P. Pettitt: François Bordes

FRANÇOIS BORDES

Paul Pettitt

Department of , , Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

François Bordes was one of the most influential Palaeolithic archaeologists in the western European and North American paradigms. In a career that spanned some four decades he devised the classificatory scheme that is still widely employed today, through meticulous excavation of Quaternary sites in France from the Périgord to the Paris Basin, pioneering experimental knapping, ensuring that the heuristic of l‟evolution buissonante came to define how Palaeolithic archaeologists conceived of change, and, particularly, the introduction of quantification to existing type fossil approaches to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Here, I survey briefly some main points of his work, and his contribution to and opinion of other contributions to the „Mousterian debate‟. Far from being restricted to developing our understanding of the Mousterian, Bordes‟ output was just as important in the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic. His technotypological scheme, introduced in the 1950s, precipitated a major change in the way prehistorians thought about the Palaeolithic record, and essentially ushered in the modern intellectual world.

Full reference: Pettitt, P. 2009. François Bordes. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 201–212. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Lithics, Mousterian, Middle Palaeolithic, Typology, France

INTRODUCTION acquaintance with lithics from southwest French sites — many of which he excavated For the middle decades of the twentieth — yet was not afraid to extend the insights century, the Palaeolithic of the Périgord and he‘d gained from study of these sites to a François Bordes (1919–1981: Figure 1) were continental or even global stage. The purpose effectively synonymous. Along with his of this paper is not to provide a wife, Denise de Sonneville-Bordes (1919– comprehensive review of Bordes‘ work, but 2008) Bordes set the technological and rather to ‗sample‘ areas in which his typological scene for the western European influence was (and remains) profound, and research paradigm from the early 1950s, and place these in something of a wider context. has left a legacy that still influences Readers may find it somewhat biased in researchers in Western and Central Europe favour of the Anglophone literature: it is and North America to this day. He can deliberately so, to show the profound effect indeed be regarded as ―one of the founders Bordes‘ work had on Anglo-American of modern Palaeolithic research‖ (Rolland & archaeology, and this should not be taken to Dibble 1990: 481). Like his predecessors lessen the considerable influence Bordes had such as the Abbé Breuil (Davies, this in France and many other European volume) Bordes had an intimate countries. When discussing Bordes it is

201

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) inevitable that the subject of ‗Mousterian Bordes, not the Mousterian, and my variability‘ will come somewhat to the fore; I coverage is intended to elucidate Bordes‘ have felt it necessary to provide a brief contribution and opinions about the ‗history‘ of the debate that ensued after contribution of others to the debate. First, Bordes recognised Middle Palaeolithic however, I shall explore his wider interests assemblage patterning, but this is cursory and achievements. and uneven for a reason; this is a paper about

Figure 1: François Bordes (right) with F. Clark Howell. From the collection of Denise de Sonneville- Bordes. Unknown photographer. [Photograph courtesy of Michel Lenoir]

BORDES’ BROADER CAREER AND Bordes‘ work was the cornerstone of my THE BORDESIAN ERA doctoral research; I was investigating aspects of Mousterian lithic assemblage variability, Perhaps the best way to crystallise Bordes‘ in southwest France, using collections from contribution to Palaeolithic archaeology is to Bordes‘ own excavations at Combe Grenal pose the question of what the field would be and Pech de l‘Azé. Bordes bestrode the like had he not made any contribution to it. pages of the thesis like the colossus. My This question was, in fact, posed to me supervisor Paul Mellars and I would often during my PhD viva in 1998 by my discuss aspects of Bordes‘ work, and examiners, Clive Gamble and John Gowlett. particularly the debates between himself,

