Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies Edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Copyright © 2003 By the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology 3260 South Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 All Rights Reserved First Edition This book is dedicated to the memory of John Desmond Clark one of the truly great pioneers of world prehistory. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies / edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-931707-42-1 (alk. paper) 1. Tools, Prehistoric. 2. Stone implements. 3. Projectile points. 4. Paleolithic period. I. Soressi, Marie. II. Dibble, Harold Lewis. III. University of Pennsylvania. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. GN799.T6 M85 2002 930.1'2--dc21 2002008942 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS . .vii PREFACE . xii 1 BIFACE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND VARIABILITY IN THE ACHEULEAN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN THE MIDDLE AWASH REGION OF THE AFAR RIFT, ETHIOPIA Kathy Schick and J. Desmond Clark . 1 2 ACHEULEAN BIFACES AND EARLY HUMAN BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS IN EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH INDIA Michael P. Noll and Michael D. Petraglia . 31 3 TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN THE BIFACES FROM TABUN CAVE,ISRAEL Shannon P. McPherron . 55 4 BIFACIAL TOOLS IN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC OF THE CAUCASUS AND THEIR CONTEXTS Vladimir Doronichev and Lubov Golovanova . 77 5 BIFACES AND RAW MATERIALS:FLEXIBLE FLAKING IN THE BRITISH EARLY PALEOLITHIC Nick Ashton and Mark White . 109 6 MANUFACTURE,TRANSPORT, AND USE OF MOUSTERIAN BIFACES:A CASE STUDY FROM THE PÉRIGORD (FRANCE) Marie Soressi and Maureen A. Hays . 125 7 FROM BIFACES TO LEAF POINTS Janusz K. Kozlowski . 149 8 SOLUTREAN LAUREL LEAF POINT PRODUCTION AND RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT DURING THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM IN SOUTHERN EUROPE:TWO EXAMPLES FROM CENTRAL FRANCE AND PORTUGAL Thierry Aubry, Miguel Almeida, Maria João Neves, and Bertrand Walter . 165 9 THE PITFALLS OF USING BIFACES AS CULTURAL MARKERS Marcel Otte . 183 10 DEFORMATION MODELING:A METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HANDAXE MORPHOLOGY AND VARIABILITY April Nowell, Kyoungju Park, Dimitris Metaxas, and Jinah Park . 193 11 RETHINKING THE ROLE OF BIFACIAL TECHNOLOGY IN PALEOINDIAN ADAPTATIONS ON THE GREAT PLAINS Douglas B. Bamforth . 209 12 TETHERED TO STONE OR FREEDOM TO MOVE:FOLSOM BIFACE TECHNOLOGY IN REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE Jack L. Hofman . 229 13 TIME AS SEQUENCE,TYPE AS IDEAL:WHOLE-OBJECT MEASUREMENT OF BIFACE SIZE AND FORM IN MIDWESTERN NORTH AMERICA Michael J. Shott . 251 14 AN OVERVIEW, WITH SOME THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY OF BIFACES Derek A. Roe . 273 CONTRIBUTORS . 286 INDEX . 288 ILLUSTRATONS FIGURES 1.1 Location of the Middle Awash study area . 2 1.2 Middle Awashstudy area . 3 1.3 Schematic composite section of stratigraphy of Dawaitoli Formation (eastern Middle Awash) in Bodo, Dawaitoli, and Hargufia drainage areas. 6 1.4 BOD-A3: Excavated cores and flakes . 7 1.5 BOD-A3: Five conjoined pairs of surface flakes . 7 1.6 DAW-A8:Two of the surface bifaces found eroded out . 8 1.7 DAW-A6:Two Acheulean surface bifaces made on Kombewa flakes . 8 1.8 DAW-A6: Opposite face of the two cleavers on Kombewa flakes in Figure 1.7 . 8 1.9 BOD-A8: One of the very large boulder cores found in the vicinity . 9 1.10 The two cleavers on Kombewa flakes in Figures 1.7 and 1. 8, a core, and a retouched piece . 10 1.11 HAR-A4: One of the nicely made bifaces found in the 1990 excavation . 11 1.12 HAR-A4:Three of the four well-made bifaces and one retouched piece found in the 1990 excavation . 12 1.13 BOU-A6: Lanceolate handaxe . 14 1.14 BOU-A4: Ovate and subtriangular thick bifaces . 15 1.15 BOU-A1:Two excavated lanceolate handaxes . 15 1.16 BOU-A1:Three excavated cleavers . 15 1.17 BOU-A1: Three excavated bifaces . 16 1.18 BOU-A8:The four finely made bifaces found in the vicinity of the hippo/artifact excavation . 18 1.19 BOU-A10: Four small cordiform or subtriangular bifaces found near the gridded area at the site . 19 1.20 BOU-A8: Plot of surface and excavated artifacts and bones . 22 1.21 HAR-A2: Distribution plot of artifacts and bones within the excavated area 23 2.1 Examples of Acheulean bifaces . 32 2.2 Old World map with Olorgesailie and Hunsgi-Baichbal valleys identified . 33 2.3 Site map of Olorgesailie region . 35 2.4 Site map of Hunsgi and Baichal valleys . 36 2.5 Boxplot of length, breadth, and thickness of Olorgesailie and Hunsgi-Baichbal valleys bifaces . 