Lithics of the Late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its implications (Quaternary International)

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e6

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Guest Editorial

Lithics of the late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and itsimplications

1. Introduction

This special issue of Quaternary International concerns lithic(stone tool) technology of the Late Middle Palaeolithic, with a spe-cial emphasis on the periods of Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 4 and 3,in Africa, Asia and Europe. Variations in lithic technology in thisperiod are considered in terms of their implications for the evolu-tion of human behaviour, adaptation and population dispersal.

We chose this topic for a number of reasons. We wished to shiftemphasis away from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition,and to explore and elucidate the technological diversity of theLate Middle Palaeolithic. From this perspective there was nothingpre-ordained in the origin of the Upper Palaeolithic (or broadlyanalogous concepts such as the Later Stone Age or Late Palaeo-lithic), and particular historical-demographic contingencies of theLate Middle Palaeolithic may have resulted in a number of differentoutcomes. These possibilities are as much part of the human storyas the widely researched Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition.

The technological diversity of the Late Middle Palaeolithic atleast in part explains what came later, but also challenges our def-initions and interpretations of the Middle Palaeolithic. The MiddlePalaeolithic has traditionally been seen as a cultural phase focussedon ‘prepared core technologies’ (PCT) such as Levallois and discoi-dal reduction methods. Yet, in the Late Middle Palaeolithic suchtechnologies are sometimes found along with, or are replaced by,other technologies such as bifacial tools and the production ofbacked microlithic tools (Fig. 1). In much of the world, the MiddlePalaeolithic ‘came of age’ with Marine Isotope Stage 5. Sites in Af-rica and parts of Eurasia become abundant, and are associatedwith increasing evidence for increasing cultural and socialcomplexity. In the case of the low latitudes, this is the time whenHomo sapiens took their first steps out of Africa. With the passingof MIS 5, the earth's climate began to dip, although by no meansin an even fashion, into the Last Glacial. Populations fragmentedand lithic technologies changed considerably.

Another aim of the volume is to highlight the diverse fieldworkstrategies and analytical methodologies applied to the analysis oflithics. This plurality of approaches is, in our opinion, a positivedevelopment. Some caveats apply to this point, such as the needfor greater standardisation in some methodological factors, forexample in how lithics are measured and recorded. We deliberatelysought to include papers from different regions and differentanalytical traditions in the volume. Over regionalisation, particu-larly when conceived of in terms of modern geo-political structurerather than Pleistocene biogeography, is a problem which we hope

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.09.0121040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

can be transcended. It is our hope that cross fertilisation will occurbetween different analytical traditions. For instance, that greaterquantification (and hence objectivity and replicability) can bebrought to chaîne op�eratoire approaches. Conversely, we welcomethe dynamism that the chaîne op�eratoire and parallel approacheshave bought to lithic analysis, as well as the ‘humanisation’ theybring.

2. The papers

Shea (in this volume) criticises the prevalent use of named stonetool industries (‘NASTIES’) in Palaeolithic archaeology. Such con-cepts, he persuasively argued, have done little to address majorpalaeoanthropological questions, such as the nature of interactionsbetween H. sapiens and Neanderthals in the Middle East in the LatePleistocene (see also Shea, 2013). Shea (in this volume) argues thatthe popularity of NASTIES with Palaeolithic archaeologists reflectsthe problematic belief that they offer a direct link from observa-tions of lithic variability to the interpretation of this. Instead, hecalls for comparative analyses of technological and typological vari-ation itself, along the lines of work conducted by Tostevin (e.g.2013; see also Scerri, 2013; Scerri et al., 2014). His paper is likelyto be controversial, but it also hard to disagree that structuringthe Palaeolithic record around industries, which are both poorlydefined and diagnosed by differing and often subjective means, ishighly problematic.

Oestmo et al. (in this volume) present the results of an extensivestudy of open-air Middle Stone Age archaeology in South Africa(~100e50 thousand years ago), in close proximity to the site ofPinnacle Point. Open air sites, and ‘off site’ artefacts, have beenunderstudied compared to caves and rockshelters, and their exten-sive survey reveals the important information that can be gainedfrom landscape level analyses. They show that the lithic assem-blages discovered show little post-depositional disturbance. Intechnological terms these open-air sites are important, as theydemonstrate early stage reduction of local raw materials. This isoften lacking at cave sites, to which partially reduced rawmaterialswere sometimes subsequently transported. They also demonstratedifferences in how different forms of raw material were treated inthe landscape. Their study demonstrates the use of systematic sur-vey techniques. Highlights include the thorough use of a Total Sta-tion to record artefact location and orientation, a robust way ofunderstanding post-depositional disturbance. Attribute analysesof the lithics were conducted, and the finds then left in place.More widely Oestmo et al. (in this volume) demonstrate the need