202

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Bordes and Binford over what the would have found the route at some point, technological and typological variability but one wonders how far behind the recognised within the Mousterian meant. I discipline would have been if, for example, had read most of Bordes‘ series of Palaeolithic lithic analysis had missed the publications of the 1950s and 1960s in which ‗new archaeology boat‘ of the mid-1960s. he developed the méthode Bordes and in which he developed the typological, Bordes was, for much of his career, technological characterisation and statistical of Prehistory and Quaternary analysis of lithic assemblages, and my copy Geology at the University of Bordeaux, of the Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et where he had studied botany and geology in Moyen, which I had bought in Les Eyzies in the 1930s. At Bordeaux he inherited an 1993, never made it from my desk to the intellectual tradition that could be traced shelf until I had finished writing. Yet the back through Peyrony to Breuil, in which the question totally threw me. I had taken sequences of Palaeolithic assemblages Bordes‘ work totally for granted, and it took derived from the rockshelters of the some mental gymnastics to even try to Dordogne were seen to have wider (at least conceive what the academic field of Lower western European) significance, unfolded in and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology might a temporal succession over time, have been like if Bordes had not made such a and could be described and distinguished on pronounced contribution to the field. It could the basis of technotypological traits which easily have happened, given his history and formed the basis of an artefact taxonomic early interests. What if, for example, he had system (Sackett 1991, and see also Davies, stuck with botany; specialised in geology; this volume). Bordes, however, brought written science fiction as Francis Carsac full- geological expertise to Palaeolithic time; or worse, died as a resistance fighter in archaeology; his contact with Raymond the second world war? Our understanding of Vaufrey and Jean Piveteau in Paris during the lithic record would be considerably the second world war led to research on the poorer for want of his pioneering loess sequences and Lower and Middle experimental knapping (Bordes & Crabtree Palaeolithic archaeology of the Somme and 1969, and see Dibble & Debénath 1991: Seine Basins just after fighting ended, 222). There would be no vocabulary that resulting in the presentation of a thesis to the focussed prehistorians on why Middle Facultés des Sciences in Paris. From this Palaeolithic assemblages varied, and time onwards Bordes was working on a therefore no structured debate as to the standardised typology of the Lower and behavioural capacities of the Neanderthals. Middle Palaeolithic that culminated in the Lewis Binford would not have had Typologie (Bordes 1961b). The use of Mousterian variability to kick-start his fossiles directeurs had been promoted by the promotion of the ‗new archaeology‘, nor brothers Bouyssonie, but it was only with the would Paul Mellars have a chrono-cultural méthode Bordes that assemblages could be sequence to demonstrate assemblage change compared objectively in terms of the over time. In turn, this would not have frequency of these type fossils (Binford & stimulated Harold Dibble to introduce Binford 1966: 238; Kozlowski 1992). The perspectives from New World archaeology emergent patterning revealed, in Bordes‘ as explanations for the dynamics of lithic term, l‟évolution buissonante — branching variability, and overall we would not have (or bushy) evolution — through which arrived at our understanding today of the archaeologists could recognise that lithic variable trajectories of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, and thus behaviour, evolved in technologies that resulted from Neanderthal complex ways as did biological species behavioural flexibility (Hovers & Kuhn (Bordes 1950a). Straus & Clark (e.g. 1986) 2006). Of course one can argue that others coined the term phylogenetic paradigm to

203

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) describe French lithic systematics, which to formative period — that in which he was some seemed self-contained and inward developing his method and interests and looking, although which, with the benefit of essentially laying down the contribution for hindsight, had a profound effect upon later which he is mainly remembered — twentieth century Palaeolithic archaeology. essentially spans two decades from 1950 to Sackett (1991: 132), for example, has 1970. Subsequent to his studies of the defined the ‗Bordesian era‘ as the period northern French loess sites in the late 1940s with which ―we enter modern times‖. his work progressed from initial outlines of Bordes‘ method ―is [still] considered the his method (e.g. Bordes 1950b) to the standard typology for the Lower and Middle recognition of l‟évolution buissonante; Palaeolithic in most of the western Old discrimination of the Mousterian, Tayacien World‖ (Dibble & Debénath 1991: 222). To and Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes & Bourgon Sackett, the Bordesian era ―saw a significant 1951b); refinement of technological criteria, leap in the degree of resolution with which notably Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes 1952a, prehistorians were able to exercise control 1953a); statistical analysis (e.g. Bordes over the empirical contents of the [Middle 1953b); further refinement of typological and] Upper Palaeolithic record‖ (ibid: 133). definitions (e.g. Bordes 1953c, 1954a); Implications of this new ability to quantify, stratigraphy and chronology, particularly characterise, compare and interpret lithic with the new radiocarbon technique (e.g. assemblages were profound, and affected Bordes 1956a, 1957a, 1958a, 1960); even recovery methods and sampling interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic lithic strategies; ―excavation took on the character assemblage variability (Bordes 1961a, 1970); of stratigraphic dissection…all lithic and Upper Palaeolithic typology and wider materials were now saved…techniques were behavioural aspects including art (e.g. devised to use…palaeoenvironmental data in Bordes 1958b, 1963, 1964a, 1964b, 1965a). conjunction with the artefact industries to The excavation and study of cave and seriate site stratigraphies holistically, thus rockshelter assemblages spans the entirety of recasting regional taxonomic schemes into Bordes‘ formative period, involving a the form of ‗chronostratigraphies‘ which minimum of 38 publications on 29 sites eventually came to be supplemented by a (Table 1). time line of radiocarbon dates (ibid: 133). In this sense, in addition to provoking for the Although Bordes tends to be associated most first time rigour in recovery strategies, strongly with the Mousterian, it is clear from Bordes‘ scheme can be seen as transitional, the table that his attention was focussed as in the sense that it both represented the most much on the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic, sophisticated expression of relative schemes with the Lower Palaeolithic represented by in archaeology and the absolute some 24% (n=7) of his published sites and chronostratigraphy that was just around the the Upper Palaeolithic by 31% (n=9), i.e. a corner. little over 50%. The association of Bordes primarily with the Middle Palaeolithic has Bordes introduced statistics to the study of come about by the number of publications lithic assemblages in 1950, enabling both relating to the period (44% of the total using qualitative and quantitative approaches to the publication list in Bordes 1992), which is lithics to be employed simultaneously. not surprising, given that they were critical Assemblages would be characterised on the to the development of the méthode Bordes. basis of a combination of his typological trait list and technological attributes, following which they could be subjected to statistical characterisation. Although Bordes was a highly prolific researcher and writer, his

