided evidence for

Mousterian occupation by Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic. The uppermost level bore artifacts that MacCurdy and Delage associated with Aurignacian occupation by

Cro-Magnon people during the Upper Paleolithic. This section will discuss both the historical and current views regarding the range of lithic technologies that typify the

Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods and will introduce Abri des Merveilles within the context of these industries.

The Mousterian (more specifically the French Mousterian) has long been the subject of much heated discussion, including the famous “Bordes-Binford Debate”. Much of the historic discourse involving the Mousterian has been primarily concerned with the incredible variability that existed throughout the archaeological record for the Middle

Paleolithic period. Dibble and Lenoir provide an excellent abridged version of the history of these debates and Mousterian research in general (1995: 8-17). Their brief but thorough account establishes a context for the Mousterian site of Combe-Capelle Bas, located approximately 40km southwest of Abri des Merveilles. Without rehashing the lengthy and complex history of the Mousterian debates, it is necessary to call upon

Dibble and Lenoir’s concise account to create a frame of reference for the site of Abri des

Merveilles within Middle Paleolithic research.

62

A geographical emphasis on the Mousterian of western Europe, particularly

France, persisted from 1864 through the 1990s. France became a hotbed of archaeological fieldwork after the excavations at the Le Moustier site by Lartet and

Christy in 1864. As discussed in Chapter 3, the impetus for these early excavations was to provide evidence for a European origin of humankind. De Mortillet provided one of the first timelines placing the French Mousterian within human evolution based on lithic artifact types (Dibble and Lenoir 1995: 8). This new chronology was followed by

Commont’s linear partitioning of the Mousterian industry into four successive phases based on the variability of Levallois flake morphology, scraper types, and the presence or absence of handaxes (Ibid. 9). It was not until the work of Abbé Breuil and Peyrony in the 1920s and 1930s that “the existence of synchronous variability within the

Mousterian” was realized ( Ibid. ). Drawing from the sciences of geology and paleontology and the previous work of Lartet, Peyrony identified two contemporaneous types or traditions of Mousterian (Ibid .). The first was described as the “Classic Mousterian” and was characterized by scrapers, points, and flake tools (Ibid. ). The second type was described as the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) and was characterized by hand-axes and backed knives (Ibid .).

It was during this time of great change in Paleolithic research that Abri des

Merveilles was excavated by the ASPR and the French. It can be said with confidence that Peyrony’s classification directly influenced the description of the stratigraphic sequence at Merveilles by both MacCurdy and Delage. Peyrony’s classification scheme for the Mousterian embraced the idea that “fossils directeurs” or specific types of lithic artifacts could identify different groups of humans in time and space ( Ibid. ). The ASPR

63 and French excavations at Abri des Merveilles were conducted with Peyrony’s typological paradigm in mind and cultural layers were defined based on changes in the types of lithics recovered. Specifically, as the dirt was removed from the ground and artifacts were identified, MacCurdy was already classifying each cultural layer depending on what types appeared (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0, 1919-1947). In turn, this guided where on the site he excavated next ( Ibid. ). Unfortunately, this method of excavation most likely caused MacCurdy to miss subtle yet crucial stratigraphic changes and oversimplified the archaeological record of Abri des Merveilles.

Shifting away from the classification system developed by Peyrony, Francois

Bordes introduced his typology that was based on the technological attributes of

Mousterian assemblages ( Ibid. ). His typology was an attempt to categorize the tremendous variability of assemblages in an effort to find similarities between different sites. According to Mellars,

“The enduring importance of Bordes’ contribution was to recognize the need for a rigorous quantitative approach to the analysis of industrial variation based on an explicit definition of both the full range of retouched tool forms and also the technical aspects of the industries, such as the varying frequencies of Levallois flakes, blades, facetted striking platforms, etc .” (1996:169-170).

Bordes defined assemblages based on the relative frequencies of scrapers or bifaces and then assigned an assemblage to one of these industrial groups: 1) Mousterian of

Acheulean (MTA); 2) Charentian Mousterian; 3) Denticulate Mousterian; 4) Typical

Mousterian (Mellars 1996: 171).

Bordes further divided these main industrial groups. He separated the Mousterian of Acheulean industry into the MTA A and MTA B (Dibble 1995: 10). The distinction

64 between the two sub-groups for the MTA was different percentages of bifaces and backed knives (Ibid. ). Based on stratigraphic evidence from different sites, Bordes described the MTA A as older than the MTA B ( Ibid. 11). According to Bordes, the

Charentian Mousterian was composed of two subgroups called the Quina and Ferrassie

(Ibid. 10). These two subgroups were differentiated based on differing rates of utilization of the Levallois technique. The Ferrassie Mousterian demonstrated a higher employment of Levallois technique by (greater than 25-30%) than the Quina Mousterian (Ibid. ). Thus, a Ferrassie assemblage would yield a greater number of Levallois flakes than a Quina assemblage and have a higher Levallois Index (IL) than the Quina. High frequencies of notched and denticulated tools, low percentages of scrapers, the absence of hand axes, backed knives, and limited retouched lithics characterized the Denticulate Mousterian

(Mellars 1996:191). The Typical Mousterian was loosely defined by a moderate percentage of scrapers (~20-55%), the absence of handaxes, backed knives, and limited retouch ( Ibid. ). For Bordes, the Typical Mousterian was the most variable type of

Mousterian industry ( Ibid. ). The assignment of assemblages into different industries was guided by the use of Bordes’ classification scheme which was grounded in the idea that

Mousterian variability “reflected more or less contemporaneous traditions, whose stylistic differences were expressed by the relative frequencies of the different tool types and by technological characteristics” (Dibble and Lenoir 1995: 11).

The premise of Bordes’ interpretation of Mousterian lithic variability was challenged by the work of Leslie Freeman and Lewis and Sally Binford ( Ibid. ). Their research supported the idea that different tool types were essential to the execution of different types of activities and that clusters of specific tool types represented specific

65 activity areas ( Ibid. ). The Binfords claimed that the variability in assemblages represented changes in the function for which a specific tool kit was necessitated. This included “killing and butchering, cutting and incising, processing of plant material, and tool maintenance” ( Ibid. ).

Another alternative interpretation of Mousterian assemblages was developed by

Paul Mellars (Dibble and Lenoir 1995:12). Mellars proposed a chronological sequence of the Mousterian based on the stratigraphic profiles from many sites in southwestern

France (1996: 192). Mellars’ sequence begins with Ferrassie as the oldest followed by

Quina and then MTA (Soressi 2004:345). In Mellars chronology, the MTA usually occurs right before Upper Paleolithic layers in stratigraphic profiles (Dibble and Lenoir

1995: 12). Mellars’ temporal succession pattern was effectively unraveled by the growing body of paleoclimate data and new scientific techniques ( Ibid. 13).

The sheer breadth of fieldwork, research and interdisciplinary collaboration undertaken in the last 25 or so years facilitated the production of scientifically-backed interpretations of Mousterian assemblages. In addition to the paleoclimate research, the advent of edge-wear analysis and detailed analyses of Middle Paleolithic unifacial scrapers proved that previous interpretations of Mousterian assemblages were rooted in misconceptions (Holdaway et al. 1996:377). While many tools served multiple functions throughout the course of their use-life, new evidence supported the transformation of tools through time by re-sharpening events. Therefore, tool “types” were in fact the final discarded products of repeated lithic re-sharpening and reduction events. This realization encompasses the Rolland-Dibble interpretation and is best described in Holdaway et al. ,

66

“Thus, the differential proportions of scraper types within an assemblage used by Bordes to define his famous Mousterian facies are now interpreted as reflecting variation in the intensity and duration of site occupation and raw material variability (reflected in the degree to which tools were resharpened) and are no longer seen as the product of culturally distinct populations” (377).

Fortunately, this interpretation appears to have settled the matter of correlating

Mousterian variability with merely form and function because other factors were at play.

According to the Rolland-Dibble explanation, Quina and Ferrassie assemblages represented the most intensely utilized lithics (Dibble and Lenoir 1995:16). This is because scrapers dull quickly, need to be re-sharpened more frequently, and are retired and produced at a more rapid pace than other tools like notches and denticulates

(Holdaway et al. 1996:380). Therefore, this scenario yielded a higher percentage of scrapers in Quina and Ferrassie assemblages than in Denticulate Mousterian (Dibble and

Lenoir 1995:16). Rolland and Dibble offered that the typological nature of an assemblage can change from the less intensely utilized Denticulate to Quina. This was based on key two factors: occupational intensity and raw material availability ( Ibid. ). Their model predicted that more intense or longer occupation will result in more intense utilization of raw material ( Ibid. ). The proximity of a site to a raw material source also impacts the intensity of utilization of a stone tool. If a site is close to raw material source, then the stone tool will be less intensely utilized ( Ibid. ). They predicted that this model could be tested through intersite comparisons of assemblages from sites that rich or poor in raw material to see if the variability shifts toward or away from Quina scraper percentages

(Ibid. 17).

While the Rolland-Dibble model helped understand the variability across

Charentian, Denticulate and Typical Mousterian, it did not address the behavioral

67 changes within the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition. The MTA appears in the archaeological record of southwestern France ~50kya and is recognized by the presence of bifaces and backed knives (Peyrony 1920 in Soressi 2004: 344). Soressi explained the variability within this industry through the technological analysis of MTA assemblages from four sites in the Périgord. She offered a concise description of the two sub-facies of the MTA, MTA Type A and MTA Type B (2004:344). The MTA Type A is characterized by a higher incidence of hand-axes and biface production debitage whereas the MTA Type B is characterized by a higher incidence of backed knives and elongated flakes ( Ibid. ). Soressi noted that the proportion of scrapers decreases from the MTA Type

A to the MTA Type B ( Ibid. 346-348). Based on the stratigraphic sequences at Pech de l’Azé, Le Moustier, and La Rochette, MTA Type B are chronologically younger and possibly represented successive occupation events (Ibid. ).

At these sites, access to raw material did not appear to have impacted the behavioral change between the two MTA types. This was because the same flint was utilized throughout the MTA and after ( Ibid. ). The analysis indicated that there was technical unity throughout the MTA because the method of retouching bifaces to asymmetrical shapes occurred in both MTA Type A and B ( Ibid. 346). As biface production generated flakes and multipurpose tools, Soressi proposed that the dearth of bifaces in the MTA Type B was a result of choice. Based on the analysis of assemblages from Le Moustier, Pech de l’Azé, La Rochette, and La Grotte, Soressi identified evidence that the change from MTA Type A to Type B appears to be highly correlated with settlement dynamics and long-term resource planning ( Ibid. 361).

68

Soressi’s explanation for the behavioral shift during the MTA is useful for understanding how Merveilles fits into the cultural and technological landscape of the

Middle Paleolithic in southwestern France. It is very possible that based upon the site descriptions of both MacCurdy and Delage, the stratigraphy at Merveilles might support the idea that either or both MTA types were present. A stratigraphic delineation between the two types may have been missed due to the historical excavation techniques. In addition, there is the simple fact that recognition of two separate MTA types did not occur until Bordes suggested the idea. If the two MTA types were present at Merveilles, then it would be expected that the lithic analysis would demonstrate high concentrations of both bifaces and backed knives for the MTA level designated by MacCurdy. However, the lithic analysis of the Merveilles material shows that both the total Acheulean

(percentage of handaxes and backed knives) and Unifacial Acheulean (percentage of backed knives) indices are low for the Lower Mousterian levels at Abri des Merveilles.

Neither MTA type appears to have occurred at Merveilles.

The final cultural level identified by MacCurdy at Merveilles was the

Aurignacian, specifically the Upper Aurignacian (1931:21). It is noteworthy to mention again that both MacCurdy and Delage remarked on the relative thinness of the level, approximately 5cm, compared to the two Mousterian layers (MacCurdy 1931; Delage

1936). In addition, MacCurdy mentioned that the Aurignacian level only appeared above the roadway boundary at varying thicknesses (1931:14). In terms of modern excavation techniques this would not be considered unusual. In fact, what is highly unusual is the fact that MacCurdy recognized it at all. Both Delage and MacCurdy indicate that the

Aurignacian level was not particularly artifact-rich (MacCurdy 1931; Delage 1936).

69

While he did not mention it outright, there must have been a significant change in soil color or texture for him to delineate a new level from the Mousterian levels. Delage did note that his excavations yielded a sterile layer of fallen rock between what MacCurdy had called the MTA and the Aurignacian layer (1936: 583). The reason that MacCurdy distinguished this level as Upper Paleolithic can be traced back to his thoughts on the

Upper Paleolithic at the time. MacCurdy stated,

“The Upper Paleolithic is divided into three epochs, the Aurignacian of Breuil, and the Solutrean and Magdalenian of de Mortillet. It is marked by a complete transformation of both the cultural and the ethnic elements. The cleaver and the scraper are replaced by a stone industry based on the evolution of the blade-like flint flake, and bone comes into more general use with improved methods of working it…being contemporary with the mammoth and the reindeer, soon learned to make use of two additional by-products of the chase-ivory and reindeer horn. For the working of these new materials (as well as of bone), various forms of the flint graver were perfected” (1924:154).

MacCurdy’s understanding of the specifically Upper Aurignacian toolkit was that it was composed of bone points, Gravettian-type points, busked gravers/burins, and carinated and strangled scrapers ( Ibid. 165). He believed that the production, use, and evolution of the graver/burin introduced Upper Paleolithic people to the utilitarian function of debitage, specifically the microliths left behind. For MacCurdy, this was an innovative threshold that humans had crossed and Neanderthals had not, “…for Upper

Paleolithic culture was of such a nature as to require processes undreamed of by the primitive Mousterians” ( Ibid. ). MacCurdy’s interpretation of the burin as a specific type of tool for working bone, ivory, and antler and then as a bladelet core is laudable since he recognized the multifunctional purposes of the tool. Barton et al. have since demonstrated that “burination served as an alternative technique to retouch for modifying or removing

(i.e. spalls) from the edges of flakes and especially, blades” as well as serving as tangs for

70 hafting the tool (1996:122). Since blades were more common in the Upper Paleolithic, burination represents an innovation in technology that needs to be explained.

The Aurignacian has classically been considered representative of the early Upper

Paleolithic and has been typically associated with anatomically modern humans and the fully modern suite of cultural behaviors (Mellars 2004: 461). The Aurignacian range of lithics includes (but is not limited to nor must contain all) nosed-scrapers, carinated scrapers, endscrapers on blades and/or flakes, busque and/ or Vachons burins, Dufour bladelets, Font-Yves/Krems type bladelets, and split-based or lozengic osseous points

(Bar-Yosef 2006:15; Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2005:108). New excavations and analyses have provided evidence for significant variability within this industry much like the complexity involved in teasing out the Mousterian over the past century (Bordes 2006;

Teyssandier et al. 2010; Barshay et al. 2012). This is particularly troublesome for understanding the early Upper Paleolithic when one considers the Chatelperronian

(attributed most recently to Neanderthals) as well.

Currently, at least two facies of the early Aurignacian have been distinguished: the Protoaurignacian and the Early Aurignacian (Teyssandier et al. 2010:211). The

Protoaurignacian is characterized by slender “long rectilinear bladelets, which are transformed into pointed bladelets by bilateral direct retouch (so-called Krems and Font

Yves Points…) and/or bladelets with alternate retouch (Dufour bladelets…)” ( Ibid. 212).

Font-Yves points, however are in the latest evolved Aurignacian at Abri Pataud (Bricker,

Brooks, Clay, and David 1995). The Early Aurignacian is characterized by large, thick, and curved blades in addition to short, curved, and unretouched bladelets made from

71 carinated cores (Teyssandier et al. 2010: 212). Osseous tools are also associated with the

Early Aurignacian.

A nagging holdover from 19 th century archaeology is the idea that Neanderthals were incapable of producing anything but inferior Mousterian artifacts. Combined with the concept of linear evolution, there has been the historical expectation of a transitional phase between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. That transitional phase was described as the Chatelperronian, a sort of pathetic attempt by Neanderthals at modern human behavior. The contention that the Chatelperronian was a transitional culture sequence was recently challenged. First, new accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements support that Chatelperronian and Protoaurignacian populations were contemporaneous between ~45- 40.5kya at Grotte du Renne (Soressi and Roussel 2014:

2685; Hublin et al. 2012). In addition, contact between populations of the two groups was inferred from the lithic analysis of bladelet production from Grotte du Renne and

Quinçay (Soressi and Roussel 2014: 2687-2688). While the methods were similar for producing Dufour bladelets recovered from Chatelperronian and Protoaurignacian layers, the debitage indicated that the rhythm of knapping was different ( Ibid. 2689). The authors proposed that “stimulus diffusion” was responsible for the transmission of the “idea” of

Dufour bladelets in addition to personal ornamentation ( Ibid. 2691). According to Soressi and Roussel, “The Chatelperronian is an early Upper Paleolithic industry with blade and bladelet production, personal ornaments and bone-tool production and use, and without any formal flake production” ( Ibid . 2691). In all cases of early Upper Paleolithic sites with stratigraphic integrity, Chatelperronian levels are above Mousterian and below

Aurignacian levels in the sequence ( Ibid. 2692).

72

It became apparent when reviewing the field reports and given the slope of the site toward the roadway that the upper level at Merveilles may not be exclusively

Aurignacian. It simply was not Mousterian for MacCurdy. According to Delage’s report, flint knives were recovered toward the top of the MTA level by the American crews and were very similar to the type of blade from the Audi site near Les Eyzies (1936). At the time, this type of blade was considered suggestive of the Chatelperronian or Lower

Aurignacian.

In the top level, MacCurdy noted the presence of typically Aurignacian strangled blades and burins but no osseous tools. In his own classification scheme, this level should have been interpreted as Lower Aurignacian not Upper. It seems that the only reason he chose to label the layer Upper Aurignacian is due to the presence of what he called

“Gravettian blades”. Also, as the Gravettian had been classified by Breuil as the Upper

Aurignacian during the time frame of the Merveilles excavations, MacCurdy simply identified anything earlier than the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean industry as Upper

Aurignacian (Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2005: 108). It was not until 1933 that Peyrony divided the Aurignacian of the Vezere Valley into two distinct “phyla” (Peyrony 1933:

559). He classified the Lower and Upper Aurignacian as the “Perigordian” and the

Middle Aurignacian as the “Aurignacian” (Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2005: 108).