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012

Fig. 1. Variable Late Middle Palaeolithic technology. Rows from top: 1) west European Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools (Ruebens, in this volume), 2) MIS 3 Levallois points, TorFaraj, Jordan (illustrations from Henry, 2003), 3) flakes and tools of the MIS 4 Quina production system, Combe-Grenal, France (Faivre et al., in this volume), 4) core and flakes of theMIS 3 discoid production system, Combe-Grenal, France (Faivre et al., in this volume), 5.) Howiesons Poort core and geometric retouched tools from South Africa (Singer andWymer,1982; Wadley and Mohapi, 2008; Villa et al., 2010, 6) retouched tools and core from Sibudu, South Africa (~58 ka) (Will et al., 2014), 7) pointed flakes (non-Levallois) from SD-1,Yemen (~55 ka) (Delagnes et al., 2012).

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e62

to consider technological variation within the context of under-standing site formation processes, and the possible biasing effectsthese can have.

Mackay et al. (in this volume) report on test excavations at thesite of Putslaagte site 1 (PL1) in South Africa and present the anal-ysis of the lithic assemblage from the site. The site represents anoccupation of South Africa's Winter Rainfall Zone (WRZ) duringMIS 3. Existing evidence, largely derived from caves and rock

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

shelters, had suggested limited evidence for human occupation ofthe WRZ during this time. PL1 has produced a dense lithic assem-blage (the authors estimate that the terrace contains >350,000Middle Palaeolithic artefacts), differing in characteristics fromother Late Pleistocene sites in South Africa. Mackay et al. (in thisvolume) demonstrate the reorganization of human populations inMIS 3, in contrast to ideas that South Africa was largely depopu-lated in this period. The lithics are mainly made on hornfels. This

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e6 3

and other raw materials were acquired close by in the form of rivercobbles. The site represents a locality where early stage reductionwas carried out. After decortification various methods of preparedcore reduction were employed. Based on the underlying OSL dates(~60 ka) and the characteristics of the lithic assemblage, Mackayet al. (in this volume) argue that the assemblage at PL1 probablydates to late MIS 3, i.e. less than 50 ka. Overall the site makes animportant contribution to our knowledge of South Africa (see alsoMackay et al., 2014b).

De la Pe~na and Wadley (in this volume) present an analysis ofcore reduction methods in the Howiesons Poort phase of the classicSouth African site of Sibudu. The site has excellent stratigraphic res-olution and offers a key reference point for the area. Their analysishighlights the technological diversity of the Howiesons Poort,which comes at a time of renewed debates on its chronology(Tribolo et al., 2013). The detailed analyses of De la Pe~na andWadley (in this volume) can be contrasted to analyses which pri-marily focus on the retouched component of HP assemblages (e.g.Mellars et al., 2013). Their analysis of lithics from the ‘Grey Sand’layer of Sibudu demonstrates a diversity of reduction methods toproduce flakes, bladelets and blades. This includes the first docu-mentation of cores on flakes at Sibudu. Through such analysesparticular features of lithic technology may provide informationon spatial and temporal variability in South Africa more widely.

Spinapolice and Garcea (in this volume) present an analysis oflithic technology and settlement systems at the Aterian sites ofJebel Gharbi, Libya (~60 ka). Their topic relates to many recent dis-cussions, including the definition of the Aterian (see alsoBouzouggar and Barton, 2012; Scerri, 2013; Scerri et al., 2014). ToSpinapolice and Garcea (in this volume) the Aterian is defined bya combination of features, including the presence of multiplereduction methods and several forms of retouched tool. Theirapproach combines several analytical methods, including the ty-pology of retouched artefacts, an analysis of reduction methodsemployed and attribute analyses. This approach allows interestingnuances to be seen. For instance, most researchers describe Leval-lois reduction as being an important aspect of Aterian assemblages,but few specify the precise Levallois methods used. Spinapolice andGarcea (in this volume) demonstrate that recurrent centripetalLevallois reduction was the most common method in the assem-blages they studied. Alongside this classically Middle Palaeolithictechnology, elements such as blades and ‘endscrapers’ are fairlycommon in Aterian assemblages. As with other papers in this vol-ume reflecting a chaîne op�eratoire approach, Spinapolice andGarcea (in this volume) seek to move from technological descrip-tion to wider considerations of human behaviour. They do this byconsidering the types of sites in their study area, concluding thatfew are ‘residential sites’, and instead represent workshops andspecial activity areas. Through such considerations they emphasisethat while sharing many similarities with other African industries,the Aterian needs to be understood by considering factors such asthe specific character of the associated environments, raw materialprocurement strategies and settlement systems with which it isassociated in the various regions of North Africa.