204

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Sites by period Publication reference Lower Palaeolithic Carrièrre Bouchon (Seine) 1946 Pech de l‘Azé Nord 1951b L‘Atelier Commont 1953d Vassincourt 1955a Combe-Grenal 1955b Amiens 1955c Pech de l‘Azé II 1969 Middle Palaeolithic Le Moustier 1948a, 1959 Saint-Cyprien Bordes & Bourgon 1948 Pech de l‘Azé Nord Bordes & Bourgon 1950, 1951a La Chaise 1952b, 1953e, 1965b L‘Abri Armand Chadourne 1954b Pech de l‘Azé 1954c L‘Ermitage 1954d Combe-Grenal 1955b, Bordes et al. 1966 Mas Viel 1956b Haute-Roche 1957b La Micoque 1958c Roc de Marsal 1962 Upper Palaeolithic Abilly (Solutrean) 1950c Villejuif (Aurignacian) 1948b, 1949 Evreux (Epipalaeolithic) 1951b Laugerie-Haute 1954e, 1958b, Bordes & de Sonneville-Bordes 1958 Gare-de-Couze (Magdalenian) 1963, 1964a Roc de Gavaudun (Gravettian) 1964b Laugerie-Haute (Solutrean) 1965a Corbiac (Gravettian) 1968a, Bordes & Crabtree 1969

Table 1: Selected publications by Bordes on the stratigraphy and assemblages of major Palaeolithic sites in France & neighbouring countries 1950–1970. This is not meant to be exhaustive.

BORDES, THE MOUSTERIAN, AND Bordes recognised that Mousterian THE ‘MOUSTERIAN DEBATE’ assemblages of southwestern France could be divided into four main types: Bordes, either working alone or initially in collaboration with Maurice Bourgon, Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition developed his classificatory scheme of (characterised by the presence of Mousterian variants between 1947 and 1965, handaxes and thus seen to be descended although the méthode Bordes was effectively from the preceding Acheulian, as well as in place by 1953 (e.g. Bordes 1953c). From numerous scrapers, denticulates and, in that point Bordes expanded his system particular, backed knives). This he geographically. The scheme was developed subdivided into Type A (chronologically using sites and materials deriving from the earlier and with higher frequencies of Périgord to the Seine Basin. In 1981, after handaxes) and Type B (chronologically twenty-five years of development and later, with fewer handaxes and a general discovery, Bordes (1981) felt that his scheme rise in the importance of backed knives) for western Europe was still justified and that additional aspects of Mousterian variability Typical Mousterian (with no singularly could be recognised from northern Europe to predominant form, differing from the the Near East. previous by sharply reduced frequencies

205

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

of handaxes and backed knives) common origin, and more original variants found in Central and Eastern Europe Denticulate Mousterian (dominated by suggested centres of origin that were denticulated and notched tools, with no independent of western Europe (ibid: 108; handaxes or backed knives and the rest of 1968b: 106–20). the assemblage comprised of scrapers, burins and borers in relatively low More importantly, the recognition of frequencies) patterning inevitably stimulated investigation; ‗the system [Bordes], Charentian Mousterian (with few originally descriptive, gradually called for an handaxes or backed knives, but with high interpretation‘ (Rolland 1981: 16). A critical frequencies of scrapers). This he belief of the phylogenetic paradigm of Breuil subdivided into two subgroups on –Peyrony–Bordes/de Sonneville-Bordes was technological grounds; the Quina variant that the industrial phases recognised through in which Levallois technology was technotypological analysis had cultural absent or rare, and the Ferrassie variant importance in that they constituted material in which Levallois technology was expressions of specific ethnic groups relatively common. (Sackett 1991: 111–2). Others disagreed. Bordes expressed his views very clearly, for Taking the two subdivisions of the example; Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition and two of the Charentian Mousterian into account, “What is the significance of this variability? this divided the French Mousterian into six We tend to interpret these different industries variants. Levallois technology crosscuts most as reflecting the cultural differences of of these. Statistical exploration of these human groups in possession of varied variants, from sites in the Périgord (e.g. traditions. Others prefer to explain these Doran & Hodson 1966; Callow & Webb variations as the result of different activities 1977: 1981) and the Périgord and Near East carried on by people of the same culture. (Binford & Binford 1966) tended to support And others again think that the Mousterians these major assemblage divisions that Bordes represent different steps in the evolution of had identified — ―the typology seems to do the Mousterian culture” what it was intended to do‖ (Kuhn 1991: (Bordes 1972: 146) 245) — although exactly how much these support the reality of the subtleties of the In support of his ‗cultural‘ interpretation subdivisions is debatable (Mellars 1996: Bordes suggested that the ―four main parallel 183). lines [of the Mousterian, i.e. the variants]…did not interfere with one another Other than the prolongation of Acheulian to any great extent‖ (1968: 141), and traditions in the form of bifaces, which is famously noted that ―in primitive societies, implicit in his naming of the Mousterian of conservatism is usually very strong. If one Acheulian Tradition, Bordes noted that the supposes that a Mousterian of Acheulian origins of these variants was difficult to tradition man married a Quina woman, she establish, largely because of our poor might have gone on using the thick scrapers understanding of the lithic industries of the to which she was accustomed, but we doubt Last Interglacial from which he assumed that her daughters would have done the they all derived (Bordes 1981: 108). All he same‖ (Bordes 1972: 147). Some countered could say was that the vast geographical that there was too little geographical range of diverse Mousterian types resulted isolation of the variants for such lack of from the phenomena of convergent evolution interaction to pertain — effectively an and human dispersals from a perceived argument stemming from the notion that