According to Peyrony’s scheme, the Perigordian and Aurignacian would have been parallel or contemporaneous cultures ( Ibid. ). The new classification placed the

Chatelperronian after the Mousterian but below both the Perigordian and Aurignacian

(Peyrony 1933: 558-559.). Peyrony also mentioned that Merveilles exhibited Gravettian lithics in his ( Ibid. ).

73

It is evident that this Upper Paleolithic level was not a priority for MacCurdy.

However, it does represent an interesting segment of the archaeological record in the region. The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of the site replaced the manufacturers of two lengthy Mousterian occupation layers. The sites on the other side of the rock formation

(like Abri Castanet) do not have a Mousterian component thus there was no replacement of this magnitude. Replacement only happened at Merveilles and Sous-Castel-Merle (the rock shelter adjacent to Merveilles on the same side of the rock formation).

Whether the upper level is Chatelperronian or Protoaurignacian at Merveilles, the potential exists for finding bladelets and/or debitage in MacCurdy’s or Delage’s backdirt via wet/window-mesh screening. In turn, the recovery of Dufour bladelets would provide us with some idea if the later inhabitants of Merveilles were Neanderthals or anatomically modern humans (AMH). In any event, the probability of contributing to the ongoing discussions regarding the Neanderthal-AMH cultural and technological interactions and/or transmission is high for the Abri des Merveilles lithic collections.

74

CHAPTER 5

Methodology

Once the historical context of the Merveilles excavations was chronicled, potential locations of the dispersed Merveilles collections were identified. The investigation of accession records from many of these institutions supplied evidence to support or reject further research for this project. Out of all the recipient institutions, three museums possessed collections that were assessed to have large enough data sets to evaluate potential collection biases through an analysis of lithic attributes and types. The combination of the metric attribute analysis, Bordes’ classification scheme, and statistical analyses were employed to gauge the soundness of the cultural levels assigned by

MacCurdy at Merveilles.

In comparison to hundreds of other Paleolithic sites in the surrounding region, the site of Abri des Merveilles exhibited some unique features that emerged during the course of MacCurdy’s excavations. Thus, a comprehensive study of its lithic collection was determined to be crucial to future archaeological investigations, particularly in the

Vézère Valley. Merveilles and the adjoining smaller site of Sous Castel-Merle (now known as Blanchard II) are the only sites out of the nine located within the Ruisseau des

Roches valley yielding a Mousterian component (MacCurdy1925; 1926; 1927; 1931) (see

Figure 24 in Appendix 1). In addition, Merveilles is the only one with an associated

Homo neanderthalensis fossil- a molar tooth (MacCurdy 1931; Trinkaus 1976). Finally, the site yielded seven exquisite stone tools produced from rock crystal, an uncommon raw material sourced by MacCurdy to nearly 90 miles north “near to and beyond the headwaters of the Vézère in the direction of Limousin and Puy-de-Dome” (1931:19).

75

MacCurdy (1931) claimed that rock crystal tools dating to the Mousterian were very rare in the Dordogne (Ibid . 17-18). MacCurdy attributed the presence of the rock crystal tools in the Mousterian layers as evidence of an aesthetic sense in early hominins (MacCurdy

1926).

As previously documented, artifacts from Abri des Merveilles were shipped back to the United States at the end of every ASPR field season. The majority of that material was shipped to the National Museum of Natural History which is conveniently located near George Washington University (for the purposes of this project). After reviewing the personal papers of MacCurdy and the ASPR at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology at Harvard University, it became apparent that a few other institutions also received portions of the collection between 1924 and 1930. Some of these institutions were not identified in MacCurdy’s field journal as having received shipments from

France at the end of the field seasons (MacCurdy journal in ASPR Records Box 4.0,

1919-1947). These institutions included the Peabody Essex Museum (Salem,

Massachusetts), Harvard University, Elmira College (Elmira, New York), and the Musée des Antiquités Nationale (St. Germain-en-laye, France). The dispersal of Merveilles artifacts to these establishments must have occurred upon MacCurdy’s return to the US and was likely handled by his assistant, J. Russell.

The curator at each of these institutions was contacted for accession records for

Merveilles. Elmira College is now known as the Arnot Art Museum and there was no record of Merveilles accessions there. The hominin molar recovered from Merveilles is curated at Harvard University but no lithics were identified in its Peabody Museum collections. No response was ever received from the Peabody Essex Museum in regard to

76

Merveilles lithic material. From the museum website, it appears that the Peabody

Museum of Salem merged with the Essex Institute in 1992 to form the Peabody Essex

Museum. Presumably, Merveilles artifacts were sent to either a board member of the museum or in return for a donation to the ASPR.

The institutions that had received shipments from Merveilles in the 1920s were also contacted to see if they had any part of the Merveilles lithic collection. It was determined that the most substantial portions of Merveilles lithics aside from the NMNH assemblage were those located at Yale University’s Peabody Museum and the University of Michigan’s Museum of Anthropology. In addition, the peculiarity of the rock crystal tools in Mousterian levels called for a formal analysis of these artifacts at the Musée des

Antiquités Nationale (MAN) (Figures 25-29 in Appendix 1). The rock crystal lithics were measured and analyzed on July 22, 2001 at MAN. Unfortunately, these lithics could not be utilized in the statistical analysis because of the small sample size of lithics from

MAN. No other lithic material from Abri des Merveilles was determined to be curated at

MAN.

The lithic analysis of the Abri des Merveilles material involved three phases. The first phase was the data collection including measurements and diagnostic descriptions.

The precise measurement of these artifacts led to the second and third phases of analysis.

The second phase was utilizing the Bordian Method to classify the lithics as well as incorporating the suggested adaptations to the method by Debénath and Dibble (1994).

This analysis focused on the typological and technological similarities and differences between the three museums’ assemblages across MacCurdy’s assigned stratigraphic levels, the Lower Mousterian (LM), the Upper Mousterian (UM or U), and the

77

Aurignacian (A). For the Aurignacian level, only certain aspects of the Bordian Method were utilized. The results of this analysis will be discussed in the next chapter and the tables of measurements and indices will be available in Appendix 2.

The third phase was the examination of the three different museums’ data and looking at the results from a purely statistical point of view using the statistics program,

SPSS. This examination involved assessing the differences and significance of variability between the three assemblages’ metric attributes. The purpose of this phase was to assess the variability across the museum collections in order to test if each institution received a roughly similar representative sample of each of Merveilles field seasons’ yields. In addition, a series of tests were run to determine whether specific metric attributes differed across the stratigraphic levels for each museum’s collection. This phase of analysis also tested whether specific metric variables could significantly predict other metric attributes for the entire Merveilles lithic collection (meaning conflating the three museum collections into one large dataset).

Phase I of the Lithic Analysis: Dimensional Data Collection

The metric attributes employed in this study were measured as directed in the

Handbook of Paleolithic Typology (Debénath and Dibble 1994) and from one-on-one demonstrations by Dibble in April of 2002. Recording the data systematically and in a consistent manner should enable intersite comparisons of data sets already measured by the authors of the Handbook and their colleagues and students. According to Shott, attribute analyses are “potentially more consistent, more systematic, and based on measures that are defined more objectively” than typological approaches (2015:13). An

78 attribute analysis of the artifacts will provide information on differences in the technological reduction sequence(s) or chaîne opératoire(s) over time at Merveilles.

All attributes were measured in millimeters with manual calipers. Angles were measured with a goniometer. A Peer 10x/15x hand lens was utilized to discern retouch, edge damage, or historical markings. Attribute data were recorded for formal flake tools and whole flakes or partial flakes with platforms intact. If the lithic was broken or incomplete, length was not recorded. Historical markings or perceived technology types

(as discussed below) were recorded. Cores were measured for length, width, and thickness. Bifaces were measured according to an abbreviated version of Bordes’ system for bifaces and handaxes. This was due to the small biface sample size and misplaced artifacts from storage boxes at the NMNH Museum Support Center (1961). Biface fragments were excluded from the statistical analyses but were documented and included in the final count of lithics for the collections. The following section describes the metric attributes in detail and the reasons for choosing specific attributes for the next two phases of the lithic analysis.

Metric Attributes

“Year ” refers to the year of ASPR excavation (not necessarily the year of accession to the museums). These years were deduced from a comparison of accession records,

MacCurdy’s personal journals, correspondence letters, ASPR records and publications

(Petraglia and Potts 2004; Bricker 2002; Jelinek 2013; White and Brietborde 1992). This variable will be important for determining the differences in artifact type frequencies retained per year of excavation across each museum’s collection. In addition, further

79 analyses utilizing the “Year” variable will help define the correlations between metric variables collected from each museum per cultural level.

“Museum ” refers to the location where the dispersed Merveilles material is curated and was studied by the author. The designation for each museum is as follows:

(1) =University of Michigan, (2) =Yale, (3) =NMNH. This variable will also help identify collection bias and will allow a comparison of the data sets within each collection.

“Cortex ” refers to the amount of “natural surface” on the lithic material, typically described as being “more calcareous in composition than the highly siliceous interior flint” (Debénath and Dibble 1994:10). Cortex can be the result of chemical weathering of the exterior of the rock (Andrefsky 1998:101). For other lithic material like quartz or quartzite, the cortex can appear to be rough or have a polished or smoothed exterior surface of the original raw material. This is the result of mechanical weathering like river rolling or sand abrasion over time ( Ibid. ). According to Andrefsky, “The amount of cortex present on the dorsal surface of flake debitage has been used as an indicator of the reduction stage for tools and nontools” ( Ibid. ). In order to get into the workable rock within the raw material, the weathered area needs to be removed first ( Ibid. ). Thus, technologies like Quina, Pontinian, and Clactonian which aim at producing large cortical flakes from cores at the beginning of the reduction sequence should yield assemblages with high frequencies of cortical or partially cortical debitage ( Ibid. ). This is in contrast to technologies like blade production or recurrent Levallois which begin with the removal of all cortex followed by the removal of noncortical interior debitage ( Ibid. ). According to

80

Dibble et al. , “The longer reduction continues, the overall assemblage should become more noncortical and smaller in size ( Ibid. ).”

The amount of cortex in an assemblage may also provide information regarding raw material transportation (Dibble 2005: 546). As Dibble points out, a quarry site should yield the initial steps in lithic reduction and thus yield higher percentages of cortex

(Ibid. ). Based on MacCurdy’s observations around the site, the major source of raw material was right above the rockshelter’s entrance (1931). Due to the close proximity of

Merveilles to a possible raw material source, it should be expected that the percentage of cortex per lithic will be high relative to non-cortical (see Dibble 2005:547). Cortex percentage was arbitrarily designated as follows: (0)= 0%, (1)=1-25%, (2)=26-50%,

(3)=51-75%, (4)=76-100%.

“Length ” was measured from the point of percussion to the most distal end of the flakes or flake tool as per Dibble (personal communication 4/2002) for complete flakes or tools.

This length measurement is also known as the “axis of the piece” according to the

Handbook and is considered the “morphological axis” (17). Length for bifaces or cores was the measurement of the axis of the piece or the longest edge and is represented as a separate length measurement labelled “Maximum Length”. The length of the lithic is important for examining the correlations between length and other metric variables which might affect the flintknapping process and therefore influence the morphology of the final product.

“Axis of Flaking” was measured from the proximal portion of the lithic, bisecting the bulb of percussion through to the distal end. This axis should be perpendicular to the

81 striking platform and is considered the “technological axis” ( Ibid .). The measurements of the “axis of flaking” and the “axis of the piece” may be the same for flakes or flake tools.

“Width ” was measured perpendicular to the length for flakes and flake tools as per

Dibble (personal communication 4/2002). Width for bifaces and cores was measured at the midpoint perpendicular to the axis of the piece or the longest edge and labelled

“Perpendicular Width”. The width of the lithic is important for examining the correlations between width and other metric variables which might affect the flintknapping process and therefore influence the morphology of the final product.

“Thickness ” was measured was at the point where the length and the width intersect for all flake tools and flakes Dibble (personal communication 4/2002). For bifaces and cores, thickness was measured at the midpoint of the piece and labelled “Midpoint Thickness”.

The thickness of the lithic is important for examining the correlations between thickness and other metric variables which might affect the flintknapping process and therefore influence the morphology of the final product.

“Platform Type ” was recorded as (0)=none, (1)=cortical, (2)=plain, (3)=partial cortical and plain, (4)=dihedral, (5)=faceted, (6)=punctiform, (7)=lip.

“Platform Width ” was measured from one lateral margin of the platform to the other on both flakes and flake tools (Debénath and Dibble 1994:19).

“Platform Thickness ” was measured as the distance from the point of percussion to the opposite exterior edge ( Ibid. ). The platform thickness has been shown to be particularly important for examining the correlations between other metric variables which might affect the flintknapping process and therefore influence flake size.

82

“Platform Area ” was determined from the platform measurements of complete and proximal flakes and tools. For this variable, platform width and platform thickness were multiplied.

“Exterior Platform Angle ” was measured from the surface of the striking platform and the exterior or dorsal face of the lithic, directly in line with the axis of percussion to a distance equal to the platform thickness (Dibble 1997:153). If the angle was not able to be determined due to platform or exterior surface irregularities, then the measurement was not included in the analysis ( Ibid. ). This variable has been shown to have significant effects on flake size and correlates with platform thickness.

“Shape of LE ” can be described as straight, convex, concave. According to Dibble,

“Examination of both flake thickness and platform area, two features that are not significantly affected by retouching, shows that the most heavily reduced pieces are found on blanks that are thicker and have larger platforms than those tools that are not so heavily reduced. This shows on average that it was the largest blanks that were retouched the most” (Dibble 1987:115).

While the longest edge might be one of the functional edges of the tool and thus subject to change over time through use and retouch, the shape was recorded to see if there happened to be any correlation between platform dimensions, flake dimensions, and the shape of that edge within in Merveilles collection.

“Raw Material Type ” encompasses a range of rock varieties utilized in the lithic reduction technologies at the site. The types are as follows: (1)=Flint; (2)=Chalcedony;

(3)=Quartz; (4)=Quartzite; (5)=indeterminable.

83

“Technology ” was recorded as Levallois, normal (or not Levallois), other (Upper

Paleolithic), or indeterminable. This was determined based on the appearance of the flake scars and compared with the accession records.

“Lithic Type ” refers to the number of the formal tool type within the Bordian

Classification system. However, many lithics did not fit within the Bordian typology and were typed as one of the following: (a)=shatter; (b)=potlid piece; (c)=normal core;

(d)=heated shatter; (e)=cortical flake; (f)=naturally backed knife with retouch;

(g)=backed knife with retouch; (h)= Levallois core; (i)=other core; (j)=scraper fragment;

(k)=indeterminable; (m)=Upper Paleolithic bladelet; (n)=other flake; (p)=biface;

(q)=hammerstone; (r)=pebble; (s)=burin spall; (t)=Upper Paleolithic blade;

(u)=indeterminable fragment; (v)=flake fragment; (x)=biface fragment; (0)=normal flake.

“Cultural Level ” refers to MacCurdy’s division of the stratigraphy at Merveilles into 3 distinct levels of occupation. As mentioned before, MacCurdy and his students marked material from the top level with an “A” indicating an Upper Paleolithic cultural level called the Aurignacian. The specimens marked “U” or “UM” were removed from the middle level or what MacCurdy called the Upper Mousterian. Specimens from the bottom level were not marked and thus any specimens not marked were considered from the Lower Mousterian. This variable was also utilized to identify collection bias from the field through to the museum shelves. Furthermore, the metric attributes for flakes were looked at closely per cultural level to identify any technological patterns.

“Retouch Type ” was recorded for exterior, interior, transverse, and distal edges as discerned from the point of percussion. This attribute first and foremost defines a formal tool from debitage. For instance, #10 below would distinguish between a formal tool and

84 either debitage or perhaps an expediently utilized flake. The kind of retouch in combination with its location on the artifact then determines the type of tool it is within the Bordian classification scheme (Debénath and Dibble 1994:35). The types of retouch were recorded as (1)=scalar, (2)=stepped, (3)=subparallel, (4)=parallel, (5)=abrupt,

(6)=one notch, (7)= two or more notches, (8)=burinated, (9)=double burinated, (10)=edge damage so no retouch, (11)=alternating, (12)=bifacial. These types are defined in the

Handbook and were documented accordingly. This variable will be utilized for calculating the Quina Indices for each cultural level.

Once the measurements were entered into Microsoft Excel, the mean and standard deviation for the dimensional data were calculated for each cultural level from each

Museum collection (Tables 2-4 in Appendix 2).

Phase II of the Lithic Analysis: The Bordian Method

The information gathered from the attribute analysis was first classified into typological and technological classes and indices according to Bordes. Although a typological analysis is not generally considered the best method for identifying patterns or variability in assemblages, it is the most effective way of sorting and organizing the

Merveilles material, specifically the formal tools. A combination of the two approaches for this project allowed for the most systematic comparison of the data between levels, museums, and other local sites with Mousterian components (Shott 2015:13). The main reference for the classification of the tool assemblage was again the Handbook of

Paleolithic Typology by Debénath and Dibble in combination with Bordes’ classification scheme (1994). A type assignment was provided for most lithics in addition to a perceived technology type based on exterior surface morphology or flake scars. For

85 lithics which did not fit into Bordes’ classification scheme, a set of additional types was created under the variable “Lithic Type” (see above). Finally, for this phase of the analysis, it was necessary to look at platform and typological class by technological class as per the Roth et al. lithic analysis of the levels at Combe-Capelle Bas (1995). This provided information on unretouched complete flakes and retouched tools compared in the reduction sequence and the level of platform preparation.

The Bordian typology was created in order to describe and organize artifact assemblages. It has continued to be used in this manner into the present. The reason for its’ continued usage is a matter of consistency and practicality. As Jelinek points out,

“In archaeology, a potentially enormous number of classifications of physical properties could be made for any collection of artifacts, most of which would be irrelevant to questions relating to the ways in which they were physically or socially employed or to the traditions of their manufacture” (2013: 94).

This was exactly what happened at the beginning of the lithic analysis for this project.

Faced with the possibility of taking hundreds of extra measurements for each assemblage, it became necessary to employ a more concise and easily replicable method of classification. As a result, the Bordian classification scheme was selected as the best organizational method for the Merveilles material. Since the method has been the preferred classification scheme for many sites in southwestern France, it was important to use a system that would allow for the Merveilles collection to be included in broader regional comparisons.