Groucutt (in this volume) analyses Levallois point production atthe MIS 3 site of Tor Faraj, Jordan. This is a well-preserved site,regarded by the excavators as demonstrating the occupation ofthe southern Levant by Neanderthals (Henry, 2003). The recentliterature on the origin and dispersal of H. sapiens has emphasisedthe importance of point technology. In sub-Saharan Africa this typi-cally took the form of heavily retouched points. Points from theLevantine Late Middle Palaeolithic, generally produced by debitagemethods and less retouched than African forms, have often beenregarded as ‘archaic’. Dichotomies have been made between Afri-can projectiles and Eurasian thrusting spears (assuming a

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

normative function as weapon tips). Groucutt (in this volume) chal-lenges this dichotomy, as well as presenting a detailed overview ofpoint technology at Tor Faraj. Groucutt (in this volume) regardspoint production at Tor Faraj as demonstrating many aspects ofstandardisation. This takes many forms, from the preparation ofdorsal convexity to resultant aspects of point shape, such as elonga-tion and flattening. In size terms, 50% of points occur within aweight range of just over 10 g, a length range of less than 15 mmand a width range of 10 mm (Groucutt, in this volume). Such dataindicates the utility of considering Middle Palaeolithic technologyin terms of factors such as function, mobility and adaptation, ratherthan seeking dichotomies between ‘archaic’ and ‘modern’technologies.

Blinkhorn (in this volume) reports the discovery of a series ofnew Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Thar Desert of India, theeastern limit of the Saharo-Arabian desert belt. He highlights thefact that surface assemblages are common in areas dominated byerosional processes. The innovative approach Blinkhorn follows isto attribute terminus post quem dates to these sites where theyoccur on dated sediment formations. Covering the period of around100 to less than 43 ka these assemblages are important in under-standing Late Pleistocene technological change in South Asia,particularly as this is the debated period when H. sapiens appearedin the area. Blinkhorn (in this volume) suggests continuity of Mid-dle to Late Palaeolithic technologies, with blade technologies beingrooted in bidirectional Levallois reduction. His findings also tell usabout the behaviour of Middle Palaeolithic groups in the area,with, forms such as retouched points perhaps being related to haft-ing strategies.

Lewis et al. (in this volume) present a comparative analysis oftwo Late Pleistocene microlithic industries e the Howiesons Poortof southern Africa and the microlithic of South Asia. Assemblagesfrom these industries are cited in many discussions of ‘modern hu-man behaviour’ and population dispersals, but comparative ana-lyses have been lacking and based almost primarily oncomparisons of selected retouched components. Lewis et al. (inthis volume), in contrast, analyse the full range of lithic forms(cores, flakes and retouched flakes). Their analyses suggestnumerous differences between the microlithic assemblages,including different methods of blade production, variation in theblanks chosen for retouch and the forms of retouched tools pro-duced. Such differences highlight the diversity of microlithic as-semblages (see also e.g. Hiscock et al., 2011). This variabilityhighlights microlithic assemblages as regionally specific adapta-tions, rather than as broadly homogenous entities that can be con-nected in a ‘join the dots’ fashion. The picture which emergesreflects the complexity of the Late Middle Palaeolithic record andthe diverse origins and characteristics of Late Palaeolithicindustries.

Monnier and Missal (in this volume) argue that the ‘MousterianDebate’ of the 1970s has been revived in the form of discussions of‘technocomplexes’. They suggest that taxonomic units, howeverthey are defined, conflate multiple sources of variability. In thecase of the chaîne op�eratoire approach they perceive a number ofmethodological problems, including the inconsistency in the defi-nitions used by different lithic analysts and the arguably ad hoc def-initions of technocomplexes. Instead, Monnier and Missal (in thisvolume) highlight temporal variability in some key technologicalvariables at sites in Western Europe. This exercise reveals someinteresting patterns, such as the continuous presence of bifacesfrom the Lower Palaeolithic through the Middle Palaeolithic. What-ever one's opinion on higher level taxonomic units (see also Shea,in this volume), it is hard to disagree with Monnier and Missal's(in this volume) contention that rather than comparing types ofassemblage we should emphasise comparing actual lithic traits.