206

P. Pettitt: François Bordes allopatric speciation could apply to lithic Bordes objectively considered other technology — but these objections could be explanations; two, in fact (1961a). He felt conveniently dismissed on the grounds that that it was unlikely that each variant ―man is more ready to exchange his genes corresponded to activities in a particular than his customs, as the whole history of season and thus could be distinguished at Europe demonstrates‖ and in any case, this level, as most of the assemblages he because ―the Palaeolithic world was an worked with comprised abundant lithics empty world…the population was certainly which were derived from thick palimpsest very thin on the ground…a man must often assemblages which would be pushing have lived and died without meeting anyone interpretative reason to squeeze into single of another culture, although he knew ‗that season occupations. Similarly, he felt that there are men living beyond the river who one could eliminate an environmental make handaxes‘‖ (Bordes 1968: 144). How correlation, as several variants could be sharp a contrast in reasoning to current found at the same location and within at least hypotheses which assume the broadly similar environmental contexts. contemporaneity of Neanderthals and Homo Debate instead revolved around two other sapiens and on the basis of which promote potential factors; Paul Mellars‘ observations notions of contact and interaction as factors that there was at least a degree of diachronic in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition patterning of the southwest French (e.g. Mellars 1999, 2004)! Mousterian variants, and Lewis and Sally Binford‘s contention that function played an Binford and Binford perceived weaknesses important role in constituting the variants. in Bordes‘ preferred interpretation; Paul Mellars (e.g. 1965, 1969) noted that a “good arguments can be presented against degree of chronological patterning could be such an explanation, based on our observed among Mousterian variants of the knowledge of formal variation in material Périgord region, whereby in situations of remains of populations of Homo sapiens. interstratification at sites such as Combe- Nevertheless, such arguments remain Grenal, Abri Chadourne, Abri Caminade-Est, opinion, for as yet no one has proposed a Roc-en-Pail and others, the Quina variant of means of testing Bordes‟ hypothesis…formal the Charentian always overlay the Ferrassie variation in material items that is variant, and the MTA tended to overlie all inexplicable in terms of function or raw variants and was typically located high in the materials can be termed stylistic variation; Middle Palaeolithic stratigraphy, often close these stylistic variations tend to cluster to the lower margins of the Upper spatially in direct relationship to the amount Palaeolithic strata. Mellars in fact saw his of social distance maintained between observation as giving ―by far the strongest societies. Spatial clusterings of the various support to the major features of the Bordes Mousterian assemblages are not taxonomy…clear evidence for the demonstrable…in the Dordogne…[they] stratigraphic and chronological distribution occur interdigitated at several localities” of the principal industrial variants in the (Binford & Binford 1966: 240) southwestern French sites‖ (1996: 183). Mellars was able to refine his observations To some extent this was an unfair argument over the next two decades or more; the as the Binfords had used spatial (i.e. application of TL dating demonstrated the anthropological) data, and failed to account relatively recent age of the Mousterian of for diachronic change in the distribution of Acheulian Tradition as one would expect social groups, but they had at least identified from the stratigraphical observations (e.g. the inherent untestability of loosely-defined Mellars 1986, 1989, 1992); and eventually ‗cultural‘ interpretations. his observations were supported by the work