Francois Bordes’ method marked a shift away from describing cultural layers by

“index fossils” discarded by human ancestors before the appearance of modern humans in the Upper Paleolithic (Dibble and Lenoir 1995; Debénath and Dibble 1994: 174). The

86 main goal of using this typology is to describe what remains in each of the three dispersed collections from Merveilles. Bordes’ type list includes formal tools on large flakes, chopping implements (not made from flakes), and lithics with no retouch like

Levallois points and flakes ( Ibid. ) (Table 1 in Appendix 2). Bordes chose to include choppers but not bifaces in his primary typelist of 63 types. Bordes considered choppers and chopping tools as products of core technology and bifaces as the products of both core and flake blank technologies.

To make things more complicated, McPherron points out in his study of bifaces at

Tabun, it is possible that a biface reduction strategy involved the retention of cortex on the base of a tool (2003: 63). He states that this type of biface with a cortical base could be confused with a chopping tool ( Ibid. ). Debénath and Dibble refer to these types of bifaces as “bifaces à talon réservé” (1994:149). In fact, it has also been acknowledged that discerning a chopper or chopping tool from a core might also be quite difficult because the tool is essentially the core (Debénath and Dibble 1994: 12, 126). Thus, the potential problem with differentiating between cores, choppers/chopping tools, and bifaces like those with cortical bases is that examples of all three types may be “right at the boundary between cores and core tools” ( Ibid. 126). It should also be noted that a portion of the biface assemblage from NMNH was unavailable for study at the time the project was undertaken. Thus, the results for the biface component does not reflect the actual count of these specific artifacts. However, the biface assemblage which was studied provided an opportunity for learning the technique of biface measurement and understanding bifacial morphology.

87

Bordian Indices

The following indices were calculated from the metric attributes based on Bordes’ classification method. The first seven indices are considered typological and were determined for both the real count (all Bordian types 1 through 63) and the essential count (excluding Bordian types 1 through 3, 45, 46-49, 50, 5, and 38 a) for each museum collection by MacCurdy’s stratigraphic level (LM, UM, and A). The remaining indices represent the technological aspect of Bordes’ classification method for Lower and Middle

Paleolithic assemblages for each museum collection by MacCurdy’s stratigraphic levels

(LM, UM, and A).

“Typological Levallois Index ” (Ilty) was recorded as the number of Bordes’ types 1 through 4 divided by the total Bordian type count of 1 through 63 as per the Handbook for the real count. For the essential count calculations, only Bordes’ type 4 was divided by the essential total type count.

“Scraper Index ” (IR) was recorded as the percentage of Bordes’ types 9 through 29 relative to the total Bordian type count 1 through 63 as per the Handbook.

“Unifacial Acheulian Index ” (IAu) was recorded as the number of backed knives

(Bordian types 36 through 37) relative to the total Bordian type count of 1 through 63 as per the Handbook.

“Total Acheulian Index ” (IAt) refers to the number of bifaces and backed knives

(Bordes’ types 36 and 37) divided by the total Bordian type count 1-63 plus bifaces as per the Handbook.

88

“Biface Index ” (IB) includes the total number of bifaces divided by the total Bordian type count 1-63 in addition to the number of bifaces as per the Handbook.

“Charentian Index ” (IC) refers to the percentage of single convex scrapers (Bordes’ type 10) and transverse scrapers (Bordes types 22-24) relative to the total Bordian type count 1-63 as per the Handbook.

“Group I ” is defined as the Levallois typological group and should be the same as the

Typological Levallois Index as per the Handbook.

“Group II ” is defined as the Mousterian group and is calculated as the percentage of

Bordian types 5 through 29 out of the total Bordian type count 1 through 63 as per the

Handbook.

“Group III ” is defined as the Upper Paleolithic group and is calculated as the total of

Bordes’ types 30 through 37 plus type 40 divided by the total Bordian type count of 1 through 63 as per the Handbook.

“Group IV ” is defined as the Denticulate group and is calculated by the total type of notched and denticulate Bordian types 42 through 44, 51, 52, 54 as per the Handbook.

“Levallois Index ” (IL) is defined as the number of Levallois flakes, blades, and points

(retouched or not) divided by the total non-biface assemblage excluding non-artifacts including pebbles and unidentifiable material which is potentially not artefactual.

“Faceting Index ” (IF) is defined as the percentage of faceted and dihedral platforms

(platform types 4 and 5) relative to the total number of recognizable platforms on complete and proximal flake tools as per the Handbook.

89

“Strict Faceting Index ” (IFs) is defined as the percentage of only faceted platforms

(platform type 5) relative to the total number of recognizable platforms on complete and proximal flake tools as per the Handbook.

“Blade Index ” is a calculation of the total number of blades divided by the total number of complete flake tools regardless of technology. In this study, blades were considered any complete tool whose length was at least twice its width and follows the strict blade index suggested in the Handbook.

“Quina Index ” is defined by the total number of Bordian types 6-29 which exhibit Quina

(Retouch type 2) retouch relative to the total Bordian Quina types (6-29) according to the

Handbook. This includes typical and atypical Quina retouch because a distinction between the two could not be observed.

Phase III of the Lithic Analysis: Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Key Variables

The attribute analysis generated a body of data that that could be further evaluated through the statistical program, SPSS. Several texts on statistical analyses were consulted in order to understand the science of statistical analysis and the application of

SPSS in archaeological science (Balmes and Paterson 2006; Baxter 2015; Cleveland

1993; Fletcher and Lock 2005; Johnson 2004; Sokal and Rohlf 1995). For this project, metric attributes were considered continuous outcome variables whereas the three museums and the three cultural levels assigned by MacCurdy were considered categorical variables. It should be noted here that the statistical analysis took the entire studied collection into account and did not discriminate complete from incomplete flakes or tools.

90

The examinations of the differences across the museum collections by years of excavation and cultural levels were performed through one-way ANOVA tests. This type of test was utilized because it was necessary to find out if there was any relationship between the continuous outcome variables and the categorical variables. It was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean of a continuous outcome variable across the set of categorical variables. Another set of one-way ANOVA tests looked at whether the metric attributes differed across the three cultural levels designated by MacCurdy, conflating the entire Merveilles collection into one assemblage.

Chi-squared analyses were also performed in order to understand the relationships between categorical variables. According to Fletcher and Lock, “The Chi-squared test is a method of comparing observed frequencies (the data) with those expected under the null hypothesis of no association (or independence) between the two variables” (2005:129).

The first set of chi-squared tests examined the frequencies of the shape of the longest lithic edge, type of technology, and raw material type across the three museum collections. Another set of chi-squared tests was performed to determine if the shape of the longest edge, technology, and raw material as variables differed across MacCurdy’s cultural levels.

Multiple regression analysis offered the potential to look at how significant several independent variables play a role in predicting a dependent variable ( Ibid. 148-

151). A series of regression analyses was performed on Bordes types 1-63 to better understand if specific sets of variables could predict certain outcome (dependent) variables such as exterior platform angle, platform thickness, the shape of the longest edge, or the axis of flaking (or length) (Sokal and Rohlf 1998: 610-611). By accounting

91 for overlap between the predictor variables (such as width, thickness, platform width, or technology), the multiple regression analyses enable the examination of how each predictor variable “significantly and appreciably” affects the desired dependent variable.

Correlation analysis was undertaken to “measure the intensity of association between two variables and to test whether this correlation is greater than could be expected by chance alone. Once established, such association is likely to lead to reasoning about causal relationships between the variables” ( Ibid. 583-584). Two separate series of bivariate correlation analyses were undertaken to understand the relationship between two continuous variables such as length and width or width and amount of cortex for bifaces and the three technological types of cores from the largest collection at NMNH.

92

CHAPTER 6

Results and Discussion

This chapter provides the results of the three phases of lithic analysis and discusses the implications of those results for the Abri des Merveilles lithic collections curated at NMNH (formerly the US National Museum), the Yale museum, and the

University of Michigan museum.

Phase I of the Lithic Analysis: Dimensional Data Results

For the first phase of the lithic analysis, the total sample consisted of 2794 lithic artifacts not including the 7 rock crystal artifacts from MAN. This phase concentrated on understanding the differences between the three cultural levels as identified by MacCurdy across the museum collections. One aspect that did not fluctuate across the three museum collections was the raw material composition. The entire Merveilles collection is dominated by flint (97%), particularly grey in color. The remaining raw materials included tan flint, whitish quartz, yellowish quartzite, and tan chalcedony.

The largest assemblage analyzed was from NMNH totaling 2123 lithic tools and debitage. Yale’s assemblage consists of 442 lithic tools and debitage. The smallest assemblage is the University of Michigan’s collection and totals 229 lithic tools and debitage. For both Yale and NMNH, a sample size of approximately 75% of their total

Merveilles lithic collections were analyzed in contrast to 100% of Michigan’s collection.

Overall, the University of Michigan’s assemblage was the smallest. At each museum, the metric attributes of each artifact were recorded and the lithic tools were assigned the

Bordes’ type number when applicable. The dimensional data were then examined per

93 museum per cultural level and are included in Tables 2, 3 and 4. For the Lower

Mousterian, the museum assemblages are designated NMNH LM, Yale LM, and UMich

LM. For the Upper Mousterian, the assemblages are designated NMNH UM, Yale UM, and UMich UM. Finally, the Aurignacian assemblages were designated NMNH A, Yale

A, and UMich A.

The lowest level identified at Abri des Merveilles was the Lower Mousterian

(LM) layer and was described as Classical Mousterian. It was described by both

MacCurdy and Delage as being a lithic rich layer of predominantly naturally-backed retouched scrapers and the presence of rock crystal tools. The LM layer is described as having a depth of at least 0.3m and topped by 0.2m of a sterile layer prior to the appearance of the UM layer (Figure 30 in Appendix 1). The NMNH LM collection represents the largest sample from the three museums, followed by Yale and then UMich

(Table 5 in Appendix 2). Any remaining lithics that do not appear in the lithic assemblage counts were either indeterminable or determined not cultural.

The Merveilles Upper Mousterian (UM) is described as beginning 0.5m above ground (Delage 1936: 581-583). It is separated from the LM layer by 0.2m sterile layer in between (Figure 30 in Appendix 1). According to Delage, the depth of the UM layer was recorded as approximately 0.2m (1936: 583). As discussed earlier, the UM layer was appreciably less dense in lithic content than the LM layer. However, there was a notable increase in hand-axes. As a result, this level was historically assigned to the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition (MTA) due to the rise in the number of hand-axes. No rock crystal tools were found during excavations. In general, the level was described as bearing technologically “poorer” artifacts than the LM (Delage 1936: 593). Delage noted the

94 presence of Chatelperronian-type knives toward the top of the Upper Mousterian layer

(Ibid . 603).

Again, the largest UM lithic assemblage came from the NMNH followed by Yale and then UMich. The UM lithic assemblage composition for each museum can be found in Table 6, Appendix 2. Any remaining lithics not accounted for in Table 6 were either unidentifiable or non-cultural material. Interestingly, the UMich collection only had complete flakes and no proximal flake fragments. This supports a quite significant historic culling event(s) for the UMich UM assemblage. This might be due to pre- shipping decisions made at Merveilles per institution, post-shipping curatorial culling at

NMNH or UMich, or even mishaps (like loss or breakage of artifacts) over time during curation at any of the museums. The distal and midsection flake fragments appeared recently fractured.

The Merveilles Aurignacian (A) level was described by Delage as a thin greyish layer with a depth of 0.05 meters topped by 0.25 meters of humic soil (Figure 30 in

Appendix 1). It yielded a sparse number of burins, retouched knives, and Gravettian type points. Both MacCurdy and Delage decided this was an Upper Paleolithic level

(specifically Upper Aurignacian due to the presence of Noailles flint gravers, drills, bladelets, and strangled blades) (MacCurdy 1931: 21-23). It was surmised that the site was occupied briefly by modern humans due to the presence of these types of Upper

Paleolithic tools, worked reindeer horn, and a fragment of manganese oxide. The same stratigraphic sequence was reported by Peyrony at the neighboring site of Sous Castel-

Merle (now Blanchard II).

95

The lithic assemblages from the A level were scant in comparison to the two

Mousterian levels. The A lithic assemblage composition for the three museums is presented in Table 7 (Appendix 2). The NMNH A collection also yielded 27 Upper

Paleolithic types including 3 complete Upper Paleolithic complete tools. These tool types were measured but were not included in the analysis as they do not fit within Bordes’ type list. The Yale A assemblage yielded 12 Upper Paleolithic tools types (3 of which were complete). UMich A assemblage included 11 lithics that were classified as Upper

Paleolithic tool types. All three museums seem to have received similar distributions of lithics from MacCurdy’s Aurignacian level. It is also surmised that the low artifact density from this level (particularly bladelets and microblades) resulted from the issues of early excavation techniques. There was either no interest in or an inability to recognize small artifacts because the technique of dry or wet screening was not yet utilized.

Phase II of the Lithic Analysis: The Bordian Method Results

Complete flakes or flake tools provide the most reliable measurements for metric attributes and yield the most accurate information about the stage of lithic reduction at the time of disposal (flake and flake tool will be used interchangeably as per Bordes’ typology). A complete flake usually retains the striking platform on the proximal end and is not fractured towards the distal tip or side edges. Therefore, the striking platform, length (axis of flaking for this project), width, and thickness should be measurable for a complete flake/ flake tool. Only the dimensional data from complete lithic types 1-63 were utilized in the technological and typological analyses of the Merveilles collections

(except where explicitly stated otherwise- e.g. cores, bifaces, Upper Paleolithic type blades, etc.) from all three cultural levels designated by MacCurdy (NMNH LM= 814

96 complete flakes, Yale LM= 171 complete flakes, UMich LM= 72 complete flakes;

NMNH UM= 240, Yale UM=31, UMich=24; NMNH A= 5, Yale A UM=6, UMich A=9)

(see Tables 2-4 in Appendix 2). The results are presented below beginning with the deepest stratigraphic layer, Lower Mousterian (LM), then the Upper Mousterian (UM), and ending with the uppermost layer, the Aurignacian (A). The results are followed by a discussion of the differences between the assemblages from the three cultural levels across the three selected museums. In addition, it was necessary to address the variation in assemblage composition across the ASPR field seasons in order to assess future research potential.

Lower Mousterian Cultural Level

Analysis of the technological aspects of the lithics in the LM: Results

Many complete flakes across the three LM assemblages were not able to be typed technologically and were described as “normal” or “other” in the catalog. However, the

Levallois technology was utilized at Abri des Merveilles in the Lower Mousterian and the data are presented below and in Appendix 2. (Although not a significant number, there were 3 Levallois points identified in the NMNH LM and 1 Levallois point in the Yale

LM. UMich did not have any Levallois points.) For the complete flake components of the

LM assemblages, some interesting patterns emerged.

Variation in dorsal cortex retention on complete flakes/tools in the LM

The NMNH LM and Yale LM can be distinguished from UMich LM based on percentages of dorsal cortex (Table 8 in Appendix 2). Both NMNH LM and Yale LM demonstrated similar percentages of non-cortical complete flakes (approximately 12%

97 and 11.7% respectively). UMich LM yielded only 5 non-cortical flakes, representing

6.94% of its complete flake assemblage. Partially-cortical flakes dominated all three museum LM assemblages. NMNH LM and Yale LM both yielded approximately 83% partially-cortical flake components compared to UMich LM which yielded an approximately 92% partially-cortical flake component. The high percentages of partially- cortical flakes across the three museums’ LM assemblages offer support for the idea that local lithic procurement, reduction, utilization, and modification of flint sources were all occurring at Merveilles during the LM. MacCurdy had been quite confident that the raw material source for the Mousterian lithics was local (from the Castel-Merle rock formation within which Merveilles is located and the banks and bed of the Vézère River).

Naturally-backed lithics were identified across the LM cultural level in moderate proportions (NMNH LM= 15.6%, Yale LM= 10.5%, and UMich LM= 25.5%).

Naturally-backed lithics are those stone tools described as having cortical backing opposite to an unretouched yet utilized edge. The real counts (the proportion of Bordes’ types 1-63) per cultural level per museum were examined to determine the naturally- backed component (not just the complete flake component). While the UMich LM assemblage yielded the highest percentage of naturally-backed lithics, it is interesting to note that naturally-backed lithics make up roughly a quarter of the UMich LM collection.

The non-Levallois component across all three LM assemblages displayed the greatest percentages of partially-cortical complete flakes compared to the Levallois component (Table 8 in Appendix 2). Non-cortical complete flakes were identified in the non-Levallois component across the LM in smaller quantities than were partially-cortical complete flakes. The Levallois component across all three LM assemblages yielded only

98 non-cortical and partially-cortical complete flakes (Table 8 in Appendix 2). No fully- cortical flakes were documented for the LM Levallois. Only the non-Levallois component across the LM exhibited fully-cortical lithics.

Comparison of dimensional data on Levallois versus non-Levallois flakes in the LM

Complete Levallois flakes were not highly represented in the Yale or UMich LM assemblages, totaling 6 in each. The number of complete Levallois flakes was naturally higher for the NMNH LM due to its larger sample size (n=63). The percentage of

Levallois lithics was highest between the NMNH LM and UMich LM (7.74% and 8.33% respectively) (Table 9 in Appendix 2). The Yale LM yielded the smallest Levallois component (3.51%). Length and thickness measurements for the Levallois lithics were similar across all three LM assemblages (Table 10 in Appendix 2). Mean width measurements for the NMNH LM and UMich LM Levallois were almost the same

(49.33mm and 48.72mm respectively) but were higher for the Yale LM (56.43%).

The Levallois flake dimensions were longer by approximately 15mm than the technologically undiagnostic complete flake component (also called non-Levallois lithics here) in all three museums’ LM assemblages (Table 10 in Appendix 2). Width did not vary much across the museums depending on technology. The non-Levallois LM lithics were on average thicker than the Levallois component. The technologically undiagnostic complete flake sample metric proportions were similar across the LM for all three museums, except UMich had a slightly elevated mean thickness.

99

Platform type distribution in the LM

Most complete flake platforms were plain (non-cortical) (51.6% across the LM in all three museums) (Table 11 in Appendix 2). Although most of the platform types were plain, the NMNH LM had the greatest diversity of platform types particularly dihedral, faceted, and punctiform types (especially when looking at the non-Levallois component).

Cortical platforms were the second highest represented platform type across the LM

(28.2%) (Table 12 in Appendix 2).