37 2.6 Length, breadth, thickness for raw materials at Olorgesailie and Hunsgi and Baichal valleys . 39 viii Illustrations 2.7 Elliptical confidence intervals for LCT length and breadth from Olorgesailie and Hunsgi-Baichbal . 43 2.8 LCT length for all LCTs . 43 2.9 Elliptical confidence intervals for bifaces length versus breadth between raw material types . 44 3.1 Biface measurements drawn from the combined systems outlined by Bordes and Roe . 61 3.2 Bed 76: Relationship between tip length and elongation, refinement, and Bordes’ and Roe's calculations of edge shape . 64 3.3 Bed 79: Biface measurements drawn from the combined systems outlined by Bordes and Roe . 65 3.4 Bed 90: Biface measurements drawn from the combined systems outlined by Bordes and Roe . 66 3.5 Basic measures of size for each bed . 70 3.6 Basic measures of shape for each bed . 70 3.7 Basic measures of size and Jelinek’s biface to scraper ratio . 71 3.8 Basic measures of shape and Jelinek’s ratio . 71 4.1 Bifaces from Tcona and Kudaro 3, backed bifaces from Tcona,Azikh and Kudaro, and partial bifaces from Treugol’naya cave . 80 4.2 Bifaces from Acheulian cave sites:Tcona, Kudaro 1,and Azikh . 81 4.3 Bifaces on flakes and cleavers from Acheulian cave sites:Tcona, Kudaro 1, and Azikh . 82 4.4 Bifaces from Acheulian sites:Djraber and Satani-dar . 86 4.5 Bifaces from Upper Acheulian sites in the northwestern Caucasus: Sredniy Khadjoh, Fortepyanka,Abadzeh, and Abin . 87 4.6 Bifacial tools from open air site at Il’skaya 1 . 92 4.7 Bifacial and partially bifacially worked tools from Mezmaiskaya cave, layers 3–2B . 93 4.8 Bifacial and partially bifacially worked tools from Barakaevskaya, Gubskiy, Baranaha 4,Mezmaiskaya, and Il’skaya 2 . 95 4.9 Partial bifaces from Mousterian cave sites in the Transcaucasus—Kudaro 3, Djruchula, Kudaro 1,Lusakert,Taglar, Erevan, and Bronzovaya . 98 4.10 Bifacial leaf-like projectile points from Mousterian sites in the Caucasus Matouzka,Ahshtirskaya,Tcona . 101 5.1 Percentage of biface types for different raw material sources . 110 5.2 Percentage of pointed bifaces over percentage of derived raw material . 111 5.3 Tripartite diagram comparing the morphology of biface roughouts and finished bifaces from Boxgrove, Bowman’s Lodge, Caddington, Gaddesden Row, Round Green and High Lodge . 112 5.4 Biface from Elveden, Suffolk . 118 6.1 Location of Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France) . 126 6.2 Two biface thinning flakes from Grotte XVI,layer C . 131 6.3 Biface showing traces of use on wood, re-sharpening and additional use on wood from Grotte XVI,level C . 132 6.4 Bifaces showing traces of use to scrape wood followed by resharpening from Grotte XVI,level C . 134 6.5 Biface used on wood and bone from Grotte XVI, level C . 135 6.6 Biface used on hide or meat and wood from Grotte XVI, level C . 136 6.7 Biface used on wood from Grotte XVI,level C . 138 7.1 "Movius line" and spread of "Out-of-Africa" Acheulian industries . 150 Illustrations ix 7.2 Leaf points from Korolevo, layer Va (Transcarpathian Ukraine) . 152 7.3 Leaf point and asymetrical side scraper from Pietraszyn 49 (Upper Silesia, Poland) . 155 7.4 Map of the Micoquian and Moustero-Levalloisian with leaf points dated to isotope stages 5–3 . 157 7.5 Pylipche XI (Podolie, Ukraine). Leaf points and Levallois cores . 158 8.1 Distribution map of Solutrean sites in southern Europe and location of the two regional groups studied . 166 8.2 First group of large laurel leaf points (Abri Fritsch,Vignaud Cave) . 167 8.3 Preform and fragments obtained during the shaping of the second group of large laurel leaf points at Les Maitreaux (Indre-et-Loire) . 168 8.4 Distribution of lithic artifacts in level 2a at Les Maitreaux showing a concentration of large flakes created during the shaping of large laurel leaves . 169 8.5 Refitted shaping flakes showing the preparation process of platforms and the use of overshot flakes at Les Maitreaux . 170 8.6 Hypothetical reconstruction of two solutions for the shaping of large nodules at Les Maitreaux . 171 8.7 Mesial fragments of a large laurel leaf point with several detachments revealing resharpening after fracture . 173 8.8 Small laurel leaf points from Creuse drainage basin settlements . 176 8.9 Small laurel leaves from Alentejo and central Portugal . 177 8.10 Use of heat treatment in shaping and retouching small laurel leaf points from Solutrean assemblages in Portugal . 178 9.1 Example of convergent effects independently generating similar shapes (U.S. Clovis point and European Chalcolithic knife) . 184 9.2 Acheulean biface (Lower Paleolithic) and bifacial knife (Middle Paleolithic of Central Europe) . 184 9.3 Backed Micoquian knives from La Micoque, France and Bockstein IIIa, Germany . 185 9.4 Aterian bifacial pieces from Morocco, tanged points from Spain, and feuille de laurier from Dordogne, France .