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e64

They also provide extremely useful summaries of key western Eu-ropean sites and of recent syntheses of lithic variability, particularlythose of the chaîne op�eratoire school.

Ruebens (in this volume) addresses typo-technological vari-ability in bifacial technologies in northwest Europe from MIS 5 to3. She proposes a grouping of assemblages featuring the general-ised application of bifacial retouch, which she labels the ‘Mouste-rian with bifacial tools’ (MBT). This can be contrasted withassemblages dominated by classic handaxes, west of the Rhine,and forms such as backed bifacial knives (Keilmesser) and leafshaped bifacial tools to the east. While many of the MBT assem-blages have poor contextual information, Ruebens (in thisvolume) presents a hypothesis that can be tested by future researchbased on assemblages with improved contextual information.However they are interpreted, the prevalence of bifacial technolo-gies in certain contexts problematizes definitions of the MiddlePalaeolithic, which is generally regarded as emphasising preparedcore technologies.

Iovita (in this volume) also addresses the character of bifacialtools in Late Middle Palaeolithic Europe. In contrast to typologicaland shape based interpretations of bifacial variability, Iovita (inthis volume) emphasises the importance of the management ofedge angles (as an example of ‘pragmatic’ influences on variability).Specifically he suggests that bifacial reduction is consistent with anemphasis on reducing andmaintaining edge angle. Unifacial reduc-tion is shown to lead to a decrease in edge angle, ultimately makingfurther removals difficult. Bifacial reduction, then, can serve as away of maintaining a desirable edge angle. The contrast betweenthe approaches of Ruebens (in this volume) and Iovita (in thisvolume) suggests that elucidating the causes, character and impli-cations of variability in Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial technolo-gies is likely to remain a lively field of research. As with allaspects of lithic technology, several factors affect the morpho-technological features of bifacial technologies. Understanding thebalance and relationship between these factors e including rawmaterial influences, pragmatic factors such as reduction intensityand edge maintenance, and cultural inheritance e clearly emergesas one of the central research themes of the European record.

Faivre et al. (in this volume) analyse variation in lithic produc-tion systems from late MIS 5 to MIS 3 at the site of Combe-Grenal, France. This site has featured prominently in discussionson the meaning of Middle Palaeolithic variability. The revised inter-pretation of the site by Faivre et al. (in this volume) emphasises thetechnological variation through the sequence, with early layersfocussed on Levallois technology, followed by the Quina productionsystem and then to a diversification of production systems in theupper part of the sequence. These include discoidal, discoid/Leval-lois, non-Levallois laminar and bifacial technological systems(Faivre et al., in this volume). This interpretation of the sequencepresents a different vision of the site to the division into the faciesproposed by Bordes (1972). Faivre et al. (in this volume) alsoemphasise that assemblages attributed to different facies are insome cases actually extremely similar technologically, but repre-sent different frequencies and intensities of retouch. They suggestthat their case study of Combe-Grenal may represent one manifes-tation of a wider pattern of Late Middle Palaeolithic change insouthern France. Their new vision of Middle Palaeolithic variabilityseeks to articulate factors including lithic production systems, rawmaterial procurement and transport, the structure of faunal com-munities and environmental variation.

Picin et al. (in this volume) explore the issues of flake predeter-mination and the relationship between discoidal and recurrentcentripetal Levallois reduction methods. They use the quantitativemethod of geometric morphometric analysis to analyse archaeo-logical collections from the SpanishMiddle Palaeolithic site of Abric

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

Romaní as well as material produced by experimental knapping.Their results suggest a considerable overlap in shapes betweenthe products of discoidal and recurrent centripetal Levalloismethods. These results contribute to long discussions on the simi-larities/differences between discoidal and Levallois methods, andthe significance of these differences/similarities (e.g. Peresani,2003). While the reasons for hominins choosing to emphasiseeither Levallois or discoidal methods are not addressed at thisstage, Picin et al. (in this volume) demonstrate that these methodsproduce flakes of overlapping shapes, and therefore at least in someregard represent similar aims. Their study demonstrates the utilityof combining archaeological and experimental data with quantita-tive methods of analysis.