The non-Levallois component for all three LM assemblages exhibited the greatest number of fully-cortical flakes with plain platforms. The NMNH LM yielded 37 fully- cortical complete flakes all of which exhibited non-cortical platforms (Table 13 in

Appendix 2). All the fully-cortical flakes with plain platforms from the NMNH LM were identified as non-Levallois. Half of Yale’s assemblage of complete flakes were fully- cortical with plain platforms. UMich had only 1 fully-cortical complete flake with a plain platform No Levallois flakes were identified as fully-cortical with plain platforms in any of the three LM collections.

For the non-Levallois component of the NMNH LM, partially-cortical complete flakes exhibited mostly plain and cortical platforms. Non-cortical complete flakes were not identified in great numbers for the NMNH LM non-Levallois component. However, the non-cortical complete flakes did exhibit higher percentages of plain, faceted, and punctiform platforms types than cortical, partially cortical, dihedral, and lipped platform types in the NMNH LM non-Levallois assemblage. For the Levallois component of the

NMNH LM, plain and faceted platforms were the main types identified for both the

100 partially-cortical and non-cortical complete flakes. Partially-cortical complete Levallois flakes also exhibited some cortical platforms.

Partially-cortical complete flakes in the Yale LM had mostly plain platforms and were mainly non-Levallois (Table 14 in Appendix 2). Cortical platforms on partially- cortical complete flakes were also identified in high numbers for the non-Levallois component of the Yale LM. Non-cortical complete flakes in the non-Levallois sample had mostly plain platforms. The sample of partially- and non-cortical Levallois complete flakes in the Yale LM is small (n=4) and exhibit plain, cortical, and faceted platform types.

The UMich LM assemblage similar proportions of platform type distributions across non-Levallois and Levallois technologies to the Yale LM assemblage when utilizing dorsal cortex as a variable (Table 15 in Appendix 2). Plain and faceted platform types appeared regardless of technology. Cortical platforms were only identified on partially-cortical non-Levallois complete flakes.

Based on the metric attributes of complete striking platforms across the LM, platform area was calculated (last column in Table 2 in Appendix 2). All measurements were in millimeters. A platform’s width and thickness (as recorded in database-but really length and width of the striking platform) were multiplied to calculate platform area for measurable flakes across the three LM museum assemblages. The mean platform area for each assemblage. The NMNH LM exhibited the greatest platform area (m=405.96 mm ) followed by the Yale LM (m=329.66 mm ) and UMich LM (m=282.29 mm ).

101

Retouch in the LM

Bordes created the Quina Index (IQ) for classifying very pronounced stepped retouch in Paleolithic assemblages (Debénath and Dibble 1994: 33, 176). For the purposes of this project, typical and atypical Quina retouch were included in the IQ ( Ibid .

176). The Quina Index is high for the NMNH and UMich LM assemblages (68.17 and

66.67 respectively) but much lower for the Yale LM (20.45). The NMNH LM has 3 scrapers with bifacial retouch and 25 déjéte scrapers. Yale LM yielded 1 scraper with bifacial retouch and 3 déjéte scrapers. UMich LM yielded no scrapers with bifacial retouch and 5 déjéte scrapers. For NMNH LM, 18 scrapers were secondarily classified notches or denticulates. Only 1 scraper in the Yale LM assemblage was secondarily classified as a notch/denticulate. UMich LM yielded 5 scrapers that were suspected of also being notches/denticulates. While Quina retouched double and convergent scrapers have similar representation across all the museums, retouched transverse and single scrapers dominate the Quina Index.

Description of cores in the LM

Of the 24 cores identified at NMNH LM, approximately half of them were

Levallois. Five of the Levallois cores had one central flake removed. It is possible that 4 were disc cores and were smaller than either the Levallois or technologically undiagnostic cores. The Yale LM yielded 4 Levallois cores and one had a central flake removed. The 2 remaining cores in the Yale LM were non-Levallois. When looking at the mean volume of the Levallois cores, they appear to be on average larger than either the technologically undiagnostic or possible disc cores. However, the range of the sizes of the Levallois cores in the Yale LM sample may explain why the standard deviation was

102 so high. The possible disc core in the Yale LM might be a Levallois core and its volume falls within the Levallois range for the sample. Of the 6 cores in the UMich LM sample, only 3 with metric measurements were able to be identified. The cores were technologically Levallois, blade, or undiagnostic. The Levallois core was the smallest, followed by the blade core. The undiagnostic core was the largest. The Levallois core had one central flake removal.

Description of blades in the LM

The NMNH LM collection had a much larger number of lithics which can be classified as blades including in the complete flake component (utilizing the conservative definition of a blade being twice as long as its width as per the Handbook). Neither of the other two collections have complete flakes that could fit into the blade category. This could have been a function of the lack of enough blade specimen to send out to other museums or curatorial avarice on Russell or MacCurdy’s part.

Analysis of the typological aspects of the lithics in the LM: Results

As previously mentioned, Bordes organized specific types of lithics into typological indices which then allowed him to further classify an assemblage into one of four Paleolithic groups. Bordes’ typological indices were based on explicitly defined sets of lithic types relative to the total type count (1-63) of an assemblage (Table 1 in

Appendix 2). These typological indices included the Typological Levallois Index, the

Scraper Index, the Total Acheulian Index, the Unifacial Acheulian Index, the Biface

Index, and the Charentian Index (Debénath and Dibble 1994: 176). Bordes further sorted

103 lithic types into groups that were defined as Group I (Levallois), Group II (Mousterian),

Group III (Upper Paleolithic), and Group IV (Denticulate) (Ibid .).

Based on the Bordian indices, all three LM assemblages are most highly represented by the Mousterian (Group II). The NMNH LM and Yale LM Group II percentages are similar while UMich LM has higher percentages overall of Upper

Paleolithic (Group III) and Denticulate (Group IV) types. The Scraper Index is high across the LM for the three museums and approximates closely to the Group II percentage figures. Transverse type scrapers, particularly convex edged types, dominate the IR indices for all three museums (NMNH LM= 54%, Yale LM =68%, UMich =53%).

The Mousterian (Group II) index was very high, notably for the essential count (71.73% real, 80.55% essential). The difference here between the Group II and IR indices is the inclusion of types 5, 6, and 8 (pseudo-Levallois points, Mousterian points, and limaces).

No pseudo- Levallois points were identified in the Merveilles LM material. The lithic analysis assigned 3 tools as “Mousterian points” (Bordes’ Type 6). Out of the 3

Mousterian points, 2 had no bulbs of percussion and were proximally thinned (fitting the

Handbook’s description of such types). One of the classic Mousterian points came from the Yale LM and the second came from the UMich LM. The third Mousterian point was identified in the UMich LM assemblage and had a measurable platform. The point had

“significant retouch” rendering it to be a Mousterian point as per the Handbook (62).

However, a notation was made that it may also fit within the category of déjeté scraper

(Type 21). Only 1 limace (type 8) was identified and was found in the Yale LM assemblage. Types 5, 6, and 8 were not identified in the NMNH LM assemblage.

104

The Levallois (Group I) and Upper Paleolithic (Group III) indices were low for both real and essential counts (I= 3.7% real, 4.20% essential; III= 5.27% real, 5.93% essential). Across the three museums, the Denticulate (Group IV) indices were also low.

However, denticulate types did have a good presence in the Merveilles LM (10.70% real,

12.01% essential). For the Group IV type lithics, the NMNH LM and Yale LM are dominated by denticulate forms. This is different from the UMich LM assemblage which has similar numbers of denticulates (n=6) and notches (n=7) out of its total Group IV

(n=15).

Finally, it was important to examine the variability of scraper types within the entire Merveilles LM collection and to assess and compare the percentages of scraper

“classes” or groupings of scraper types (single, double, transverse, and convergent). The quantity and variability of scraper classes will further aide in distinguishing the industrial class best correlated with the artifacts from a specific Middle Paleolithic stratigraphic level. For this phase of analysis, the percentage of scraper classes was determined by looking at the total number of types of scrapers within a scraper class relative to the total scraper count for the entire Merveilles LM collection. For example, the class of single scrapers (characterized by Types 9-11) for the Merveilles LM was determined by adding the total number of Types 9-11 for each museum LM assemblage [NMNH LM (n=292) +

Yale LM (n=51) + UMich LM (n=21)]. Relative to the total number of scrapers for the

Merveilles LM (n=972), the percentage of single scraper types was determined to be

37.4 %. The same method was employed for the other scraper classes (transverse types

22-24= 47.6 %, double types 12-17= 2.8 %, converse types 18-20= 2.9 %).

105

Upper Mousterian Cultural Level

Analysis of the technological aspects of the lithics in the UM: Results

Moving forward to the UM assemblages, other interesting patterns emerge that differentiate the level technologically and typologically from the LM at Abri des

Merveilles. The UM assemblages across all three museums were smaller in quantity than those of the LM cultural level. The UM lithic collections from Yale and UMich were small in comparison to that of the NMNH UM (Yale UM= 31, UMich= 24, and NMNH

UM= 240). Again, only complete flakes/tools were examined for this cultural level.

Variation in dorsal cortex retention on complete flakes/tools in the UM

The Merveilles UM complete flake lithics exhibited mainly partially-cortical dorsal backing like in the LM level (Table 16 in Appendix 2). The Yale UM assemblage yielded the highest proportion of partially-cortical complete flakes (90.32%) followed by

UMich UM (83.3%) and NMNH UM (77.5%). Fully-cortical complete flakes were not identified in either the Yale or UMich UM assemblages. The NMNH UM assemblage yielded only three fully-cortical flakes out of its complete flake assemblage (1.25%).

Non-cortical flakes were highly represented in the UM assemblages across the museums

(~48%) as compared to the LM assemblages (~31%). The NMNH UM yielded the greatest non-cortical component (21.3%). Non-cortical flakes were also fairly well- represented in the UMich UM (16.7%) but that assemblage was much smaller in comparison to that of the NMNH UM.

Naturally-backed lithics were well-represented in the real count of the UM assemblages across the three museums (NMNH UM=20.9%, Yale UM=15.4%, and

106

UMich UM=33.3%). Again, the real count is described as all the lithics that can be classified into one of Bordes’ 63 types. The proportions of naturally-backed lithics in the

UM were slightly higher than the LM but the distributions across the museums remained similar. Once again, the UMich UM assemblage demonstrated the highest proportion of naturally-backed lithics.

Similar to the LM assemblages, the non-Levallois component of all three UM assemblages displayed the greatest numbers of partially-cortical complete flakes (Table

16 in Appendix 2). The NMNH UM exhibited the highest percentage of partially-cortical

Levallois flakes (14.6%) in comparison to the Yale UM and UMich UM assemblages.

This is nearly three times the proportion of partially-cortical Levallois flakes identified in the NMNH LM assemblages. In addition, the NMNH UM yielded the greatest percentage of non-cortical Levallois flakes (10%) in comparison to the other UM assemblages. No fully-cortical flakes were documented for the UM Levallois (same as the LM level). The only full-cortical flakes recorded for this level were non-Levallois and appeared in the

NMNH UM assemblage.

Comparison of dimensional data on Levallois versus non-Levallois flakes in the UM

The NMNH UM Levallois complete flake count was greater than in the Yale and

UMich UM assemblages (14.5% versus 9.7% and 12.5% respectively) (Table 17 in

Appendix 2). The NMNH UM assemblage contained 35 Levallois flakes with measurable platforms while the Yale and UMich UM assemblages each yielded 3. The Yale UM

Levallois flakes were on average longer than the Levallois flakes in the other two UM assemblages. As stated earlier, there was concern about the amount of space the lithics were taking up at USNM. It is speculated here that the elongated Yale UM lithics ended

107 up in Connecticut due to the culling events which occurred at the USNM during Russell’s curatorial stint. It succinctly explains why there is a discrepancy in the lengths of lithics between Yale and the other two museums for the UM assemblages.

Width and thickness measurements for the Levallois lithics were similarly proportionate across the three museums’ collections. Length was variable as discussed above and was longest for the Yale UM assemblage. The non-Levallois complete flakes exhibited similar length, width and thickness measurements across the three UM collections. When compared to the Levallois component, the non-Levallois flakes were thicker on average across the three museums (Table 18 in Appendix 2).

Platform type distribution in the UM

Across the three UM assemblages, plain platforms were the most numerous for complete flakes (Table 19 in Appendix 2). As in the LM level, the NMNH assemblage for the UM exhibited the greatest diversity of platform types, particularly prepared platforms like dihedral and faceted types. The NMNH UM assemblage also demonstrated the highest number of cortical platforms. Interestingly, the naturally- backed complete flake component for NMNH UM had a higher distribution of plain platforms (no cortex).

After plain platforms, cortical platforms were the second highest represented platform type across the three UM assemblages.

Only the non-Levallois component of the NMNH UM yielded fully-cortical complete flakes and exhibited cortical and plain platform types (Table 20 in Appendix 2).

The Levallois and non-Levallois components of the NMNH UM assemblage yielded comparable quantities of non-cortical complete flakes with plain platforms. Non-cortical

108 complete flakes with faceted platforms were also similarly represented between the

Levallois and non-Levallois components of the NMNH UM. Across the three museums’

UM assemblages, the non-Levallois aspect of the NMNH UM exhibited the highest number of partially-cortical complete flakes with cortical and plain platforms. The

NMNH UM exhibited a much higher number of non-Levallois partially-cortical complete flakes with plain platforms compared to the Levallois flakes. Dihedral platforms for the

NMNH UM were present mainly on non-Levallois complete flakes but were not completely absent in the Levallois component. Naturally-backed flakes exhibited more dihedral platforms than other platform types in the NMNH UM sample.

Partially-cortical non-Levallois complete flakes in the Yale and UMich UM assemblages demonstrated more plain platforms than any other platform types. Cortical platforms were also identified on partially-cortical non-Levallois complete flakes in the

Yale UM and UMich UM. Non-cortical complete flakes in the Yale and UMich Um assemblages were not well-represented. These type flakes exhibited mostly plain platforms (Tables 21-23 in Appendix 2).

Retouch indices in the UM

For the UM level across the three assemblages, tools were categorized as those lithics fitting within the Handbook’s typology which exhibited “deliberate retouch”

(Debénath and Dibble 1994:174). In other words, the essential count represented the total number of retouched tools for each museum. Mean length, width and thickness did not vary significantly across the UM for the three assemblages, although the Yale UM scrapers were slightly longer and thicker than those of NMNH UM and UMich UM. The

UM level at Yale and UMich yielded low quantities of notches and denticulates as

109 compared to NMNH UM. The NMNH UM notches and denticulates were shorter on average while the UMich UM had the thickest (yet thinnest in width) notches and denticulates in comparison to NMNH and Yale. The UMich UM only yielded scrapers, notches, and denticulates while a variety of tool types was identified within the Yale UM and NMNH UM.

Most of the tools for the UM level were not Levallois and were identified as technologically normal (or simply not Levallois). NMNH UM had the highest proportion of Levallois tools (~19.6%) while Yale UM and UMich UM yielded less (~8.6% and

~6.8% respectively). The Levallois Indices (IL) for the three UM assemblages support this also. The Faceting Index (IF) for the two smaller collections was influenced by a lack of dihedral platforms. The Yale UM IF was 5%, UMich UM IF was 9.68%, and NMNH

UM was 15.38%. The IF and IFs (Strict Faceting Index excluding dihedral platforms) were the same for UMich and Yale UM levels. NMNH UM IFs differed from the IF due to the presence of dihedral platforms (11.54%). Only NMNH UM yielded blades and thus was the only assemblages that the Blade Index (Ilam) could be measured (7.05%). The final technological index utilized for the UM level was the Quina Index (IQ). UMich UM had the greatest IQ (71.43%) followed by Yale UM (63.33%) and NMNH UM (61.07%).

Description of cores in the UM

The NMNH UM yielded 13 cores of which 12 were Levallois cores and 1 was typed “other”. Levallois cores were identified based on shape (oval to oblong) and the presence of a flattened surface that has been flaked around the perimeter (in a centripetal fashion) to prepare a striking platform for the extraction of an elongated flake. The resulting core resembles a turtle’s shell. During the analysis, it was noted that six of these

110

Levallois cores had one central flake removed. Six of the Levallois cores retained 50-

100% exterior cortex on one side. Interestingly, the thickness measurements for the

Levallois cores are the most variable for the NMNH UM. The mean maximum length for the Levallois cores was 72mm and fluctuated between 2 shorter cores and several longer cores. The mean maximum width was ~62mm, showing little to no significant relationship to varying lengths or thicknesses. The mean maximum Levallois core thickness ranged from 14.6mm to 32.9mm. Two of the longest cores exhibited greater thicknesses on average. The Yale UM assemblage yielded 4 cores (2 Levallois, 1 normal, and 1 “other”). The two Levallois cores and the “other” core all had one central flake removed on the dorsal side. Although the population size is regrettably small for the Yale

UM assemblage, the Levallois cores demonstrated a pattern of morphological dimensions similar to that of the NMNH UM Levallois cores (meaning average Levallois core thickness was not impacted by length or width). One Levallois core had minimal cortex while the other had significant exterior cortex retention. The normal core retained 50-

75% cortex while the “other” core retained minimal cortex. As for the UMich UM assemblage, it yielded only 1 normal core which retained only minimal cortex. This core was noticeably weathered.

Analysis of the typological aspects of the lithics in the UM: Results

The typological indices were calculated for the real and essential counts for each

UM assemblage. For this aspect of the analysis, complete and proximal lithics were utilized. The Typological Levallois Indices (ILty) for NMNH UM and Yale UM were based on only the real count because neither had retouched Levallois points (Bordes’ type

4). Of the real counts for the ILty, NMNH UM had the greatest number (5%) followed by

111

UMich UM (6%) and Yale UM (3%). Only UMich UM had a type 4 lithic and thus the

ILty based on the essential count was 4%. The Scraper Index (IR) for each assemblage differed only slightly for the real and essential counts. For the IR, Yale UM had the greatest percentages for both counts (76.92% real, 78.95% essential). UMich UM had the second greatest percentages for both counts (63.64% real, 77.78% essential). Finally,

NMNH UM had the lowest percentages for the IR (50.34% real, 73.40% essential).