207

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) of Rolland (1988), all clear testimony to the past human systems of adaptation‖ (Binford robusticity of Bordes‘ patterning. Given his 1973, quoted in Binford 1983: 153). The general lack of attention to its tenets, Binfords believed that ―the use of however, Bordes was clearly unconvinced by multivariate statistics allows us to partition Mellars‘ argument, dealing with this in Mousterian assemblages into subunits of simple, pithy sentences, e.g. ―the hypothesis artefacts which can reasonably be that different Mousterian types represent an interpreted as representing tool-kits for the evolution of the same general Mousterian performance of different sets of tasks…these culture is negated by the numerous subunits of artefacts vary independently of interstratifications known today‖ (1972: one another and may be combined in 147), and ―the many interstratifications numerous ways‖ (Binford & Binford 1966, encountered in the deposits shows that we quoted in Binford 1983: 123, my emphasis). are dealing with different lines, and not as Thus, contra Bordes‘ cultural interpretation, was formerly thought with an evolution‖ their ―findings suggest that a great deal of (1968: 141). Mellars made no claims to the variability in Mousterian assemblages explain all Mousterian variants in terms of can be interpreted as functional variability” chronological change, so this should have (ibid: 123, original emphasis). Bordes felt been acceptable to Bordes, especially as that this conclusion clearly merited greater there was a diachronic element to his own consideration than the diachronic argument, classificatory scheme where the Mousterian e.g. ―the ‗different activities‘ hypothesis, of Acheulian Tradition of Type A preceded outlined by Lewis and Sally Binford, needs that of Type B (see above). Why this was closer examination‖ (1972: 147). Despite apparently so unacceptable to Bordes is this, Bordes was similarly dismissive of their unclear, although presumably a demonstrable interpretation as he was of Mellars‘. He diachronic element to the Quina, Ferrassie argued that, even if one accepted the validity and Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition types of the factor analysis on which the Binfords A and B — i.e. most of the Mousterian based their division of site types and thus variants — would leave too little functions, a number of objections could be contemporaneity between remaining variants raised. Tool types may co-vary with each to allow for his cultural interpretation. other, but this tells us little if their function is unknown. Ethnographically, different tool Lewis Binford, who, like Mellars, had kits are known, but always within the same excavated for Bordes, initially in site; how then, can we expect distinct tool collaboration with Sally Binford (e.g. kits to dominate any specific assemblage, Binford & Binford 1966) explored Bordes‘ especially when we know these are variants using multivariate statistical analysis palimpsests? Why do open air sites not yield on French and Near Eastern assemblages. different assemblages to cave and rockshelter The Binfords found them to be relatively sites? What of regional-scale differences robust, even if, as discussed above, they between variants, where, for example, in the found his interpretations of the resulting Charente, as the name implies, the patterning unconvincing. Turning to Charentian Mousterian (Quina and Ferrassie interpretation themselves, they explored variants) dominates and the Mousterian of various potential explanations. Bordes had Acheulian Tradition is exceptionally rare; effectively precipitated a major awakening in and Provence, where the Mousterian of Palaeolithic archaeology as, to Binford, this Acheulian Tradition is hardly known? was ―an appeal to archaeologists to explain Bordes rightly asked why activities were so their observations…[addressing the] difficult common in the Dordogne that were task of determining what our taxonomies are apparently unnecessary in Provence and rare measuring and what [Bordes‘] demonstrated in Charente. It is important to note that to patterning refers to in the organisation of Bordes, his cultural interpretation was not