Moncel et al. (in this volume) present a detailed technologicalanalysis of a lithic assemblage dating to MIS 4 from the site ofAbri du Maras in southeastern France. They apply various method-ologies to understand the movement of raw materials across thelandscape, the technological aspects of lithic reduction, and func-tional analyses to determine the uses of the artefacts. Their resultsdemonstrate a ‘fragmentation’ of reduction, both across space andvariably for different forms of raw material. As discussed furtherbelow, this combination of a chaîne op�eratoire approach to lithicanalysis with wider situational factors offers a most productiveapproach.

Finally, Grimaldi and Santaniello (in this volume) report theiranalysis of lithic assemblages from two well-known Italian caves(Riparo Mochi and Grotta Breuil). They analyse lithics from thesesites in both functional and technological terms, with these resultsthen integrated with other sources of data including chronology,faunal composition and palaeoenvironmental conditions. Theyconclude that the data suggest rapid behavioural responses fromhighly adaptable Neanderthals. They stress that this variabilityneeds to be seen independently of the subsequent transition tothe Upper Palaeolithic.

3. Discussion

The papers in this volume explore a variety of types of sites. Theyinclude reminders of the utility of cave/rockshelter sites to under-stand hominin behaviour and change through time (e.g. De laPe~na and Wadley, in this volume; Faivre et al., in this volume;Grimaldi and Santaniello, in this volume; Groucutt, in this volume;Lewis et al., in this volume; Moncel et al., in this volume; Picinet al., in this volume), but also that open air sites are critical to anyunderstanding of landscape use (Blinkhorn, in this volume;Mackay et al., in this volume; Oestmo et al., in this volume).Blinkhorn (in this volume), for instance, demonstrates that surfacesites can sometimes be associated with maximum ages based ontheir position in the landscape. Shea (in this volume) outlines theproblems of building regional sequences, particularly when theseare defined by industries based on sites with extremely complexstratigraphies. In the case of the Levant, the site of Tabun Cave hasbeen key. However, reinterpretation of the site showed that Garrod'sB, C and D units could actually be divided into 9 major stratigraphicunits, which can be further subdivided into 69 units (Jelinek, 1982).To compound this situation even further, Farrand (1979) demon-strated the stratigraphic complexity of Tabun Cave and showedthat extensive disturbance and redeposition had occurred.

The lessons from such considerations are clear; 1) understand-ing hominin behaviour needs to be based on a selection of typesof sites, both open air and caves/rock shelters, 2) open air localitiese of both surface and buried forms e can preserve relatively undis-turbed archaeological material (see also e.g. Groucutt and Petraglia,2012; Groucutt and Blinkhorn, 2013), 3) caves are generally com-plex depositional environments, 4) caution is needed in using

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e6 5

type sites to describe whole regions, 5) with sites such as those ofmicrolithic industries described by Lewis et al. (in this volume),the vast lithic assemblages can include millions of lithics, this posesimportant questions on sampling strategies for lithic analyses.

Turning to methods of analysis, the papers in this volumedemonstrate the extensive range of methodologies being employedby lithic analysts today. Two particular tendencies in recent lithicanalysis e that are in fact complimentary e can be seen. Firstly,there are approaches that emphasise attribute analyses and quan-tification (e.g. Lewis et al., in this volume; Monnier and Missal, inthis volume) and, secondly, those which are rooted in the chaîneop�eratoire tradition. Several of the papers seek to articulatedescription and analyses rooted in the chaîne op�eratoire traditionof lithic analysis with other categories of evidence, including faunalvariability and raw material procurement and transport (e.g. Faivreet al., in this volume; Moncel et al., in this volume; Grimaldi andSantaniello, in this volume). We consider these approaches to bean exciting development in lithic analysis (see also Delagnes andRendu, 2011). Alongside such approaches, Shea (in this volume) en-dorses the kind of approach developed by Tostevin (2013), whichemphasises variability in lithic attributes reflecting social intimacyand the rooting of this in a middle range theory. An approachbridging both these approaches, using multivariate statistics, hasalso been successfully applied in the Saharo-Arabian arid belt(e.g. Scerri et al., 2014).