The Total Acheulean Index (IAt) for each assemblage was calculated by dividing the total number of bifaces (represented by “p” in the Merveilles database) plus typical and atypical backed knives (types 36 and 37) by a combination of the total type count and the biface count (Debénath and Dibble 1994:176). Although the numerical differences for the IAt between the three museums are very slight, it is still worth noting. The Yale UM assemblage yielded the highest IAt number (8%) followed by UMich UM (6%) and

NMNH UM (5%). The Unifacial Acheulean Index (IAu) differs from the IAt due to the exclusion of bifaces and only considers the backed knife types 36 and 37. Both NMNH

UM and UMich shared similar IAu values (3%) whereas Yale UM had the greatest IAu value (8%). The Biface Index (IB) looked at the relationship between the total number of bifaces and the total type count plus the biface count ( Ibid. .). The indices were very similar across the three UM assemblages (NMNH UM= 4%, Yale UM= 3%, UMich

UM= 3%).

Finally, the Charentian Index (IC) was determined for each UM assemblage based on real and essential counts. The Yale UM yielded the highest IC percentage based on the real count (51.28%) in comparison to UMich UM (42.42%) and NMNH UM (41.22%). A different pattern emerged for the IC based on the essential count. NMNH UM yielded the

112 greatest IC percentage (60.10%) in comparison to Yale UM (52.63%) and UMich UM

(51.85%).

As mentioned previously, further typological categories were created by Bordes to organize different lithic types into archaeologically meaningful units. These groups include Group I (Levallois type lithics), Group II (scrapers and Mousterian lithic types),

Group III (Upper Paleolithic lithic types), and Group IV (denticulates/ notches). NMNH

UM had the greatest number of Levallois types (Group I) followed by UMich UM and then Yale UM. However, Group I lithic types were not well represented in the UM assemblages in comparison to Group II lithic types.

Based on the Bordian indices, all 3 UM assemblages are solidly Mousterian

(Group II), just like the LM level. Yale Um and UMich UM shared greater real and essential percentages for Group II than the NMNH UM. The Yale UM had the highest proportion of Upper Paleolithic types (Group III) of the three assemblages (followed by

UMich and then NMNH). As for the denticulate types (Group IV), the NMNH UM has the greatest percentage of these types for the essential count (followed by UMich UM and then Yale UM). The real count for Group IV shows a different pattern: Yale UM yields the highest number of denticulates followed by NMNH UM and then the UMich UM.

The Scraper Index (IR) has the same values as the Mousterian (Group II) percentages for the three sets of UM lithics (NMNH UM= 50.34% real, 73.40% essential; UMich UM=

63.64% real, 77.78% essential; Yale UM= 76.92% real, 78.95% essential). No pseudo-

Levallois points, Mousterian points, elongated Mousterian points, or limaces (types 5-8) were identified in any of the UM assemblages.

113

Comparison of the lithic assemblages from the LM and UM by excavation year

The highest percentage of complete flakes recovered or retained as part of the

NMNH LM assemblage were part of the 1925 and 1926 summer field school yields

(Accession #s 90005 and 95150) representing approximately 70% of the total number of complete flakes. The paltriest quantities of complete flakes were recovered or retained from the 1924 and 1928 field seasons (Accession #s 84988 and 103151) representing approximately 9.5% of the total complete flake collection. There were no complete flakes either recovered or retained from the 1930 field season (Accession # 95604). The pattern holds somewhat the same for the quantities of tools for the NMNH LM across the field seasons. The highest percentage of tools in the NMNH LM collection were also from the

1925 and 1926 field seasons (Accession #s 90005 and 95150) representing approximately

67% of the total tool type count. The tool count yields per field season dropped until the

1929 field season assemblage which represents approximately 24% of the total tool collection for the NMNH LM. This is particularly the case for the most numerous

Bordian types of tools, type 9 single straight scrapers (n=113), type 10 single convex scrapers (n=160), and type 23 convex transverse scrapers (n=240). Only two tools were recovered or retained from the 1930 season.

For complete flakes and tools, a different pattern emerges for the NMNH UM material than the NMNH LM lithics. The highest percentages of complete flakes and tools recovered or retained within the NMNH UM collection occurred during the 1926 and 1927 field seasons (approximately 59% for complete flakes and 55% for tools). As with the NMNH LM, no complete flakes and only two tools were recovered or retained from the 1930 season. For the NMNH UM, two tool types dominated the collection-

114 convex transverse scrapers (Type 23) and naturally-backed knives (Type 38). There were twice as many bifaces (n=12) than in the NMNH LM.

It was imperative to evaluate how these percentages of complete flakes and tools compare to the numbers of accessioned “chipped stones” as they are referred to in the

NMNH accession records. The largest accessions of “chipped stones” were from the

1924 (n=806), 1925 (n=745) and 1926 (n= 694) field seasons at Merveilles. Taking into account that the 1924 field season NMNH LM assemblage was not fully examined for this thesis, it becomes evident why the 1924 assemblage for complete flakes and tool types appears so paltry in comparison to the other field seasons. Future research potential lies in the Accession # 84988 if it has retained its high quantity in comparison to the other

Accession #s. It bears reminding that the field season year is one year behind the accession date except for Accession #107359.

Based on the NMNH LM collection, it appears that either the excavation seasons were not especially fruitful for MacCurdy and the ASPR from 1927 through 1930 or some other factor or factors were at play for the decline in artifact numbers. The lithic analysis shows that 1924 and 1930 were the lowest yielding field seasons. Despite this apparent decline in overall artifact quantity during the 1924 and 1930 seasons, the general pattern of greater artifact recovery from the lowest cultural level compared to the upper levels is maintained and supported by the lithic analysis across the three museums.

Aurignacian Cultural Level

MacCurdy assigned the final uppermost stratigraphic level at Merveilles as

Aurignacian (A) in composition. As Bordes’ method was developed for use in the

115 classification of Middle Paleolithic lithic artifacts, it was initially difficult to find a method that would allow for the classification of the material derived from the Merveilles

Aurignacian level (most commonly associated with Upper Paleolithic lithic types and technologies). Nonetheless, historical research undertaken at the onset of this project offered an alternate interpretation of this level and provided a way of analyzing the

Merveilles A assemblage.

Delage confirmed MacCurdy’s designation of this uppermost level at Merveilles as exemplary of the Aurignacian. However, the actual cultural association with particular

Upper Paleolithic technologies is dubious. Previously in Chapter 4, it was suggested that

MacCurdy and Delage misinterpreted this level based on evidence from the field reports and the nature of the site (its slope and proximity to the road). Since the level was ephemeral compared to the previous two Mousterian levels with an elevated quantity of so-called “Gravettian blades”, MacCurdy was confounded as to its cultural designation.

In fact, his perfunctory description of the Merveilles A excavation revealed his blatant disinterest in the level. It also demonstrated his unfettered intent on getting down to the

Mousterian levels in his rapacious hunt for the origins of “mankind” in Europe.

MacCurdy simply labeled the topmost level the Aurignacian because it was not

Mousterian to him. No doubt he probably influenced Delage’s description of the level as well.

After reviewing the historical prelude to the cultural designation of this level, it became apparent that MacCurdy’s Aurignacian might not have been Upper Paleolithic at all. It may have been a transitional phase between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic

(previously described as potentially Chatelperronian). On the other hand, perhaps the

116

Merveilles A level was a fleeting Middle Paleolithic occupation layer demonstrating a change in lithic technology necessitated by the employment of new and integrative subsistence strategies to deal with seasonal or larger scale climatic and environmental events. The lingering uncertainty about the assignment of this stratigraphic layer to the

Upper Paleolithic offered a unique opportunity to evaluate the Merveilles A collection within Bordes’ lithic classification system for the Middle Paleolithic.

Not surprisingly, the quantity of lithic material in the Merveilles A collection was significantly less than either of the prior two levels (LM and UM). Nevertheless, the collection was substantial enough to glean important diagnostic information about the lithic artifacts recovered from this stratigraphic level. Bordes’ technological and typological indices provided unprecedented insight into this thin occupation layer.

One of the most interesting aspects about the Merveilles A level was the spectrum of colors of the flint lithics. This must have been appreciated by MacCurdy and Delage during the excavations. There was an increase in tan and brown flints. The percentage of mottled to white to reddish flint lithics in the Merveilles A (34.34%) was a stark divergence from the quantity of Merveilles gray flint prevalent in the previous two levels

(LM and UM). Whether MacCurdy chalked the color variation up to patination or desilication, it can also be surmised that controlled use of fire by the hominin occupants may have contributed to the change in flint color and texture in the A level.

There was a marked difference in cortex retention between the Merveilles A and the underlying LM and UM levels. The percentage of exterior cortex is very low for

Merveilles A in comparison to the LM and UM levels. The low quantity of dorsal cortex along with a shift in flint colors for the Merveilles collection in its entirety may well

117 support long distance procurement of raw material and a lengthier period of hominin curation of exotic lithic material.

The majority of the A level assemblages were non-cortical complete flakes with plain striking platforms (Table 24 in Appendix 2). Except for one Levallois flake with a faceted platform in the UMich A assemblage, all the Levallois flakes had plain platforms.

The non-Levallois component for the Yale A level yielded one punctiform platform while the rest were plain.

The technological indices for the Merveilles A lithics presented some further evidence in support of the proposition that the level may have been hastily assigned to the

Upper Paleolithic initially. The IL (9.29%), IQ (15.87%), and IF (11.33%) fell within the range expected for the Ferrassie variant of the Charentian Mousterian. In addition, the

ILam (28.94%) was appreciably greater than the Blade Index for either the Merveilles

LM or UM levels. Historically, a higher ILam has been noted for the Ferrassie

Mousterian in comparison to a lower Blade Index in the Quina variant. However, the typological indices did not fully corroborate the Ferrassie interpretation suggested here.

The IR was low for both the real and essential counts (26.36% and 28.87% respectively) and the single and transverse types were not well-represented in the

Merveilles A. The IC was also low (10%). On the other hand, the IAu, IAt, and IB were low (12.77%, 14.58%, and 0.71% respectively). Interestingly, the Merveilles A lithic collection can be typologically split between the Mousterian Group II (26.36%) and the

Upper Paleolithic Group III (36.68%) due to the percentages of scraper types, endscraper types, and backed knives. The percent values of the Levallois Group I and the Denticulate

Group IV were low (12.15% and 11.55% respectively) in comparison to the Merveilles

118

UM. Yet the Denticulate Group IV index for the Merveilles A is surprisingly similar to the Merveilles LM Group IV percent value.

Phase III of the Lithic Analysis: Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Key Variables: Results

An examination of the differences across each museum by cultural level and the year of excavation was performed utilizing a series of one-way ANOVA tests. The continuous outcome variables of interest for this stage of analysis were lithic length, width, thickness, platform width, platform thickness, exterior platform angle, axis of flaking, maximum length of lithic type (AKA longest edge length), perpendicular width of lithic type, midpoint thickness, and cortex retention. The categorical variable for this analysis was museum site. The ANOVA tests showed a significant difference for each categorical variable across each museum type except for cortex retention (all p<.01, see

Table 39 in Appendix 2). The means and standard deviations for each variable per museum are presented in Table 25 in Appendix 2.

In order to determine whether there was a relationship between categorical variables, a series of chi-squared analyses were performed. This stage of analysis examined whether the shape of the longest edge, technology type, and/or raw material type differed significantly across each of the three museums. The chi-square analysis indicated that there was a significant difference for all variables across museums (all p<.01, see Table 39 in Appendix 2). The frequencies are presented in Tables 26-28 in

Appendix 2.

Another series of one-way ANOVA tests examined whether length, width, thickness, platform width, platform thickness, exterior platform angle, axis of flaking,

119 maximum length of lithic type, perpendicular width of lithic type, midpoint thickness, and cortex were significantly different across cultural levels [Lower Mousterian (LM),

Upper Mousterian (UM), and Aurignacian (A)]. There was not a significant difference between maximum length of lithic type across cultural level but there was a significant difference for all the other variables per cultural level (all p<.01, see Table 40 in

Appendix 2). The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 29 in Appendix

2.

It was also of interest to assess whether the shape of the longest edge, technology type, or raw material type were different across these three cultural levels as well as between museum collections. A series of chi-squares analyses indicated that there was not a significant difference for raw material type across cultural level (mainly because the majority of lithics were flint). However, there was a significant difference for the shape of the longest edge and technology across cultural level (all p<.01, see Table 40 in

Appendix 2). The frequencies of these variables per cultural level are presented in Tables

30-32 in Appendix 2.

A correlation analysis was performed to determine whether the values for length, width, thickness, platform width, platform thickness, axis of flaking, and cortex retention would change significantly per year of historical excavation (ASPR field seasons). A set of straightforward correlations corroborated that there was a significant negative correlation between the year of excavation and proposed variables. This analysis suggested that as the field seasons progressed, the values for these variables decreased. In other words, the lithics got smaller and dorsal cortex coverage diminished over time. This might be a function of the complete excavation of Abri des Merveilles with each passing

120

ASPR field season. Another cause might be that the excavations covered less ground as the years progressed and as the digging got closer to the entrance of the rockshelter

(Figure 10 in Appendix 1).

It was also important to determine if specific sets of variables could significantly predict important lithic measurements across the entire Merveilles data set (regardless of museum set, cultural designation, or year of excavation). A series of regression analyses was performed to see how each variable is related to exterior platform angle, platform thickness, shape of longest edge, and the axis of flaking. The regression analysis indicated that length, platform width, and technology are significantly independent predictors of the exterior platform angle. The most predictive of these measurements is length followed by platform thickness and technology. The results of the multiple regression analysis for exterior platform angle are presented in Table 33 in Appendix 2.

In addition, width, thickness, platform width, exterior platform angle, and the shape of the longest edge are significant unique predictors of platform thickness. Of these the most predictive is width, followed by platform width, thickness, exterior platform angle, and the shape of the longest edge. The results of multiple regression analysis for platform thickness are presented in Table 34 in Appendix 2. The results of ordinal regression for the shape of the longest edge indicated that none of the variables (axis of flaking, length, width, nor thickness) significantly predict the shape of the longest edge.

Table 35 in Appendix 2 presents these results. Finally, multiple regression analysis for the axis of flaking indicated that length, width, and thickness are all significant unique predictors and that the most predictive was length. The results for this series of tests are presented in Table 36 in Appendix 2.

121

The last type of statistical analysis employed was bivariate correlation analysis to understand the strength and direction of the relationship between two continuous variables. These series of tests examined the relationships between lithic measurements and lithic type. Specifically, it was important to look at how significant maximum length, perpendicular width, midpoint thickness, and cortex retention correlated with biface types and lithic cores. For bifaces, there was a significant correlation between maximum length and perpendicular width. Obviously, this meant that the greater the length of the biface, the greater the width. Although no other correlations were considered significant, the correlation between perpendicular width and cortex retention is approaching significance

(p=0.075). The failure to reach statistical significance for these two variables may be due to the small sample size of bifaces. The results are presented in Table 37 in Appendix 2.

For cores, there were significant positive correlations between 1) maximum length and perpendicular width, 2) maximum length and midpoint thickness, and 3) perpendicular width and midpoint thickness. Positive correlations mean more of one variable is associated with more of another variable (e.g . more length means more width, more length means more thickness, and more width means more thickness). The results are presented in Table 38 in Appendix 2. The extremely low core sample size for UMich and

Yale prohibited a meaningful correlation analysis across museum collections.

Discussion

According to Debénath and Dibble, differing percentages of Levallois types, scraper types, Upper Paleolithic types, backed knives and bifaces, and denticulates/notches can further tease out which “industry” an assemblage is most closely associated with (1994:174). Dibble and Rolland discussed the role of the IR index in

122

Bordes’ classification of three main Middle Paleolithic assemblage groups or industries

(Bordes 1953:460-463 in Dibble and Rolland 2003:19). These three “principal assemblage groups” were the Charentian group, a Typical Mousterian group, and a

Denticulate group. Dibble and Rolland offered the following descriptions of Bordes’

Mousterian complexes,

“The Charentian group has an essential IR of greater than 55%. Its two subgroups are the Quina Mousterian, which has a low Blade Index (ILam), low restricted Faceting Index (Ifs) and low Levallois Index (IL), but a very high Charentian Index (IC) (reflecting a high frequency of transverse scrapers), and a high Quina Index (IQ) (reflecting the usually large number of scrapers which exhibit Quina retouch); and the Ferassie Mousterian, which has a much higher IL, Ifs and ILam, and much lower IC than the Quina subtype.” (2003:19) “ The second principal assemblage group exhibits two subgroups with essential IRs of between 22 and 37% and variable amounts of Levallois, faceting, and blades…the major difference between the two subgroups is the percentage of bifaces: the Typical Mousterian, which has few to no bifaces, and the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, Type B (MTA-B) which has some bifaces, though fewer and usually smaller and less well-made than is true for the MTA-A, and which has relatively more backed knives and sometimes elevated ILam.” ( Ibid. ) “…the Denticulate Mousterian, with a large number of denticulates and rare scrapers, bifaces, and backed knives.” ( Ibid .)

Further refinement of the Mousterian assemblage groups enabled different types of lithics to be separated into four industries within southwestern France. The Typical

Mousterian, the Denticulate Mousterian, the Charentian Mousterian, and the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) (Dibble and Rolland 2003:54-56). The Typical

Mousterian appeared to be an ephemeral industry and perhaps associated with

Mousterian points (Types 6 and 7) ( Ibid . 54). The Denticulate Mousterian was characterized by an “abundance and variety of scrapers” and high numbers of denticulates ( Ibid. ). In addition, the Denticulate Mousterian appeared to exhibit low to almost nonexistent IL, ILty, IB, and IC except high numbers of naturally backed knives

123

(Ibid. ). Also acknowledged for the Denticulate Mousterian was a moderate IR and a low to moderate IF and IFs ( Ibid. ). The Charentian Mousterian appeared most frequently in southwestern France, particularly the Charente region.

As previously discussed, the Charentian Mousterian has been divided historically into the Ferassie and Quina types. Based on the excavations from several sites including

La Ferrasie, Artenac, Abri-Commont, and Abri Lartet, the Ferassie type was characterized by Debénath as “slightly Levallois… moderate IF…high percentage of scrapers…absence of bifaces and backed knives…cortical flakes constitute almost 20% of the debitage…a high proportion (>40%) of retouch [ sic ] flakes” (2003:55). Debénath also expressed that the implication of the Ferrasie typological conditions was that the raw material utilized in the lithic reduction phases was sourced locally ( Ibid. ).

