Tool Industries of the European Paleolithic: Insights Into Hominid Evolution and Shifts in Archaeological Theory and Practice from the James B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TOOL INDUSTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN PALEOLITHIC: INSIGHTS INTO HOMINID EVOLUTION AND SHIFTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE FROM THE JAMES B. BULLITT COLLECTION by Sophie K. Joseph Honors Thesis Department of Anthropology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2020 Approved: ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– R. P. Stephen Davis, PhD (Advisor) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Laurie C. Steponaitis, PhD –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Silvia Tomášková, PhD ABSTRACT From early archaeological excavation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to modern conceptions of Paleolithic stone tool evolution, radiometric dating techniques and studies of paleoenvironment have revolutionized the study of relationships and divisions between these different lithic industries. In addition, there has been a shift from the formal to the functional approach when categorizing lithic industries through time. This project aims to examine how lithic industries in France changed through the Paleolithic and early Neolithic using a curated sample from Dr. James B. Bullitt’s contribution to the North Carolina Archaeological Collection. Early and contemporary archaeological literature about early stone tools are compared and connected to broad theoretical shifts in the field since the 1800s. Because many artifacts in the Collection are used as teaching aids, it is hoped that this project provides insight into the value of the Collection to the study of about Paleolithic hominid evolution. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor and thesis committee chair Dr. Davis: without his diligent guidance and investment of time, this project truly would not have been possible. Furthermore, the James B. Bullitt Collection and larger North Carolina Archeological Collection would not be in the incredibly organized and accessible state they are today without Dr. Davis’ tireless work. I would also like to thank Dr. Steponaitis for both helpful input and incredible enthusiasm regarding the utility of this thesis project for teaching purposes and advice on integrating artifact analyses. And, I wish to thank Dr. Tomášková for input and particular expertise on the theoretical debates surrounding Paleolithic archaeology. I reiterate special thanks to my entire committee, all of whom were incredibly supportive, excited, and most of all challenged me to think critically and engage with the discipline in a productive way. I would also like to thank Dr. Townsend Middleton for guidance on framing this project and navigating the beginning stages of research, writing, and grant proposals. Lorin Bruckner, Data Visualization Services Librarian, and Philip McDaniel, GIS Librarian, deserve special thanks for their help in bringing Figures 1 and 2 to life. Both my parents and my fellow students in my honors thesis cohort have been an instrumental support system, helpful editors, and a creative sounding board for ideas. And finally, funding for artifact photographs and engagement with the Collection would not have been possible without the Honors Carolina program and the Tom and Elizabeth Long Grant for Excellence in Undergraduate Honors Research. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2. The Lower Paleolithic Period .................................................................................11 Abbeville ............................................................................................................................11 St. Acheul Amiens .............................................................................................................15 La Micoque ........................................................................................................................18 Chapter 3. The Middle Paleolithic Period ................................................................................22 La Quina.............................................................................................................................22 Le Moustier ........................................................................................................................25 Chapter 4. The Upper Paleolithic Period .................................................................................29 Blanchard ...........................................................................................................................29 Labatut ...............................................................................................................................32 La Roche ............................................................................................................................36 La Madeleine .....................................................................................................................39 Chapter 5. The Neolithic Period ................................................................................................42 Grand Pressigny .................................................................................................................42 Chapter 6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................46 References Cited...........................................................................................................................52 Appendix A. Inventory of Artifacts from the James B. Bullitt Collection ............................60 Appendix B. Measurements and Notes on Artifacts Selected for Study ................................63 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Summary chart of time periods, tool industries, and hominid species ............................7 Figure 2. Map of sites on a political map of modern-day France ...................................................9 Figure 3. Large bifacial handaxe from Abbeville .........................................................................13 Figure 4. Large bifacial handaxe from St. Acheul Amiens ..........................................................16 Figure 5. Scraper from La Micoque ..............................................................................................21 Figure 6. Scraper from La Quina ..................................................................................................24 Figure 7. Typical Mousterian Levallois core from Le Moustier ..................................................28 Figure 8. Aurignacian blade from Abri Blanchard .......................................................................31 Figure 9. Noailles burin from Labatut ..........................................................................................33 Figure 10. Flat burin from Labatut ...............................................................................................34 Figure 11. Thin Magdalenian blade from La Roche .....................................................................38 Figure 12. Thin blade from La Madeleine ....................................................................................41 Figure 13. Long blade from Grand Pressigny ...............................................................................43 iv 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Understanding hominid evolution through the Paleolithic era has been one of the highest priorities in archaeology since the discipline’s early conception (van Andel et al. 2003; Bennett 1943; Binford 1985; Breuil 1913). Some of the most rapid and significant changes in the history of human evolution occurred during the Paleolithic, and thus understanding these changes in a spatial, temporal, and behavioral context is of paramount importance to the discipline (Bordes 1961a: 803). Within the past three decades, modern archaeology has revolutionized the study of Paleolithic hominid evolution by drawing upon techniques from the fields of paleoclimatology and isotope geochemistry to reevaluate the spatiotemporal placement of archaeological sites and understand them in the broader context of their paleoenvironment (van Andel et al. 2003: 31-33). In doing so, we now know much more about the lives of our ancestors, their culture, subsistence strategies, and interbreeding between hominid species. One of the central themes of this project is to examine how the study of Paleolithic archaeology in France has changed from archaeological excavations in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to modern conceptions of stone tool evolution. Artifacts from 10 French sites, 511 in total, were chosen for study from the James B. Bullitt Collection, part of the UNC Research Laboratories of Archaeology’s (RLA) North Carolina Archaeological Collection. In order to make connections with broader theoretical shifts within the field of archaeology, early and modern archaeological literature on stone tool evolution at these sites was compared with the artifacts present in the Bullitt Collection. The sites are discussed