When we turn to the evidence for and implications of techno-logical variability, the papers reinforce the impression of the LateMiddle Palaeolithic as a period of great complexity. As has been ar-ticulated elsewhere, the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitioncannot simply be seen as a change from one stable state to another(Hovers and Kuhn, 2006). There were in fact multiple transitions, atseveral scales. To understand these transitions and processes suchas major population dispersals of the Late Pleistocene, one needsto understand variability in lithic technology. It is clear that muchmorework needs to be done on this topic, but the papers here high-light the extent of this lithic variability, which goes so far as to chal-lenge definitions of the ‘Middle Palaeolithic’ and our units ofanalysis.

Alongside prepared core technologies such as Levallois, theLate Middle Palaeolithic also includes proliferations of bifacial,façonnage, technology (Iovita, in this volume; Ruebens, in thisvolume), and cases of microlithic technology (Lewis et al., inthis volume) (Fig. 1). Even in relatively time restricted variantsof the Middle Palaeolithic, such as the Howiesons Poort,increasing evidence demonstrates considerable technologicaldiversity (Lewis et al., in this volume; De la Pe~na andWadley, in this volume). Mackay et al. (in this volume) reportthe discovery of a huge lithic assemblage dating to MIS 3 fromthe interior of South Africa. This contradicts notions of south-ern Africa as being virtually abandoned at this time, and re-minds us that regional conceptions of temporal variabilityneed to be unbiased both in terms of spatial survey coverageand in the types of site sampled (Fig. 1).

Blinkhorn (in this volume) also provides lithic data that relatesto major questions in palaeoanthropology. His findings suggestthe indigenous origin of Late Palaeolithic industries in South Asia(see also Petraglia et al., 2009). Such a finding indicates that H. sa-piens dispersed before the appearance of Late Palaeolithic indus-tries (contra Mellars et al., 2013). As Lewis et al. (in this volume)make clear, microlithic industries are actually extremely variedacross both space and time. Microliths are a good example of thecomplexity of the Late Pleistocene record. Much work remains tobe done on describing the variability of microlithic technologies,while the interpretation of this variability is also much debated.Lewis et al. (in this volume) and other papers make clear that

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

robust interpretations of lithic variability need to be based on theanalyses of representative samples, and not on analyses of only asmall component, normally the retouched element. Monnier andMissal (in this volume) likewise emphasise the need to study thevariability of actual lithic attributes, rather than types of assem-blage, through time. In doing so they demonstrate, for instance,the presence of bifacial technology throughout much of the MiddlePalaeolithic of Western Europe. Change through time occurred indifferent ways and on different scales. As Grimaldi andSantaniello (in this volume) discuss, Grotta Breuil seems to demon-strate a real change in behaviour in the Late Middle Palaeolithic,while Riparo Mochi is interpreted as demonstrating more muteddifferences relating to reduction intensity and the acquisition ofraw materials from a smaller area.

Finally, the papers in this volume highlight the importance ofdifferent approaches to address similar or related questions.Ruebens (in this volume) explores the learned dimensions of bifacemanufacture and shape to draw inferences about Middle Palaeo-lithic culture. Conversely, Iovita (in this volume) explores the prag-matic factors, which determine the manufacturing choices andshaping of bifaces. These two papers incorporate divergent meth-odological approaches to explore the large scale archaeologicalpatterning of regions and in doing so differ from site-based studies.Such studies emphasise differences in scale, resolution and focus,and need not be dichotomous, despite a fondness in archaeologyfor dichotomies.

Examples of dichotomy-building include ‘archaic’ and ‘modern’,and ‘Africa’ and ‘Eurasia’. From interpretations of fossil evidenceand modern political boundaries flow considerations of lithic tech-nology. Groucutt (in this volume) discusses the problems of suchdichotomies, using the example of Levantine point technologyprobably produced by Neanderthals. Instead, lithic technologycan be seen in terms of a combination of cultural inheritance andadaptive/pragmatic factors, with Iovita (in this volume) providinga useful example of the importance of pragmatic factors on lithictechnology. Moncel et al. (in this volume) also provide data on pointtechnology, this time from Europe, and show that Neanderthalswere producing points of similar sizes and shapes to those from Af-rica that have been interpreted as demonstrating the precociousorigin of uniquely advanced behaviour (e.g. Sisk and Shea, 2011).