Being the most well-represented type in at least the Charente region, the Quina variant of the Charentian Mousterian was characterized by very low to nonexistent IL,

IB, backed knives, denticulates, IF, and Ifs percentages ( Ibid. 56). On the other hand, the

IR was high (e.g. ~90% for Chateauneuf-sur- Charente) and exhibited more convex scrapers and transverse types (Mellars 1996: 182). Denticulates were rare ( Ibid. ). In addition, the IC and IQ were high and the extensive and invasive Quina-style edge retouch was dominant. Such an aggressive type of retouch has been associated with frequent tool edge resharpening events.

Frequent edge resharpening events combined with high cortex retention do not support the idea that the raw material source was convenient and local. Rather it offers a deeper look into the decision-making processes of the hominins associated with these lithics. Debénath stated that the Quina type is also associated with most of the hominin

124 osseous material recovered from Mousterian sites. As previously stated, the hominin tooth (most closely associated with “ Homo neanderthalensis ” was recovered from the

LM layer about 3m from the unique rock crystal tools.

The last grouping of lithic types was described as the Mousterian of Acheulean

Tradition (MTA) (Debénath and Dibble 1994; Dibble and Rolland 2003). A significant difference between the two types of MTA (-A and -B) was the quantity and quality of bifaces. The MTA-B yielded some small crude bifaces while the MTA-A yielded more backed knives and blades (higher Ilam and IAu indices than MTA-B).

A combination of the technological and typological indices was utilized for each level within the entire Merveilles collection to assess the industries most closely associated with the LM and UM levels. This approach was taken rather than assessing the industries for the LM and UM levels per museum assemblage. This approach made the most sense as the individual museum assemblages per stratigraphic level would have been adversely affected by both small sample sizes and excavator/curator bias (already shown to have affected all three museum collections).

Based on the technological and typological information gleaned from the lithic analysis of the Merveilles LM material, this stratigraphic level was determined to be most closely aligned with the Quina variant of the Charentian Mousterian. The range of features exemplifying the Quina Mousterian were present overwhelmingly in the

Merveilles LM, notably the high IQ, low IF and IFs, low IL and ILty, and high IC. There were a few typological indices for the Merveilles LM lithics that fell within the range of both the Quina and Ferrassie variants, including the IR, IAu, IAt, and IB. While the IR was within the Quina and Ferrassie percentages, the greater number of transverse

125 scrapers tended to support a Quina assignment. Most pointedly, the technological indices supported the identification of the Merveilles LM lithic industry as Quina.

The stratigraphic level above the LM at Merveilles was identified by MacCurdy as the Upper Mousterian (UM). For this level, the technological line between the

Ferrassie and Quina variants was slightly less clear that the LM. The IQ (65.28%) and

Ilam (2.35%) indicated a trend toward more Quina in technology. However, the IL

(7.63%), IF (10.02%), and IFs (8.74%) fell between the accepted range of values typical for each type of Charentian Mousterian. As for the typological indices, the assignment of a particular lithic industry is difficult for the Merveilles UM. The IAu (4.67%), IAt

(6.33%), and IB (3.33%) were all fairly low which is common in both the Ferrassie and

Quina variants. The IC (44.97% real, 54.86% essential) was moderate to high for this index and favors a Quina Mousterian in the Merveilles UM. As for Bordes typological groups, the Mousterian group (Group II) was dominant in the UM (63.63% real, 76.71% essential). Unlike the Merveilles LM, the UM did not yield any types 6-8. The Levallois

(Group I) (7.83% real, 10.57% essential), Upper Paleolithic (Group III) (6.16% real,

7.4% essential), and Denticulate (Group IV) (6.95% real, 7.67% essential) indices were all low. These typological indices again do not further clarification of which Charentian variant was present in the Merveilles UM. The Scraper Index was also utilized to further understand the Merveilles UM assemblage and identify which industrial variant(s) was

(were) active during the hominin occupation of this stratigraphic level. The IR (63.63% real, 76.71% essential) appears to be more closely aligned to the known values for the scraper indices at sites with levels described as Ferrassie Mousterian. However, a high IR is also indicative of the Quina variant. Upon assessment of the Merveilles UM scraper

126 assemblage (n=200), single and transverse scraper types were most numerous (single types 9-11= 36.7 %, transverse types 22-24= 38.5 %). The remaining scraper type classes yielded low percentages (double types 12-17= 1.5 %, convergent types 18-20= 5.0 %).

These percent values could support either the Ferrassie or Quina industries (perhaps leaning slightly more toward Quina due to the high percentage of transverse scraper types). Notwithstanding this predicament, the elevated occurrence of heavy Quina-type retouch on the Merveilles UM scraper edges further substantiates the presence of a Quina industrial variant within the UM stratigraphic level at this site. The Ferrassie Mousterian scrapers demonstrate much lighter retouched edges (Debénath 1992:55).

An assessment of the percentages of scrapers for each of the UM assemblages was performed for the real and essential counts. Based on the real count, the frequency of scraper types across the UM was the following: Yale UM= 76.92%; UMich UM =

63.64%; NMNH UM= 50.34%. A different pattern emerges for the essential count of scraper types: Yale UM= 78.95%); UMich UM= 77.78%; NMNH UM= 73.40%.

Conflating the three UM assemblages into one Merveilles UM collection yields 63.63% scrapers for the real count and 76.71% for the essential count.

Finally, as MacCurdy and Delage both described this level as MTA in nature, it was necessary to assess the UM assemblage for defining features of either MTA variant.

The lithic analysis of the Merveilles UM material yielded low numbers of backed knives and blades (characteristic of the MTA-A) and a low number of bifaces of any dimension or quality (characteristic of the MTA-B). A crucial point to re-emphasize here is that the material recovered from the Merveilles UM was subjected to historical and modern interference. Many of the bifaces (AKA handaxes to MacCurdy and his American and

127

French colleagues at the time) recovered from Merveilles were coveted by both American and French scholars alike. Therefore, most bifaces were kept in private or local museum collections abroad. In addition, bifaces were separated from the main body of Merveilles lithics in the US for individual research projects on anything but the interpretation of the archaeological record of the Merveilles site. As a result of such interference, the MTA industry (-ies) described by MacCurdy and Delage for the UM level is (are) muted in this undertaking.

Utilizing the Bordian method to describe the Merveilles A lithic collection created the potential for new interpretations of the level, different from those of MacCurdy and

Delage. The technological and typological indices suggest that the Merveilles A was either fully Middle Paleolithic or represented a Middle to Upper Paleolithic transitional phase including Middle Paleolithic scraper and denticulated types and Upper Paleolithic blades and bladelet types. The indices do not support an advanced or Upper Aurignacian level in type or technology. Further investigation into the Chatelperronian and Middle to

Upper Paleolithic transitional lithic collections is an absolute necessity for understanding the final occupation of Abri des Merveilles.

128

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

Old Paleolithic collections gathering dust in museums all over the world have long been ignored in favor of the excavation of new sites using modern and ever advancing artifact recovery methods and techniques. The purpose of this thesis was to demonstrate the possibility and importance of collecting meaningful data from such a forsaken collection and provide the results for future Paleolithic research. The curated

Abri des Merveilles lithic collection excavated in the early 1900s in France was a convenient local target for such a study and was large enough to set to work on assessing the soundness of the thesis. As a result of this body of work, it can be concluded that the

Merveilles artifact collection, while the subject of multiple sources of interference, retains significant information essential for the interpretation of both the prehistoric and historic archaeological record.

This thesis argued that regardless of the historical events affecting the current condition and location of the collections, the artifacts themselves would retain a wealth of important information. The data gleaned from the lithic analysis could possess tremendous value for future comparative studies of recently excavated Paleolithic sites and old Paleolithic collections. The means to this end was to evaluate the influence of historical activities on the current state of the Merveilles lithic collections and to examine the extent of damage to the archaeological record by such activities. To accomplish this, the first step taken was the extensive background research on George Grant MacCurdy, the ASPR, the history of the excavations, and the highly-charged international sociopolitical climate of archaeology in the early 1900s.

129

The historical research was followed by the painstaking recordation of attributes and measurements of the lithics stored at the three museums. The data collected enabled a comparative study of the Merveilles lithic assemblages curated at the three separate museums (NMNH, UMich, and Yale) by cultural level (as designated by the historical excavation teams) and excavation year. Understanding the differences by level and year of excavation across the museum assemblages allowed for deciphering which activities most affected the artifacts’ integrity and in what ways. For instance, the lithic analysis indicated that the number of complete flakes versus proximal or other flake fragments was a good gauge for identifying culling events, particularly within the UMich collection.

The reason being that only certain desirable artifacts would have made it back to museum shelves in the US. Thus, the current collection would not be a true representative sample of the Abri des Merveilles lithic collection.

For example, the lithic analysis showed that the NMNH and Yale collections contained proximal, distal, and indeterminable flake fragments while UMich did not. The breakage on the flake fragments of all types did not appear recent. MacCurdy’s journal notes and the NMNH accession files support the shipping and the NMNH acquisition of flake fragments and “seconds” as part of the Merveilles collection. The UMich collection contained no flake fragments of any type. The lithic analysis demonstrated that the three museum collections did not contain the same representative sample of the Merveilles lithics. It supported that at least one (or more) culling event (s) impacted the current

UMich assemblage. In addition, across the years of excavation, the lithic analysis revealed that complete flakes were most bountiful out of the 1926 season, especially the

LM level. The 1926 season yielded the most artifacts of any of the other years. It also

130 yielded a good number of highly-coveted artifacts (e.g. the rock crystal tool exhibiting use-wear, the hominin tooth, and the ground hand-axe). In contrast, the 1930 field season had the lowest artifact yield of any other excavation year. There was nothing highly unusual about the 1926 field season and it was not particularly long in comparison to the other years. However, the historical research showed that the students in attendance that year were older and may have been more skilled, mature, and enthusiastic than in previous years.

The analysis also supported some of MacCurdy’s conclusions about the cultural levels, such as naturally-backed knives dominating the LM at Merveilles. It could be suggested that the shipped collections reflected his own bias toward such a conclusion.

However, the visit to the Castanet private museum in Sergeac witnessed a smaller lithic collection that was also dominated by the same type of artifact bearing the “LM” marking. MacCurdy also concluded that much of the lithic reduction had taken place at the site and that “refitting” was possible. The lithic analysis supported MacCurdy’s idea that reduction took place in situ for the LM and UM levels based on the percentage of dorsal cortex retention on tools and cores and the utilization of locally sourced flint.

However, the analysis did not support this for the A level.

It has been suggested that the cultural levels defined for Merveilles by MacCurdy were quite simplistic and were too broad for what was most likely a very stratigraphically complex rockshelter site. Based on the technological and typological information gleaned from utilizing the Bordian method, the lithic analysis generally supported MacCurdy’s cultural assignments for the two Mousterian levels, the LM and UM. It was demonstrated that the LM was characterized by the Quina variant of the Charentian Mousterian. The

131

UM was more difficult to understand, most likely reflecting a conflation of multiple occupation levels and the lack of stratigraphic integrity of the UM assemblage. However, the analysis indicated the presence of both Ferrassie and Quina industrial complexes in the UM level. The analysis was unable to verify the MTA-A or B in the UM assemblage.

The A level of the collection was assigned to the Upper Paleolithic by MacCurdy. Given the curious nature of the underlying UM level, the lithics from the A level were subjected to the Bordian method as an experiment. While the sample size was much smaller than the LM or the UM, the analysis indicated that the A assemblage fell within the expected range for the Ferrassie variant of the Charentian Mousterian with a denticulate component. The analysis does not support MacCurdy’s assignment of an Aurignacian cultural level.

Finally, the historical research for the project provided unique insight into the sociocultural tapestry of early American endeavors into European Paleolithic archaeology. MacCurdy was right there at the field’s infancy and he contributed more to the development of the discipline than anyone truly gives him credit for. In addition, it was under his leadership that the ASPR provided opportunities for American female students to participate in the field schools at a time when women were still shunned from academic pursuits. This research uncovered previously unknown connections and identified female students who went on to lead extraordinary and complex lives. Their participation in the field school provided them with exposure to remarkable foreign archaeological sites, renowned international pioneers of archaeology, hands-on field and lab work, and science. It was quite simply an experience many of them would incorporate into the framework of their future endeavors, whether academic or not. The ASPR field

132 schools spanned a generation which bore witness to some of the darkest times in modern history. It was that ominous atmosphere which necessitated a deeper look into the past for

MacCurdy, his students and colleagues- to identify the origin and evolution of humans in order to make sense of the world around them.

133

References

Abraham, S. H. Breure, and Rafael Araujo. (2015). A Snail in the Long Tail: A

new Plekocheilus species Collected by the 'Comision Cientifica Del Pacifico'

(Mollusca, Gastropoda, Amphibulimidae). ZooKeys 516: 85-93.

Agnew, Neville, and Janet Bridgland. (2006). “Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating

Archaeology and Conservation: Proceedings of the Conservation Theme”. 5th World

Archaeological Congress, Washington, D.C., June 22-26, 2003.

The American School of Prehistoric Research. (1928). Science 68 (1763): 345.

Ames, Michael M. (1995). Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of

Museums. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Andrefsky Jr., William. (1998). Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. London:

Cambridge University Press.

Anthropological Notes. (1925). American Anthropologist 27: 184-90.

Antoine, Pierre, et al . (2014). Upper Pleistoene Loess-Palaeosols Records from Northern

France in the European Context: Environmental Background and Dating of the

Middle Palaeolithic. Proceedings from the Belgium Conference, March 20-21 st :

Middle Paleolithic in North-West Europe: Multidiscipinary Approaches. Namur,

Moulins de Beez, Belgium Conference: Abstract.

Bakker, P., et al . (2014) Temperature trends during the present and Last Interglacial

periods-a multi-model data comparison. Quaternary Science Reviews 99: 224-43.

134

Balme, Jane, and Alistar Paterson, (Eds.) (2006). Archaeology in Practice: A Student

Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing

Ltd.

Barton, C. Michael. (1990). Beyond Style and Function: A View from the Middle

Paleolithic. American Anthropologist 92: 57-72.

Barton, C. Michael, Olszewski, D., and Coinman, N. (1996). Beyond the Graver:

Reconsidering Burin Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 (1):111-25.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. (2002). Defining the Aurignacian. In Towards a Definition of the

Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium . Lisbon, Portugal in June 25-30.

Baxter, M. J. (2015). Exploratory Mulitvariate Analysis in Archaeology. New York:

Percheron Press.

Bertran, Pascal, et al . (2013). The Landes de Gascogne (Southwest France): Periglacial

Desert and Cultural Frontier during the Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological

Science 40: 2274-85.

Binford, Lewis, and S. Binford. (1966). A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability

in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238-95.

Binford, Lewis. (1973). Interassemblage Variability: The Mousterian and the 'Functional'

Argument. The Explanation Od Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Ed. C.

Renfrew. London: Duckworth: 227-254.

135

Binford, Lewis. (1989). Isolating the Transition to Cultural Adaptations: An

Organizational Approach. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural

Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. Ed. Erik Trinkaus. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge Press University; 18-41.

Blades, Brooke S. (1999). Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility:

New perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère Valley of France. Journal of

Human Evolution 37: 91-120.

Blades, Brooke S. (1999). Aurignacian Settlement Patterns in the Vézère Valley. Current

Anthropology 40 (5): 712-9.

Bocquet-Appel, Jean-Pierre, and Anna Degioanni. (2013). Neanderthal Demographic

Estimates. Current Anthropology 54 (8): 30/12/2013-S000.

Bordes, Francois. (1950). Principes d'Une Méthode d'Étude des Techniques de Débitage

et de la Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Anthropologie 54: 19-34.

Bordes, François. (1953). L'Atelier Commont (Album de 188 Dessins de Victor Commont)

avec une étude de l'Atelier. Masson, Paris.

Bordes, François. (1961). Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134 (3482): 803-10.

Bordes, Francois. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Vol. 1. Bordeaux,

France: Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux.

136

Bordes, François, and de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise. (1970). The Significance of

Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2: 61-73.

Bordes, Jean-Guillaume. (2006). News from the West: A Reevaluation of the Classical

Aurignacian Sequence from the Perigord. In Towards a Definition of the

Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium . Lisbon, Portugal: June 25-30, 2003.

Bricker, H., Brooks, A., Clay, R.B., and David, N.C. (1995). Les fouilles de H.L. Movius

Jr. à l’Abri Pataud: generalités. In Le Paléolithique supérieur de l’abri Pataud

(Dordogne): les fouilles de H.L. Movius Jr. Ed. H.M. Bricker. Documents

d’Archéologie Française (dAF) 50: 11-29 (C.N.R.S., Paris: Editions de la Maison

des Sciences de l’Hommes).

Bricker, Harvey M. (2002). George Grant MacCurdy: An American Pioneer of

Palaeolanthropology. In New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist

Archaeology. Eds. David L. Browman and Stephen Williams. Tuscaloosa:

University of Alabama Press. 265-286.

Bringmans, Patrick M. M. A., et al . (2004). Human Presence and Lithic Variability at the

Middle Palaeolithic Valley Settlements at Veldwezelt-Hezerwater (Limburg,

Belgium). Neanderthals in Europe Colloquium . Ed. B. Demarsin, Provincial Gallo-

Romeins Museum Tongeren, September 17-19: 89-100.

Britton, Kate, et al . (2011). Strontium Isotope Evidence for Migration in Late Pleistocene

Rangifer: Implications for Neanderthal Hunting Strategies at the Middle Palaeolithic

Site of Jonzac, France. Journal of Human Evolution 61: 176-85.

137

Browman, David L. (2013). Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding

of Americanist Archaeology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Browman, David and Williams, Steven. (2013). Anthropology at Harvard . Volume 11 of

Peabody Museum Monographs: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,

Harvard University Press.

Bruxelles, Laurent, and Marc Jarry. (2011). Climatic Conditions, Settlement Patterns and

Cultures in the Paleolithic: The Example of the Garonne Valley (Southwest France).

Journal of Human Evolution 61: 538-48.

Campy, Michel, et al . (1994). Sedimentary record in French karstic infillings during the

last climatic cycle. Quarternaire 5 (3-4): 157-63.

Chazan, Michael. (1997). Lead Review: Redefining Levallois. Journal of Human

Evolution 33: 719-35.

Childs, S. Terry. (2006). Archaeological Collections: Valuing and Managing an

Emerging Frontier. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and

Conservation: Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World

Archaeological Congress, Washington, D.C.in June 22-26, 2003 . Eds. Neville

Agnew and Janet Bridgland. Los Angeles, California, Getty Conservation Institute:

204-210.