208

P. Pettitt: François Bordes mutually exclusive with the functional enough to be the subject of major intellectual argument. Assuming that different ways of paradigm shifts in the investigation of performing the same tasks existed…―why Palaeolithic lithic technology. ―If correct, the not admit that the different Mousterian types reduction models…would not invalidate just represent these different ways, and that Bordes‘ typology. On the contrary, it would the difference is indeed cultural?‖ (1972: strengthen the use of the typology as an 149). To him, it was simply different ways of analytical tool in interpreting Palaeolithic doing similar things. assemblages‖ (Dibble 1987a: 116). The first manifestation of these models, in which The last major reorientation of thought about Rolland (1977) suggested that aspects of Bordesian Mousterian variability arose in the Mousterian variability related to ―differing late 1980s, stemming from a particularly degrees of secondary modification [i.e. North American school of anthropologically- resharpening]‖ clearly ―relies on the Bordes informed lithic analysis. New models were classificatory system‖ (ibid: 251, my initially proposed by Nicholas Rolland and emphasis) and ―confirms the usefulness of Harold Dibble; most researchers tend to the Bordes system‖ (ibid: 35) which was ―an quote the latter — Dibble wrote more important means for describing and prolifically on the models and pursued their comparing Lower and Middle Palaeolithic specific applications through to 1995 — assemblages (Dibble 1987a: 116). although the original notion was Rolland‘s and he should be credited far more than he is. According to these models (e.g. Rolland CONCLUSIONS 1977, 1981, 1988; Dibble 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1995; Rolland & Dibble 1990; Where exactly does Bordes stand in the Dibble & Rolland 1992), variability of the history of Palaeolithic archaeology? He was major typological forms on which a colossus indeed, but with one foot firmly Mousterian variability was predicated rooted in the French intellectual tradition of (notably scrapers), resulted from the degree the first few decades of the twentieth and manner in which they were resharpened century, and with the other firmly rooted in during use. The novel element of such the ‗scientific‘ traditions of modern research. models was that, effectively for the first For the Bordesian era was transitional, one time, formal type fossils of Bordes‘ system ―which redefined Peyrony‘s world in were not seen as deliberate products, but as Bordesian terms…and culminated...[in]…the relatively unintended by-products of a fluid considerably more complex world of technological system in which only industrial flux with which a prehistorian of generalised tool forms were consciously today must contend‖ (Sackett 1991: 135). desired. The form of these general products Bordes had inherited the ‗palaeontological would be determined by the quality and paradigm‘ from predecessors such as Breuil availability of raw material, and the and Peyrony, but whilst retaining the critical concomitant intensity of use wherein basis of this paradigm — the type fossil — resharpening of one or more edges might he shifted attention towards inclusive take certain typological forms of scraper in quantification of lithic assemblages, in a particular from one Bordesian category to context that viewed them as samples of another. It is not important here to discuss varying populations. One can, in particular, the specifics of the tool reduction models emphasise Bordes development of (see for example Mellars 1996 and Pettitt l‟evolution buissonante which took 1999 for critical discussions), and as these Palaeolithic archaeology out of the phase of were forwarded mainly after Bordes‘ death, linear geological epochs and ensured an their relevance to this paper is simply to organic heuristic, in keeping with biological show how Bordes‘ system was robust

209

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

(and thus palaeontological) change that has Bordes, F. 1946. La Stratigraphie des limons endured to the present. quaternaires de la carrière Bouchon à Ivry (seine) et ses répercussions possibles sur la chronologie préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société Géologique One cannot underestimate the heuristic and Française 16: 503–10. disciplinary importance of the Mousterian Bordes, F. 1948a. Les couches moustériennes du debate, which Bordes will forevermore be gisement du Moustier (Dordogne). Typologie et associated with. It ―provided the major techniques de taille. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 45: 113–25. intellectual focus for Middle Palaeolithic Bordes, F. 1948b. Une station aurignacienne in situ research for over two decades‖ (Dibble dan les loess de Villejuif. Bulletin de le Société 1991: 240). To a certain extent it continues Préhistorique Française 45: 107–8. today, at least as it is replayed in university Bordes, F. 1949. Le limons de la région de Villejuif et lectures as an object lesson in how leurs industries préhistoriques. L‟Anthropologie 53: 1–19. archaeologists recognise artefact patterning Bordes, F. 1950a. L‘évolution buissonante des and how they interpret it. Thus, while industries en Europe occidentale. Considérations modern research into Middle Palaeolithic théoriques sur le Paléolithique ancien et moyen. lithics has to some extent broadened its L‟Anthropologie 54: 393–420. horizons into raw material effects on Bordes, F. 1950b. Principes d‘une méthode d‘étude des techniques et de la typologie du Paléolithique technology, the chaîne opératoire, transport ancien et moyen. L‟Anthropologie 54: 19–34. in the landscape and the wider environmental Bordes, F. 1950c. Un abri du solutréen à Abilly context, the système Bordes is still there, (Indre-et-Loire). Bulletin de la Société underpinning the classificatory roots of the Préhistorique Française 47: 146–53. discipline; ―the Bordes typology has not Bordes, F. 1951b. Une industrie épipaléolithique à Evreux. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique been entirely forsaken: it remains the pre- Française 48: 520–38. eminent descriptive language for Middle Bordes, F. 1952a. Technique Levallois et Levallois Palaeolithic retouched tools, and the ancien. L‟Anthropologie 56: 554–6. Mousterian ‗facies‘ that issue from its Bordes, F. 1952b. Les industries moustériennes de la application continue to structure much grotte de La Chaise. Premiers résultats et diagnose comparative research‖ (Kuhn 1995: 15). I provisoire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 49: 528–31. suspect it always will be with us. Bordes, F. 1953a. Levalloisien et Moustérien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 226–34. Bordes, F. 1953b. Typologie et statistique. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Observations sur le note de Melles Alimen et Vignal. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 74–8. I am grateful to the editors, particularly Rob Hosfield, Bordes, F. 1953c. Essaie de classification des for their kind invitation to contribute to this special industries ‗Moustériennes‘. Bulletin de la Société issue, and for allowing me the opportunity to think Préhistorique Française 50: 457–66. about Bordes. For help with the production of the Bordes, F. 1953d. L‘Atelier Commont. paper I owe a debt to Jean-Guillaume Bordes and, L‟Anthropologie 57: 1–44. particularly, Michel Lenoir and Robin Dennell for Bordes, F. 1953e. Station de La Chaise, grotte Suard. their comments on a draft, and two anonymous Les industries moustériennes, premiers résultats. referees for their improvements. Needless to say, any Mémoires de la Société Historique et remaining mistakes are my own. Archéologique de la Charente années 1952–3: 17– 18. Bordes, F. 1954a. Notules de typologie Paléolithique: REFERENCES III, pointes moustériennes, racloirs convergents et déjetés, limaces. Bulletin de la Société Binford, L.R. 1983. Working at Archaeology. Préhistorique Française 51: 336–8. Academic Press, New York. Bordes, F. 1954b. L‘abri Armand Chadourne aux Binford, L.R. & Binford, S.R. 1966. A preliminary Eyzies. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian Française 51: 229–54. of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist Bordes, F. 1954c. Les gisements du Pech de l‘Azé 68(2): 238–95. (Dordogne). I, le Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne. L‟Anthropologie 58: 401–32.