In conclusion, we suggest that less attention be given to con-structing dichotomies in lithic analysis, and more to describingand interpreting variability. The papers in this volume highlightthe diversity of technology in the Late Middle Palaeolithic, but pre-sent few precise spatial and temporal boundaries for this. Progress,we contend, will come from plurality. This applies to methods ofanalysis, to the types of sites studied and to the nature of collabo-rations with colleagues in different disciplines (e.g. genetics, envi-ronmental science). Cross-fertilisation within the differentschools of lithic analysis is also important. We welcome the turnto Binford within a chaîne op�eratoire context (e.g. Grimaldi andSantaniello, in this volume; see also; Delagnes and Rendu, 2011).Likewise, those using quantitative approaches need to rememberthat our subjects are human. Methods using quantitative ap-proaches need to be rooted in middle range theory (e.g. Tostevin,2013), or they risk being primarily an exercise in playing withnumbers. As Shea (in this volume) argues, the value of lithic anal-ysis can be weighed against the extent to which it contributes tothe ‘big debates’ of anthropology. This contribution can come inmany forms, and from the papers in this volume it is clear thatthe rich Late Middle Palaeolithic record of Africa and Eurasia hasmuch to offer for understandings of Late Pleistocene behaviourand demography. Along with fossil and genetic evidence, MIS 5 to3 lithic evidence paints a complex picture of behaviour, evolutionand interaction.

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e66

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor-in-Chief, Norm Catto, for his assistance inthe production of this volume. This collection of papers reflectsthe time and effort of the contributors and reviewers, and we thankthem all. The editors acknowledge the financial support of the Eu-ropean Research Council (grant number 295719, ‘Palaeodeserts’Project, PI: M.D. Petraglia) and Fyssen Foundation. Finally, we thankProf. Michael D. Petraglia for extensive discussions.

References

Blinkhorn, J., 2014. Late Middle Palaeolithic surface sites occurring on dated sedi-ment formations in the Thar Desert. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Bordes, F., 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row Publishers, New York.Bouzouggar, A., Barton, R.N.E., 2012. The identity and timing of the Aterian in

Morocco. In: Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S. (Eds.), Modern Origins: a North AfricanPerspective. Springer, pp. 93e105.

de la Pe~na, P., Wadley, L., 2014. New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort atSibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). Quaternary International (in thisvolume).

Delagnes, A., Rendu, W., 2011. Shifts in Neanderthal mobility, technology and sub-sistence strategies in western France. Journal of Archaeological Science 38,1771e1783.

Delagnes, A., Tribolo, C., Bertran, P., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L.,Mercier, N., Nomade, S., Peigne, S., Sitzia, L., Tournepiche, F., Al-Halibi, M., Al-Mosabi, A., Macchiarelli, R., 2012. Inland human settlement in southern Arabia55,000 years ago. New evidence from the Wadi Surdud Middle Paleolithic sitecomplex, western Yemen. Journal of Human Evolution 63, 452e474.

Faivre, J.-P., Discamps, E., Gravina, B., Turq, A., Guadelli, J.-L., Lenoir, M., 2014. Thecontribution of lithic production systems to the interpretation of Mousterian in-dustrial variability in south-western France: the example of Comb-Grenal (Dor-dogne, France). Quaternary International (in this volume).

Farrand, W.R., 1979. Chronology and palaeoenvironment of Levantine prehistoricsites as seen from sediment studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 6,369e392.

Grimaldi, S., Santaniello, F., 2014. New insights into Final Mousterian lithic produc-tion in western Italy. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Groucutt, H.S., 2014. Middle Palaeolithic point technology, with a focus on the siteof Tor Faraj (Jordan, MIS 3). Quaternary International (in this volume).

Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. The prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: de-serts, dispersals and demography. Evolutionary Anthropology 21, 113e125.

Groucutt, H.S., Blinkhorn, J., 2013. The Middle Palaeolithic in the desert and its im-plications for understanding hominin adaptation and dispersal. Quaternary In-ternational 300, 1e12.

Henry, D.O. (Ed.), 2003. Neanderthals in the Levant. Behavioral Organization andthe Beginnings of Human Settlement. Continuum, London.

Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., Mackay, A., 2011. Big debates over little tools: ongoing dis-putes over microliths on three continents. World Archaeology 43 (4), 653e664.

Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), 2006. Transitions before the Transition: Evolution andStability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York.

Iovita, R., 2014. The role of edge angle maintenance in explaining technological vari-ation in the production of Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial and unifacial tools.Quaternary International (in this volume).

Jelinek, A.J., 1982. The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216,1369e1375.

Lewis, L., Perera, N., Petraglia, M.D., 2014. First technological comparison of South-ern African Howiesons Poort and South Asian microlithic industries: an explo-ration of inter-regional variability in microlithic assemblages. QuaternaryInternational (in this volume).