138

Chilton, Elizabeth S. (1992). Archaeological Investigations at the Goat Island

Rockshelter: New Light from Old Legacies. The Hudson Valley Regional Review 9

(1): 1-17.

Clark, G. and Riel-Salvatore, J. (2005). The Compositional Integrity of the Aurignacian.

Munibe Anthropologia-Arkeologia 57: 107-118.

Cleveland, William S. (1993). Visualizing Data. Summit, New Jersey: Hobart Press.

Conard, Nicholas John and Richter, Jürgen. (2011). Neanderthal lifeways, subsistence

and technology: One hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study. Springer.

Conkey, Margaret W. (1981). What can we do with broken bones? Annals of New York

Academy of Sciences 376: 35-52.

Couchoud, I., et al . (2009). Millennial-scale climate variability during the Last

Interglacial recorded in a speleothem from southwestern France. Quaternary Science

Reviews 28 (27-28): 3263-3274.

Crockett- Robertson, Adele “Kitty”. (1995). The Orchard: A Memoir . Metropolitan

Books, New York, New York.

Crockett-Robertson, Kitty. (2008). Measuring Time by an Hourglass . Dog Ear

Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.

Davies, William, and Piers Gollop. (2003). The human presence in Europe during the

Last Glacial Period II: Climate tolerance and climate preferences of mid- and late

139

glacial hominids. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape

during the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project. Eds.

Tjeerd H. van Andel and William Davies. Cambridge, United Kingdom: McDonald

Institute for Archaeological Research: 131-146.

Davies, William, Valdes, P., Ross, C., and van Andel, T. (2003). The human presence in

Europe during the Last Glacial Period II: Site clusters, regional climates, and

resource attractions. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European

Landscape during the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3

Project. Eds. Tjeerd H. van Andel and William Davies. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 191-219. de Mortillet, Paul. (1912). Le préhistorique dans les grottes, abris sous roche et brèches

osseuses des bassins de la Garonne et de l'Adour. Septième Congrès Préhistorique de

France in Nîmes in 1911: 78-129.

Debénath, André and Dibble, Harold L. (1994). Handbook of Paleolithic Typology .

Philadelphia: University Museum. University of Pennsylvania.

Debénath, André. (2003). The Place of the Mousterian of the Charente in the Middle

Paleolithic of Southwest France. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior,

and Variability. Eds. Harold L. Dibble and Paul Mellars. Symposium Series IV,

University Museum Monograph 78 (1992), UPenn Museum of Archeology: 53-58.

Delage, F. (1912). Inventaire des grottes et abris préhistoriques de la Dordogne. Huitième

Congrés Préhistorique de France, Angouléme: 372-386.

140

Delage, F. (1927). Sergeac: Un beau site Périgourdin un centre de recherches

préhistoriques. Brochure. Imprimerie de la Vézère, Montignac: 8-30.

Delage, F. (1935). Les roches de Sergeac (Dordogne). L'Anthropologie 45 (3-4): 281-5.

Delage, Franck. (1936). L'Abri des Merveilles à Castelmerle (Sergeac, Dordogne).

Extrait du Congres Prehistorique de France 8: 578-608.

Dennell, R. W., Martinón-Torres, M. and Bermúdez de Castro, J. (2011). Hominin

Variability, Climatic Instability and Population Demography in Middle Pleistocene

Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 30 (11-12):1511-24.

Dibble, Harold L. (1984). Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic

Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology

11: 431-6.

Dibble, Harold L. (1987). The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology.

American Antiquity 52 (1): 109-17.

Dibble, Harold L. (1995). Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background,

Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 2 (4):299-368.

Dibble, Harold L., and Lenoir, M. (1995). The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle

Bas (France). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The University Museum University of

Pennsylvania.

141

Dibble, Harold L. (1997). Platform Variability and Flake Morphology: A Comparison of

Experimental and Archaeological Data and Implications for Interpreting Prehistoric

Lithic Technological Strategies. Lithic Technology 22 (2):150-70.

Dibble, Harold L., and Mellars, Paul. (Eds.). (2003). The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation,

Behavior, and Variability. Symposium Series,Volume IV, University Museum

Monograph 78 (1992); UPenn Museum of Archeology.

Dibble, Harold L. and Rolland, N. (2003). On Assemblage Variability in the Middle

Paleolithic of Western Europe: History, Perspectives, and a New Synthesis. In The

Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. Eds. Harold L. Dibble

and Paul Mellars. Symposium Series IV, University Museum Monograph 78 (1992)

UPenn Museum of Archeology: 1-28.

Dibble, Harold L., Raczek, T.P. and McPherron, S.P. (2005). Excavator bias at the site of

Pech de l'Azé IV, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 30: 317-28.

Dibble, Harold L., et al . (2005). The measurement and interpretation of cortex in lithic

assemblages. American Antiquity 70 (3): 545-60.

Dibble, Harold L., et al. (2009). Context, Curation, and Bias: An Evaluation of the

Middle Paleolithic Collections of Combe-Grenal (France). Journal of

Archaeological Science 36: 2540-50.

Dollfus, G. F. (1924). Notes on the Geology of the Périgord. Proceedings of the

Geologists Association 35 (2):131-4.

142

Drysdale, Russell N., et al . (2005). Stalagmite evidence for the onset of the Last

Interglacial in southern Europe at 129 +/-. Geophysical Research Letters 32

(L24708): 4.

Dusseldorp, G. L. (2009). A View to a Kill: Investigating Middle Palaeolithic Subsistence

using an Optimal Foraging Perspective. Leiden University, The Netherlands:

Sidestone Press Dissertations.

Edge, Royson G. (2011). Cliffside Caverns: Former and Contemporary Uses in

Dordogne. Centre for Environment and Society Research Working Paper Series 14.

Evans, Adrian Anthony. (2014). On the Importance of Blind Testing in Archaeological

Science: The Example from Lithic Functional Studies. Journal of Archaeological

Science 48: 5-14.

Faivre, Jean-Philippe, et al . (2014). The contribution of lithic production systems to the

interpretation of Mousterian industrial variability in southwestern France: The

example of Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France). Quaternary International 350: 227-

40.

Féblot-Augustins, Jehanne. (1993). Mobility Strategies in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of

Central Europe and Western Europe: Elements of Stability and Variability. Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology 12: 211-65.

Fénelon, P. (1951). Le Périgord, étude Morphologique. L'Information Géographique 15

(2): 77-80.

143

Fleitmann, D., et al. (2009). Timing and climatic impact of Greenland interstadials

recorded from stalagmites from Northern Turkey. Geophysical Research Letters 36

(L19707): 1-5.

Fletcher, Mike, and Lock, Gary. (2005). Digging Number: Elementary Statistics for

Archaeologists. Second Edition. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University School of

Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology.

Gamble, C. (1986). The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe . Cambridge, United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press.

Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge, United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press.

Gaudzinski-Windheuser, Sabine, and W. Roebroeks. (2011). On Neanderthal subsistence

in the Last Interglacial forested environments in northern Europe. Neanderthal

Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology. Eds. Nicholas John Conard and Richter,

Jürgen. The Netherlands, Springer: 61-71.

Geneste, Jean-Michel. (1985). Analyse lithique d'industries Moustériennes du Périgord:

Une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au

Paléolithique Moyen . Bordeaux, Dissertation.

Genty, D., et al . (2003). Precise dating of Dansgaard-Oeschger climate oscillations in

western Europe from stalagmite data. Nature 421: 833-7.

144

Genty, Dominique. (2008). Paleoclimate research in Villars Cave (Dordogne, SW-

France). International Journal of Speleology 37 (3): 173-91.

Gibson, Luke. (2011). Possible shift in macaque trophic level following a century of

biodiversity loss in Singapore. Primates 52 (3): 217-20.

Gilman, A. (1984). Explaining the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution. In Marxist

Perspectives in Archaeology. Ed. M. Spriggs. Cambridge, United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press: 115-126.

Goval, Emilie, et al. (2015). Hunting Camp at the End of the Middle Paleolithic at

Havrincourt "Les Bosquets" (Pas-de-Calais, France). In Settlement Dynamics of the

Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Eds. Nicholas J. Conard and Anne

Delagnes. Volume IV, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen: Tübingen Publications in

Prehistory: 311-328.

Grun, R. (1991). ESR Chronology of Pech II. Antiquity 65: 544-51.

Guérin, Guillaume, et al . (2012). Mutli-Method (TL and OSL), Multi-material (Quartz

and Flint) dating of the Mousterian site of Roc de Marsal (Dordogne, France):

Correlating Neanderthal occupations with the climatic variability of MIS 5-3.

Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3071-84.

Hamilton, Nathan D. and Eugene Winter Jr. (2018). A Biographical History of the Robert

S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. In Glory, Trouble, and Renaissance at the

145

Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology . (Eds.) Malinda Stafford Blustain and

Ryan J. Wheeler, University of Nebraska Press, 5-7.

Handler, R. (Ed.). (2000). Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions . Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press.

Henry, Amanda G., Brooks, Alison S. and Piperno, Dolores R. (2014). Plant foods and

the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Journal of Human

Evolution 69: 44-54.

Henshilwood, C. S., et al . (2002). Emergence of Modern Human Behavior: Middle Stone

Age Levels. Science 295: 1278-80.

Hitchcock, Don. (2015). Personal communication re: The Approach to Abri Des

Merveilles on 9/6/2015.

Hitchcock, Don. (2014). Website: DonsMaps . Castel-Merle-Vallons des Roches.

http://donsmaps.com/castanet.html

Holdaway, Simon, Matthew Douglass, and Rebecca Philipps. (2015). Flake Selection,

Assemblage Variability, and Technological Organization. In Works in Stone:

Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis. Ed. Michael J. Shott. Glen Canyon,

Utah: The University of Utah Press: 46-62.

Holdaway, Simon, Shannon P. McPherron, and Barbara Roth. (1996). Notched tool

reuse and raw material availability in French Middle Paleolithic sites. American

Antiquity 61 (2): 377-87.

146

Hough, Walter. (1926). Anthropological Notes: American School of Prehistoric

Research. American Anthropologist 28 (2): 453-6.

Housley, R. A., et al . (1997). Radiocarbon evidence for the late glacial human

recolonization of northern Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 25-54.

Hrdlicka, A. (1924). Letter. Hrdlicka to Peyrony, June 25, 1924. In The Old World

Paleolithic and the Development of a National Collection. 48th ed. Vol. 48. Eds.

Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts. 2004: 31.

Hublin, Jean-Jacques, and W. Roebroeks. (2009). Ebb and flow or regional extinctions?

On the character of Neanderthal occupation of northern environments. Comptes

Rendu Paleovol 8 (5): 503-9.

Hublin, Jean-Jacques, et al. (2012). New radiocarbon dates from the Grotte du Renne and

Saint-Césaire support a Neandertal origin for the Châtelperronian. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (46): 18743-

8.

Huijzer, Bert, and Jef Vandenberghe. (1998). Climatic Reconstruction of the Weichselian

Pleniglacial in Northwestern and Central Europe. Journal of Quaternary Science 13

(5): 391-417.

Hussain, Shumon T., and Harald Floss. (2016). Streams as Entanglement of Nature and

Culture: European Upper Paleolithic River Systems and their Role as Features of

147

Spatial Organization. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23 (4): 1162-

1218.

Jacobs, Zenobia, et al . (2015). Testing of a single-grain OSL chronology across the

Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition at Les Cottés (France). Journal of

Archaeological Science 54: 110-22.

Jaubert, Jacques, et al . (2011). A New Look at the End of the Middle Paleolithic

Sequence in Southwestern France. In Characteristic Features of the Middle to Upper

Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia. Eds. A. P. Derevianko and M. V. Shunkov.

Novosibirsk: Asian Palaeolithic Association: 102-115.

Jelinek, Arthur J. (2013). Neanderthal Industries at La Quina . Tucson, Arizona: The

University of Arizona Press.

Jimenez-Espejo, Francisco J., et al . (2007). Climate Forcing and Neanderthal Extinction

in Southern Iberia: Insights from a Multiproxy Marine Record. Quaternary Science

Reviews 26 (7-8): 836-52.

Johnson, Amber L. (Ed.). (2004). Processual Archaeology: Exploring Analytical

Strategies, Frames of Reference, and Culture Process. Westport, Connecticut:

Praeger.

Jones, Emily Lena, and Caroline Gabe. (2015). The Promise and Peril of Older

Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early

Historic New Mexico. Open Quaternary 1 (6): 1-13.

148

Knect, Heidi. (1993). Chapter 10: Splits and Wedges: The Techniques and Technology of

Early Aurignacian Antler Working. In Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the

Early Upper Paleolithic. Eds. H. A. Knecht and R. White. Florida: CRC Press: 137-

157.

Knoll, Michelle K. (2011). The research potential and challenges of using curated

archaeological collections. Utah Archaeology 24 (1): 13-34.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1988). Problems of Continuity and Discontinuity between the Middle

and Upper Paleolithic of Central Europe. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of

Western Eurasia. Eds. Harold L. Dibble and A. Montet-White. University Museum

Monograph 54 Edition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania:

349-360.

Kuhn, Steven L. (1992). Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian

Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 57 (1): 115-28.

Kuhn, Steven L. (1992). On Planning and Curated Technologies in the Middle

Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48 (3): 185-214.

Lahr, M.M., and R. Foley. (2003). Demography, Dispersal, and Human Evolution in the

Last Glacial Period. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European

Landscape during the Last Glaciation. Eds. Tjeerd H. van Andel and William

Davies. McDonald Institute Monographs: 241-256.

149

Landais, A., et al . (2004). A continuous record of temperature evolution over a sequence

of Dansgaard-Oeschger events during Marine Isotopic Stage 4 (76 to 62 KYR BP).

Geophysical Research Letters 31 (L22211): 1-4.

Laville, Henri, Rigaud, Jean-Philippe, and Sackett, James. (1980). Rock Shelters of the

Périgord: Geological Stratigraphy and Archaeological Succession. New York:

Academic Press.

Laville, Henri. (1973). The Relative Position of Mousterian Industries in the Climatic

Chronology of the Early Würm in the Périgord. World Archaeology 4 (3): 323-9.

Leach, Arthur. (1924). The Caves and Rockshelters of the Vézère Valley. Proceedings of

the Geological Association 35 (2): 125-30.

Lepowski, M. (2000). Charlotte Gower and the Subterranean History of Anthropology. In

Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions. Ed. R. Handler. Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press: 123-170.

Locht, Jean-Luc, et al . (2014). Palaeoenvironments and Prehistoric Interactions in

Northern France from the Eemian Interglacial to the End of the Weichselian Middle

Pleniglacial. In Wild Things: Recent Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

Research. Ed. Frederick W. F. Foulds, et al . Havertown, PA: Oxbow Books.

Locht, Jean-Luc, et al. (2016). Timescales, Space and Culture during the Middle

Palaeolithic in Northwestern France. Quaternary International 411 (A): 126-148.

150

Loutre, M. F., et al . (2014). Factor Controlling the Last Interglacial Climate as Simulated

by LOVECLIM1.3. Climate of the Past 10: 1541-65.

Luce, Stephen B., James A. Montgomery, and George Grant MacCurdy. (1942).

Archaeological News and Discussions. American Journal of Archaeology 46 (4):

546-69.

Luneau, Gilles. (2002). Les gorges de la Vézere subjuguent par leur tranquillité. Geo : 68-

83.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1894). Nuggets of Knowledge- picked up along the way.

George Grant MacCurdy Papers, 1886-1983 (inclusive), Accession # 995-3, Box

6.5: January 2, 1894. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1912). Memorabilia and notes. “Instructions to Field

Assistants.” ASPR Records (Unaccd.) Box 2.7, Peabody Museum of Archaeology

and Ethnology, Harvard University.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1914). La Combe, A Paleolithic Cave in the Dordogne.

American Anthropologist 16 (2): 157-84.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1921-1928). Field Journal. American School of Prehistoric

Research (ASPR) Records (Unaccd.) 1919-1947, n.d. Box 4/21. Peabody Museum

of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

151

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1921). Letter. George Grant MacCurdy to Charles Peabody,

2/12/1921. ASPR Records (Unaccd.) Box 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1922). The First Season's Work of the American School in

France for Prehistoric Studies. American Anthropologist 24: 61-71.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1922). New Discoveries of Neandertal Man at La Quina and

La Ferrassie. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 5 (1): 1-3.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1924). The Archaeological Society Leases a Paleolithic Site.

Art and Archaeology 18: 171-2.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1924). Cultural Proof of Man's Antiquity: The Story as Told

by Paleolithic Evidence in Europe. The American Museum Journal 13: 27-30.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1924). The Field of Paleolithic Art. American Anthropologist

26 (1): 27-49.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1924). Human Origins: A Manual of Prehistory. Volume I:

The Old Stone Age and the Dawn of Man and his Arts . New York; London: D.

Appleton and Company.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1924). Human Origins: A Manual of Prehistory. Volume II:

The New Stone Age and the Ages of Bronze and Iron . New York; London: D.

Appleton and Company.

152

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1925). American School of Prehistoric Research in Europe

(1924). Art and Archaeology 19: 121-30.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1926). The American School of Prehistoric Research (1925).

Art and Archaeology 21: 75-81.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1927). Report by the Director on the Work of the Sixth

Season (1926). The Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 2 (3): 1-

22.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1928). Letter. [Letter to Dr. Walter Hough] Smithsonian

Institution Archive. Record Unit 305, “Papers of the United States National

Museum”, Accession 103151.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1928). Report by the Director on the Work of the Seventh

Season (1927). The Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 3: 3-8.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1928). Anthropological Notes and News: American School of

Prehistoric Research (Report by the Director on the Work of the Seventh Season)

(1927). American Anthropologist 30: 351-5.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1929). Mankind Advancing. Philadelphia: American

Philosophical Society. [Author signed copy].

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1929). Report by the Director on the Work of the Eighth

Season. (1928). The Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 5: 5-8.

153

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1930). Report by the Director on the Work of the Ninth

Summer Session. (1929). The Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric

Research 5: 5-8.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1931). The Abri des Merveilles at Castel-Merle near Sergeac

(Dordogne). The Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 7 (1931):

12-23.