210

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Bordes, F. 1954d. Le Moustérien de l‘Ermitage (Charente), quelques rectifications. (foilles Pradel). Comparisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 69: 602–3. L‟Anthropologie 58: 444–9. Bordes, F. 1968a. Emplacement des tentes du Bordes, F. 1954e. Présence probable de jaspe de Périgourdien supérieur au château de Corbiac, près Fontmaure dans l‘Aurignacien V de Laugerie- Bergerac (Dordogne). Revue des Musées de Haute. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Bordeaux 14–15. Française 51: 67–8. Bordes, F. 1968b. The Old Stone Age. Weidenfeld and Bordes, F. 1955a. L‘acheuléen moyen de Vassincourt Nicolson, World University Library, London. (Meuse) et la question de l‘Acheuléen ‗Froid‘. Bordes, F. 1969. Os percé et os gravé acheuléen du Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 52: Pech de l‘Azé II. Quaternaria XI: 1–6. 157–62. Bordes, F. 1970. The significance of variability in Bordes, F. 1955b. La stratigraphie de Combe-Grenal Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2(1): (Dordogne). Note préliminaire. Bulletin de le 61–73. Société Préhistorique Française 52: 426–9. Bordes, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Bordes, F. 1955c. Un biface exceptionnel provenant Row, New York. d‘Amiens. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-Cinq ans après: le complexe Française 52: 719–21. Moustérien revisité. Notae Praehistoricae I: 103– Bordes, F. 1956a. Some observations on the 8. Pleistocene succession in the Somme Valley. Bordes, F. 1992. Leçons sur le Paléolithique Tome II Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22: 1–6. Paléolithique en Europe. CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Bordes, F. 1956b. Le gisement moustérien du Mas Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1948. Sur quelques éclats Viel (Lot). L‟Anthropologie 60: 209–35. en calcaire, de type moustérien, provenant de Bordes, F. 1957a. Radiocarbone et corrélations Saint-Cyprien (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société lœssiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: 572–3. Préhistorique Française 45: 335. Bordes, F. 1957b. Le Moustérien du Haute-Roche: Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1950. Le gisement du Pech comparaisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: de l‗Azé Nord. Prise de date et observations 279–88. préliminaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Bordes, F. 1958a. Loess et chronologie Paléolithique. Française 47: 381–3. L‟Anthropologie 62: 160–6. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951a. Le gisement de Bordes, F. 1958b. Nouvelles fouilles à Laugerie- Pech de l‘Azé Nord. Campagnes 1950–1951. Les Haute. Premiers résultats. L‟Anthropologie 62: couches inférieures à Rhinoceros mercki. Bulletin 371–5. de la Société Préhistorique Française 48: 520–38. Bordes, F. 1958c. La Micoque. Ibidem for 1958: 166. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951b. Le complexe Bordes, F. 1959. Le contexte archéologique des Moustérien: Moustérien, Levalloisien et Tayacien. hommes du Moustier et de Spy. L‟Anthropologie L‟Anthropologie 55: 1–23. 63: 154–57. Bordes, F. & Crabtree, D. 1969. The Corbiac blade Bordes, F. 1960. Radiocarbon dates and Upper technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12: 1–21. Palaeolithic archaeology in Central and Western Bordes, F. & Fitte P. 1964a. Microlithes du Europe. Current Anthropology 5-6: 355–91. Magdalénien VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). Bordes, F. 1961a. Mousterian cultures in France. In E. Ripoll Perello (ed.) Miscelánea en homenaje Science 134: 803–10. al abate Henri Breuil, 1877–1961: 259–67. Bordes, F. 1961b. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien Diputación provinciale de Barcelona, Instituto de et Moyen. Publications de l‘Institut de Préhistoire Prehistoria y Archeologia. de l‘Université de Bordeaux Mémoire 1. Delmas, Bordes, F., Laville, H. & Paquereau, M. 1966. Bordeaux. Observations sur le Pléistocène supérieur du Bordes, F. 1962. Découverte d‘un squelette d‘enfant gisement du Combe-Grenal (Dordogne). Actes de moustérien dans le gisement de Roc de Marsal, la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux 103 (série B, commune de Campagne du Bugue (Dordogne). n.10): 3–19. Comptes rendus de l‟Académie des Sciences 254: Bordes, F. & de Sonneville-Bordes, D. 1958. Position 714–5. stratigraphique de l‘Aurignacien V à Laugerie- Bordes, F. 1963. Gravure féminine du Magdalénien Haute Est. L‟Anthropologie 62: 364–7. VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1977. Structure in the S.W. L‟Anthropologie 67: 347–60. French Mousterian. Computer Applications in Bordes, F. 1964b. Le Périgordien Supérieur à burins Archaeology 4: 69–76. de Noailles du Roc de Gavaudun (Lot-et-Garonne). Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1981. The application of L‟Anthropologie 68: 353–6. multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Bordes, F. 1965a. Une sculpture du Solutréen Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern inférieur de Laugerie-Haute. L‟Anthropologie 69: France. Revue d‟Archéométrie 5: 129–38. 99–102. Dibble, H.L. 1984. Interpreting typological variation Bordes, F. 1965b. A propos de la grotte de La Chaise of Middle Palaeolithic scrapers: function, style, or