Mackay, A., Sumner, A., Jacobs, Z., Marwick, B., Bluff, K., Shaw, M., 2014a. Putslaagte1 (PL1), the Doring River, and the later Middle Stone Age in southern Africa'sWinter Rainfall Zone. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Mackay, A., Stewart, B.A., Chase, B.M., 2014b. Coalescence and fragmentation in thelate Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa. Journal of Human Evolu-tion 72, 26e51.

Mellars, P., Gori, K.C., Carr, M., Soares, P.A., Richards, M.B., 2013. Genetic and archae-ological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southernAsia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America110, 10699e10704.

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Lithics of thimplications, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

Moncel, M.H., Chac�on, M.G., La Porta, A., Fernandes, P., Hardy, B., Gallotti, R., 2014.Fragmented reduction processes: middle Palaeolithic technical behaviour in theAbri du Maras shelter, southeastern France. Quaternary International (in thisvolume).

Monnier, G.F., Missal, K., 2014. Another Mousterian Debate? Bordian facies, chaîneop�eratoire technocomplexes, and patterns of lithic variability in the westernEuropean Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Quaternary International (in thisvolume).

Oestmo, S., Schoville, B.J., Wilkins, J., Maraen, C.W., 2014. A Middle Stone Age Paleo-scape near Pinnacle Point caves, Vleesbaai, South Africa. Quaternary Interna-tional (in this volume).

Peresani, M. (Ed.), 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology: Advances and Implications. BARInternational Series 1120. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Petraglia, M., Clarkson, C., Boivin, N., Haslam, M., Korisettar, R., Chaubey, G.,Ditchfield, P., Fuller, D., James, H., Jones, S., Kivisild, T., Koshy, J., Lahr, M.M.,Metspalu, M., Roberts, R., Arnold, L., 2009. Population increase and environ-mental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asiaca. 35,000 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences UnitedStates of America 106 (30), 12261e12266.

Picin, A., Vaquero, M., Weniger, G.C., Carbonell, E., 2014. Flake morphologies andpatterns of core configuration at the Abric Romani rock-shelter: a geometricmorphometric approach. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Ruebens, K., 2014. Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial technological across northwestEurope: typo-technological variability and trends. Quaternary International(in this volume).

Scerri, E.M.L., 2013. The Aterian and its place in the North African Middle Stone Age.Quaternary International 300, 111e130.

Scerri, E.M.L., Drake, N.A., Jennings, R., Groucutt, H.S., 2014. Earliest evidence for thestructure of Homo sapiens populations in Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews101, 207e216.

Shea, J.J., 2013. Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Near East: a Guide.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shea, J.J., 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as ob-stacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later MiddlePaleolithic Levant. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in SouthAfrica. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Sisk, M.L., Shea, J.J., 2011. The African origin of complex projectile technology: ananalysis using tip cross-sectional area and perimeter. Journal of EvolutionaryBiology 2011, 968012.

Spinapolice, E., Garcea, E.A.A., 2014. Aterian lithic technology and settlement sys-tems in the Jebel Gharbi, North-Western Libya. Quaternary International (inthis volume).

Tostevin, G.B., 2013. Seeing Lithics: a Middle-range Theory for Testing CulturalTransmission in the Pleistocene. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Douville, E., Joron, J.L., Reyness, J.L., Rufer, D., Cantin, N.,Lefrais, Y., Miller, C.E., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, P., Texier, J., 2013. OSLand TL dating of the Middle Stone Age sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter(South Africa): a clarification. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3401e3411.

Villa, P., Soriano, S., Teyssandier, N., Wurz, S., 2010. The Howiesons Poort and MSA IIIat Klasies River main site, Cave 1A. Journal of Archaeological Science 37,630e655 (in this volume).

Wadley, L., Mohapi, M., 2008. A segment is not a monolith: evidence from theHowiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science35, 2594e2605.

Will, M., Bader, G.D., Conard, N.J., 2014. Characterizing the Late Pleistocene MSALithic Technology of Sibudu, KwaZulu-natal, South Africa. PLoS ONE 9 (5),e98359.

Huw S. Groucutta,*, Eleanor M.L. Scerriba School of Archaeology, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the

History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2HU, UK

b PACEA, Universit�e de Bordeaux, Batiment B 8, Avenue des Facult�es,33405 Talence Cedex, France

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.S. Groucutt),

[email protected] (E.M.L. Scerri).

Available online xxx

e late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its.quaint.2014.09.012