MacCurdy, George Grant (1931). The use of rock crystal by Paleolithic Man.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 17

(12): 633-7.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1933). Letter. George Grant MacCurdy to James Russell,

4/17/1933. ASPR Records (Unacc.) Box 8.12 Library Collections [artifacts] 1931-

1942, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1933). Letter. George Grant MacCurdy to André de

LaBoulaye, 4/17/1933. ASPR Records (Unacc.) Box 8.12 Library Collections

[artifacts] 1931-1942. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University.

MacCurdy, George Grant. (1946). It Happened in My Time: The Autobiography of

George Grant MacCurdy, with a Final Chapter on this Changing World .

(Unpublished). George Grant MacCurdy Papers, 1886-1983 (inclusive), Box 6.7,

Accession # 995-3. The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University.

154

Mann, Daniel H., et al . (2015). Life and Extinction of Megafauna in the Ice-Age Arctic.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112 (46): 14301-6.

Maureille, Bruce. (2002). A lost Neanderthal neonate found. Nature 419: 33-4.

McBrearty, S., and Alison S. Brooks. (2000). The Revolution that Wasn't. Journal of

Human Evolution 39: 456-63.

McCown, Theodore E. (1948). "George Grant MacCurdy, 1863-1947. (Obituary)."

American Anthropologist 50: 516-24.

Mellars, Paul. (1973). The Character of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in

Southwest France. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory.

Ed. C. Renfrew. London: Duckworth: 255-276.

Mellars, Paul. (1996). The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from

Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Project Muse.

Mellars, Paul. (2004). "Neanderthals and the Modern Human Colonization of Europe."

Nature 432 (7016): 461-5.

Mensan, Romain, et al. (2012). Context and Dating of Newly Discovered Aurignacian

Rock Art from Abri Castanet (Dordogne, France). PALEO 23 (2012): 2-3.

Milner, Alice M., et al . (2013). Environmental Variability during the Last Interglacial: A

New High-Resolution Pollen Record from Tenaghi Philippon, Greece. Journal of

Quaternary Science 28 (2): 113-7.

155

Mithen, Steven. (1994). From Domain Specific to Generalized Intelligence: A Cognitive

Interpretation of the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic Transition. In The Ancient Mind:

Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Ed. C. Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow.

London: Cambridge University Press: 29-39.

Mithen, Steven. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for Origins of Art,

Religion, and Science. London: Thames and Hudson.

Mol, Joanne, et al . (2004). Weichselian and Holocene Fluvial Evolution of the Vézère

River Valley (Dordogne, France) [Evolution de la Vallée de la Vézère au

Weichselien et à l'Holocène (Dordogne, France).]. Quarternaire 15 (1-2): 187-93.

"Mount Holyoke: Summer 1930, Opportunity in Europe." Archived newspaper article.

. Author unknown.

Movius Jr., Hallam L. (Ed.). (1975). Excavation of the Abri Pataud Lez Eyzies

(Dordogne). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University.

Movius Jr., Hallam L. (1975). A Summary of the Stratigraphic Sequence. In Excavation

of Abri Pataud Les Eyzies (Dordogne). (Ed.). Hallam L. Movius Jr. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University: 7-18.

Muller, Ulrich C., et al . (2011). The Role of Climate in the Spread of Modern Humans

into Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 273-9.

156

Niven, Laura, et al . (2012). Neandertal Mobility and Large-Game Hunting: The

Exploitation of Reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac

(Charente-Maritime, France). Journal of Human Evolution 63: 624-35.

Noble, W., and I. Davidson. (1996). Human Evolution, Language, and Mind. London:

Cambridge University Press.

"Notes and News." (1929). American Anthropologist 31 (3): 575.

"Notes and News." (1929). American Anthropologist 31 (4): 829.

Olszewski, Deborah I. (2006). Review of Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the

European Landscape during the Last Glaciation. Eds. Tjeerd H. Van Andel and

William Davies. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,

2003. Paleoanthropology Society; PaleoAnthropology :116-119.

Oppo, Delia W., Jerry F. McManus, and James L. Cullen. (2006). Evolution and Demise

of the Last Interglacial Warmth in the Subpolar North Atlantic. Quaternary Science

Reviews 25 (23-24): 3268-77.

"Palestine Rich in Relics of the Old Stone Age." (1930). American Anthropologist 32 (3):

570.

Patten, Robert. (2015). Deciphering the Behavioral Heritage of Knapped Flakes. Journal

of Lithic Studies 2 (1): 1-11.

157

Peabody, Charles. (1921). Letter. Charles Peabody to George Grant MacCurdy,

2/10/1921. ASPR Records (Unaccd.) Box 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University.

Peabody, Charles. (1921). Letter. Charles Peabody to George Grant MacCurdy,

2/19/1921. ASPR Records (Unaccd.) Box 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University.

Peabody, Charles. (1922). Letter. Charles Peabody to George Grant MacCurdy,

4/22/1922. ASPR Records (Unaccd.) Box 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University.

Peabody, Charles. (1922). Anthropological Notes: Preliminary Report on the Field Work

of the American School in France of Prehistoric Studies for the Year 1922. American

Anthropologist 24: 493-4.

Peabody, Charles. (1922). Special Communications: The American School in France of

Prehistoric Studies History. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 5 (1): 61-8.

Pelcin, Andrew W. (1997). The Formation of Flakes: The Role of Platform Thickness

and Exterior Platform Angle in the Production of Flake Initiations and Terminations.

Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 1107-13.

Petraglia, Michael, et al . (2012). Hominin dispersal into the Nefud Desert and Middle

Palaeolithic settlement along the Jubbah Palaeolake, Northern Arabia. PLOS One 7

(11): 21.

158

Petraglia, Michael, et al . (2011). Middle Paleolithic Occupation on a Marine Isotope

Stage 5 Lakeshore in the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews

30: 1555-9.

Petraglia, Michael, and Richard Potts. (2004). The Old World Paleolithic and the

Development of a National Collection. 48th ed. Vol. 48.

Peyrony, D. (1933). Les industries ‘aurignaciennes’ dans le basin de la Vézère. Bulletin

de la Société Prehistorique Française 30: 543-559.

Peyrony, Denis. (1949). Le Périgord Préhistorique. Essai de geographie humaine suivi

des listes des stations, gisements, monuments divers connus avec leur bibliographie.

Périgord, France: Publication de la Société Historique et Archéologique du Périgord.

Polmar, Norman. (2008). Aircraft Carriers: A History of Carrier Aviation and its

Influence on World Events, Vol II: 1946-2006 . Potomac Books, Inc.

Pradel, L. (1966). Transition from Mousterian to Périgordian: Skeletal and Industrial.

Current Anthropology 7 (1): 33-50.

Quinn, Joyce, and Susan Woodward. (Eds.). (2015). Earth's Landscape: An Encyclopedia

of the World's Geographic Features. Nature.

Robertson, Adele Crockett. (1995). The Orchard: A Memoir. New York, New York: Dial

Press.

159

Roebroeks, Wil, Nicholas J. Conard, and Thijs van Kolfschoten. (1992). Dense Forests,

Cold Steppes, and the Palaeolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Current

Anthropology 33 (5): 551-86.

Roebroeks, Wil, et al . (2011). Watching the River Flow: A Small- Scale Survey of the

Floodplain Deposits in the Vézère Valley, between Le Moustier and Les Eyzies

(Dordogne, France). Analecta Praehist, Leidensia 41: 1-40 .

Roebroeks, Wil. (2008). Time for the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Europe.

Journal of Human Evolution 55: 918-26.

Roth, Barbara, Michel Lenoir, and Harold L. Dibble. (1995). Chapter 4: Basic

Descriptions of the Lithic Assemblages. In The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-

Capelle Bas (France). Eds. Harold L. Dibble and Michel Lenoir. Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: 41-159.

Rothschild, Nan A., and Anne-Marie E. Cantwell. (1981). The Research Potential of

Museum Collections. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 376: 16.

Rousseau, Denis-Didier, et al . (1998). Early Weichselian dust storm layer at Achenheim

in Alsace, France. Boreas 27: 200-7.

Roussot, Alain, and J. Roussot-Larroque. (1968). "Notes de Préhistoire en Périgord."

Société Historique et Archeologique du Périgord 95: 139-53.

Russell, J. T. (1932). Report on archeological research in the foothills of the Pyrenees

(1931). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 87 (11): 1-5.

160

Sackett, James R. (1981). From De Mortillet to Bordes: A Century of French Palaeolithic

Research. In Towards a History of Archaeology. Ed. G. Daniel. London: Thames

and Hudson: 85-99.

Sanchez de la Torre, Marta. (2014). Detecting Human Mobility in the Pyrenees through

the Analysis of Chert Tools during the Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Lithic Studies

1 (1): 263-79.

Saunders, Shelley R. (1983). Review of the Research Potential of Anthropological

Museum Collections. Eds. A.M. Cantwell, J.B. Griffin, and N.A. Rothschild.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 62 (4): 442-3.

Scargil, Ian. (1974). The Dordogne Region of France. North Pomfret, Vermont: David &

Charles Inc.

Sellet, Frédéric. (1993). Chaîne Opératoire: The Concept and its Applications. Lithic

Technology 18 (1/2): 106-12.

Serangeli, Jordi, and Michael Bolus. (2008). Out of Europe- the Dispersal of a

Successful European Hominin Form. Quartӓr 55: 83-98.

Shackleton, Nicholas J., et al . (2003). Marine Isotope Substage 5e and the Eemian

Interglacial. Global and Planetary Changes 36: 151-5.

Shackleton, Nicholas J. (1967). Oxygen Isotope Analyses and Pleistocene Temperatures

Re-Assessed. Nature 215: 15-7.

161

Shackleton, Nicholas J. (1987). Oxygen Isotopes, Ice Volume, and Sea Level.

Quaternary Science Reviews 6: 183-90.

Shott, Michael J. (2014). Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis.

University of Utah Press.

Sier, Mark J., et al . (2015). Evidence for the Blake Event recorded at the Eemian

archaeological site of Caours, France. Quaternary International 357: 149-57.

Sier, Mark J., et al . (2011). Direct terrestrial-marine correlation demonstrates surprisingly

late onset of the Last Interglacial in central Europe. Quaternary Research 75: 213-8.

Slimak, Ludovic, et al . (2010). Le Grand Abri aux Puces, a Mousterian Site from the Last

Interglacial: Paleogeography, Paleoenvironment, and New Excavation Results.

Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2747-61.

Sokal, Robert R., and F. James Rohlf. (Eds.). (1995). Biometry: The Principles and

Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. Third Edition. New York: W.H.

Freeman and Company.

Soressi, M., and M. Roussel. (2014). European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional

Industries: Châtelperronian. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Ed. Claire Smith.

New York: Springer.

Soressi, Marie, and Jean-Michel Geneste. (2011). Special Issue: Reduction Sequence,

Chaîne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches

to Lithic Analysis. PaleoAnthropology : 334-350.

162

Soressi, Marie. (2004). From the Mousterian of Acheuliean Tradition Type A to Type B:

A Change in Technical Tradition, Raw Material, Task, Or Settlement Dynamics? In

Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age: Volume II.

Ed. Nicholas J. Conard. Tubingen, Germany: Kerns Verlag: 343-366.

"SS. Roma (1926)." Updated 2014. Web article.

.

Steno, Nicholas. (tr. 1916). The prodomus of Nicolaus Steno’s dissertation concerning a

solid body enclosed by process of nature within a solid; an English version with an

introduction and explanatory notes. 1638-1686. Tr. John Garrett Winter. Macmillan

and Company, Ltd., London.

Stewart, John R., et al . (2003). The Mammalian Faunas during the Oxygen Isotope Stage

Three. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the

Last Glaciation. Eds. Tjeerd van Andel and William Davies. McDonald Institute

Monographs: 103-130.

Straus, L.G.(Ed.). (2002). The Role of American Archeologists in the Study of the

European Upper Paleolithic . Actes du XIVeme Congres UISPP, Universite de

Liege, Belgique, 2-8 septembre 2001. BAR International Series 1048, Oct. 10, 2002.

Suarez, Andrew V., and Neil D. Tsutui. (2004). The Value of Museum Collections for

Research and Society. BioScience 54 (1): 66-74.

163

Talamo, Sahra, et al . (2012). A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Complete Middle to

Upper Paleolithic Transitional Sequence of Les Cottés (France). Journal of

Archaeological Science 39: 175-83.

Teyssandier, N., F. Bon, and Jean-Guillaume Bordes. (2010). Within projectile range.

Some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of

Anthropological Research 66 (2): 209-29.

Tosello, G. (1992). Magdalenian Engraved Blocks from Limeuil: The Logan Museum of

Anthropology Collection. In French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan Museum of

Anthropology. Eds. R. White and L. B. Brietborde. Beloit, Wisconsin: Museums of

Beloit College: 277-345.

Trinkaus, Erik. (1976). Note on the hominid molar from the Abri Des Merveilles at

Castel-Merle (Dordogne). Journal of Human Evolution 5: 203-5.

Trinkaus, Erik. (Ed.). (1989). The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural

Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TSOAR, H., and K. PYE. (1987). Dust Transport and the Question of Desert Loess

Formation. Sedimentology 34 (1): 139-53.

Turq, Alain, et al . (2010). The First Human Occupations in Southwestern France: A

Revised Summary Twenty Years After the Abbeville/Saint Riquier Colloquium.

Quaternary International 223-224: 383-98.

164

Turq, Alain. (1999). Reflections on the Middle Paleolithic of the Aquitaine Basin. In The

Middle Paleolithic Occupation of Europe. Eds. W. Roebroeks and C. Gamble.

Leiden, The Netherlands: University of Leiden in cooperation with the European

Science Foundation:107-120.

Tzedakis, P. C., et al . (2009). Interglacial Diversity. Nature Geoscience 2: 751-5.

Tzedakis, P. C. (2003). Timing and duration of Last Interglacial conditions in Europe: A

chronicle of a changing chronology. Quaternary Science Reviews : 763-8.

Unknown author. (1990). Turning the Pages Back…July 22, 1944. Ed. Roma

Hadzewycz. The Ukranian Weekly , July 15, 1990. Vol. 28: 6.

Unknown author. (1930). Palestine Rich in Relics of the Old Stone Age. In Discussion

and Correspondence, American Anthropologist 32 (3): 570. van Andel, Tjeerd H., William Davies, and Leslie Aiello. (2003). Neanderthals and

Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the Last Glaciation:

Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project. Cambridge [etc.]: McDonald Institute

for Archaeological Research.

van Andel, Tjeerd H. (2002). The climate and landscape of the middle part of the

Weichselian Glaciation in Europe: The Stage 3 Project. Quaternary Research 57: 2-

8. van Andel, Tjeerd, et al. (2003). Archaeological Dates as Proxies for the Spatial and

Temporal Human Presence in Europe: A Discourse on the Method. In Neanderthals

165

and Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the Last Glaciation. Eds.

Tjeerd H. van Andel and William Davies. Cambridge, United Kingdom: McDonald

Institute of Archaeological Research: 21-29. van Andel, Tjeerd, William Davies, and Bernhard Weninger. (2003). The Human

Presence in Europe during the Last Glacial Period I: Human Migrations and the

Changing Climates. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European

Landscape during the Last Glaciation. Ed. Tjeerd van Andel and William Davies.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research: 31-

56.

Van Meerbeeck, C. J., H. Renssen, and D. M. Roche. (2009). "How did Marine Isotope

Stage 3 and Last Glacial Maximum Climates Differ? - Perspectives from

Equilibrium Simulations." Climate of the Past (5): 33-51.

Vander Linden, Marc, and Benjamin J. Roberts. (2011). A Tale of Two Countries:

Contrasting Archaeological Culture History in British and French Archaeology. In

Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and

Transmission. Eds. Marc Vander Linden and Benjamin W. Roberts. New York, New

York: Springer Verlag: 23-40.

White, Randall. (1982). Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic Transition. Current

Anthropology 23: 169-92.

166

White, Randall. (1985). Upper Paleolithic Land Use in the Perigord: A Topographical

Approach to Subsistence and Settlement. BAR International Series 253. Great

Britain.

White, Randall. (1992). The History and Research Significance of the Logan Museum

French Paleolithic Collections. In French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan

Museum of Anthropology. Eds. R. White and L. B. Brietborde. Beloit, Wisconsin:

Museums of Beloit College: 1-37.

White, Randall. (1992). Bone, Antler and Ivory Objects from Abri Blanchard at the

Logan Museum of Anthropology. In French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan

Museum of Anthropology. Eds. R. White and L. B. Brietborde. Beloit, Wisconsin:

Museums of Beloit College: 97-119.

White, R. and Brietborde, B. (Eds) (1992). French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan

Museum of Anthropology. Beloit, Wisconsin: Museums of Beloit College

William, J. Fletcher, et al . (2010). Millennial-scale variability during the Last Glacial in

vegetation records from Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (21-22): 2839-64.

Wong, Corinne, and Daniel O. Breecker. (2015). Advancements in the use of

speleothems as climate archives . Quaternary Science Reviews 127: 1-18.

Zagwijn, W. H. (1996). An analysis of Eemian climate in western and central Europe.

Quaternary Science Reviews 15(5-6): 451-69.

167

Zilhao, Joao, et al. (2008). Grotte des Fées (Châtelperron): History of Research,

Stratigraphy, Dating, and Archaeology of the Châtelperronian Type-Site.

PaleoAnthropology : 1-42.

168

Appendix 1

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

Figure 2o : Adele “Kitty” Crockett (Photo in The Orchard 1995) 19951995).

181

Figure 21 : Adele “Kitty” Crockett (Photo in Measuring Time by an Hourglass 2008).

182

Figure 22 : Adele “Kitty” Crockett (Photo in Measuring Time by an Hourglass 2008).

183

Figure 23 : Mouth and talus slope of Abri des Merveilles rockshelter in recent years (Photo credit: Don Hitchcock, 2014).

184

Figure 24 : Map of all sites on Castel-Merle rock formation. Note Sous Castel-Merle is now named Blanchard II. (Photo credit: Don Hitchcock 2014).

185

Figure 25 : Rock crystal lithics from Abri des Merveilles located at the Musée des Antiquités Nationales. (Photo Credit: Loïc Hamon; Courtesy of le Service Paléolithique et le Service Photo, M.A.N. de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Accession # 76595).

186

187

188

189

Appendix 2

Table 1 : Bordes’ 1961 Typology List (Taken from Debénath and Dibble 1993: 175).

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

Table 39 : Details for all variables across museum type (Tables 25-28).

202

Table 40 : Details for all variables across cultural level (Tables 29-32).

203