211

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Nature 205: 626–7. Archaeology 11: 431–36. Mellars, P.A. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian Dibble, H.L. 1987a. The interpretation of Middle industries in the Périgord region of south-west Palaeolithic scraper morphology. American France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: Antiquity 52(1): 109–17. 134–71. Dibble, H.L. 1987b. Comparaisons des séquences de Mellars, P.A. 1986. A new chronology for the French réduction des outils moustériens de la France et du Mousterian period. Nature 322: 410–11. Proche-Orient. L‟Anthropologie (Paris) 91: 189– Mellars, P.A. 1989. Chronologies du Moustérien du 96. sud-ouest de la France: actualisation du débat. Dibble, H.L. 1991. Mousterian assemblage variability L‟Anthropologie 94: 1–18. on an interregional scale. Journal of Mellars, P.A. 1992. Technological change in the Anthropological Research 47: 239–57. Mousterian of southwest France. In H. Dibble & Dibble, H.L. 1995. Middle Palaeolithic scraper P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Palaeolithic: reduction: background, clarification, and review of Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability: 29–43. the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph Method and Theory 2(4): 299–368. No. 72), Philadelphia. Dibble, H.J. & Debénath, A. 1991. Paradigmatic Mellars, P.A. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy; an differences in a collaborative research project. In Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Mellars, P.A. 1999. The Neanderthal problem Gatherer Research: 217–26. University of continued. Current Anthropology 40(3): 341–64. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mellars, P.A. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern Dibble, H.L. & Rolland, N. 1992. On assemblage human colonization of Europe. Nature 432: 461–5. variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of western Pettitt, P.B. 1999. Tool Reduction Models, Primary Europe: history, perspectives, and a new synthesis. Flaking, and Lithic Assemblage Variation in the In H.L. Dibble & P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Middle Palaeolithic of Southwest France. Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour, and Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Variability: 1–28. University of Pennsylvania Cambridge. Museum (Monograph No. 72), Philadelphia. Rolland, N. 1977. New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic Doran, J.E. & Hodson, F.R. 1966. A digital computer variability in western Europe. Nature 266: 251–2. analysis of Palaeolithic flint assemblages. Nature Rolland, N. 1981. The interpretation of Middle 210: 688–9. Palaeolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42. Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S. (eds.) 2006. Transitions before Rolland, N. 1988. Observations on some Middle the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Palaeolithic time series in southern France. In H. Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Dibble & A. Montet-White (eds.) Upper Springer, New York. Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia: 161– Kozlowski, J. 1992. Préface. Bordes, F. Leçons sur le 79. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Paléolithique Tome II Paléolithique en Europe. Rolland, N. & Dibble, H.L. 1990. A new synthesis of CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity Kuhn, S.L. 1991. New problems, old glasses: 55: 480–99. methodological implications of an evolutionary Sackett, J.R. 1991. Straight archaeology French style: paradigm for the study of Palaeolithic technologies. the phylogenetic paradigm in historical In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: perspective. In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Gatherer Research: 243–57. University of Gatherer Research: 109–39. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Kuhn, S.L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: an Straus, L.G. & Clark, G.A. 1986. La Riera cave: Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Princeton. Northern Spain. Tempe: Arizona State University Mellars, P.A. 1965. Sequence and development of Anthropological Research Papers 36. Mousterian traditions in south-western France.

212