The Middle Paleolithic

The Middle Paleolithic includes those cultures which flourished during the early and middle stages of the Wurm glaciation. With cultural roots extending back in time to the preceding interglacial period,, these industries are for the most part a direct outgrowth of the late Acheulean. Our dating of these cultures ranges from approximations, where their relative stratigraphic position and correlation with glacial fluctuations is known, to precise dates obtained with the radiocarbon method. Whereas the earliest cultures termed Middle Paleolithic may date as early as 75,000 to 100,000 years B.P., we have radiocarbon dates only back to 55,000 B.C., because of the limitations of the radiocarbon method. Securely dated Middle Paleolithic sites thus extend from 55,000 B.C. to 30,000 B.C. On the other hand, late Acheulean sites are as recent as 55,000 B.C., as in Kalambo Falls, Rhodesia; thus there was regional variation in cultural evolution, with some areas evolving more rapidly than

Cultural Data Revealed by Archaeology

132

Table captionTABLE 7-1 Table of Radiocarbon Determinations for the Mousterian and Allied Cultures

Table captionEurope

Table captionB.C.

1. Les Cottes, Vienne, France	1	[ GrN 4334 [ GrN 4421	30,350 35,650	± 400 ± 700
2. Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, Yonne, France	GrN 4217	32,650	± 850
3. La Quina, Charente, France		(GrN 4494 (GrN 2526	32,150 33,300	± 700 ± 530
4. Radosina, Czechoslovakia		GrN 2438	36,450	+ 2800
5. Nietoperzowa, Poland		GrN 2181	36,550	- 2100 ± 1240
6. Broion Cave, nr. Vicenza, Italy		GrN 4638	38,650	±1200
		(GrN 4711	37,400	± 830
7. Erd, Hungary	<i	[GrN 4444	42,350	± 1400
8. Regourdou, Dordogne, France		GrN 4308	43,550	± 1800
9. La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey		GrN 2649	45,050	± 1500
10. Gibraltar (Gorham's Cave G)		GrN 1473	45,750	± 1500
11. Lebenstedt, Germany		GrN 2083	53,290	± 1010
12. Mussolini Canal, Italy		GrN 2572	55,950	± 500
13. Haua Fteah, Cyrenaica (level xxviii)	North Africa	GrN 2564	41,450	± 1300
14. Haua Fteah, Cyrenaica (level xxxiii)		GrN 2023	45,050	± 3200
15. Tabun B, Israel	Southwest Asia	GrN 2534	37,750	± 800
16. el Kebarah, Israel		GrN2561	39,050	± 1000
17. Geulah Cave A, Israel		GrN 4121	40,050	±1700
18. Jerf Ajla, Syria		NZ 76	41,050	±2000
19. Ksar 'Akil, Lebanon		GrN 2579	41,800	± 1500
20. Shanidar, Iraq (level D, top)	1	[GrN 2527 (GrN 1495	41,950 48,650	± 1500 ±3000
21. Ras el-Kelb, Lebanon		GrN 2556	> 52,000
22. Al Ghab, Syria		GrN 2640	> 53,000

Table caption(Clark 1971:46-47.)

others. After all this is what we should expect in a situation marked by small local groups frequently evolving in isolation without any widespread network of communication.

The major cultural tradition of the period is that termed Mousterian, first identified in the rock shelter at Le Moustier, France. Mousterian industries were widespread throughout the ancient world, being found in most of the region characterized by the earlier Acheulean (Table 7-1). In fact there seems to have been little Middle Paleolithic expansion into regions not populated by Acheulean peoples. Meanwhile, the Chopper-Chopping tool tradition continued in existence forming a cultural isolate in Asia. Mousterian sites are widespread in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa (see Table 7-1). South of the Sahara the period is characterized by another tradition of stone tool manufacture with cultures termed Sangoan and Lupemban. The period is thus not marked by the expansion of peoples into new geographic regions. What

»• Mammoth teeth

Fig. 7-1 Ground level plan of the Mousterian hut at Molodova I (western Russia). (Bordes 1968:Fig. 51.)

happened was that the environment changed with the onset of the Wurm glaciation, and some Mousterian cultures became adapted to life in a cold climate. Major cultural innovations included the development of varieties of tool complexes (“tool kits"), presumed to represent increasing adaptations to local environments. Thus the Middle Paleolithic is marked by an increasing diversification and specialization of tool inventories. There was a major emphasis on the use of caves and rock shelters as occupation sites, while sites in the open featured constructed shelters (Fig. 7-1). The economy included heavy reliance on the hunting of herd-dwelling animals. Site remains indicate that the Mousterian hunters were highly proficient, for some sites have bones of thousands of animals. The species hunted were highly selected. Other innova

tions, such as intentional burial, reflect the development of a system of beliefs which may be termed magicoreligious.

The human variety present during the period is predominantly of the type we know as Neanderthal man, a heavy browed, large brained descendent of Homo erectus. We again do not have identity between culture and physical type, although the typical Middle Paleolithic human was of Neanderthal type.

In our consideration of the Middle Paleolithic we will review the nature of the stone industries and their distribution, Neanderthal man, the WLirm environments, the growth of cultural elaboration, and finally the disappearance of Neanderthal man and the rise of his replacement, Homo sapiens.

MOUSTERIAN INDUSTRIES

Mousterian industries are characterized by tools made on flakes, with the predominant flake blanks being of the Levallois type. Though handaxes are present, they tend to occur in limited frequency. The flake tools are usually retouched on only one face—termed unifacial retouch by the archaeologist— with such retouch normally limited to the edges of the flake rather than extending over the entire flake surface. Additional tools consisted of unmodified Levallois flakes, blades, or points, which were shaped to their intended form on the core and, once struck off the core, were ready for use. The variety of implements, as contrasted with the earlier Acheulean industries, increased. Tool types of high frequency in the Mousterian include backed knives, a variety of end and side scrapers, burins, borers, and points. The increase in tool variety suggests new functions were performed, such as the scraping of hides, the manufacture of clothing, and the working of wood and bone into a variety of useful objects. In summary, there is a dramatic increase in the number of tools used to make tools.

The Mousterian culture is widespread geographically and possesses distinct cultural variants. For example, the Mousterian of the Levant is somewhat different from those of North Africa and Europe. It is in the Mousterian of Europe where we have had the greatest amount of study, with four major subtraditions being defined. These have been termed the Typical Mousterian, Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, Quina Mousterian, and Denticulate Mousterian (Figs. 7-2 to 7-6). These are not geographical variants, for they occur in the same region and even in the same sites. Furthermore they are not entirely chronological variants, as several of them existed contemporaneously. At one well-known site, Combe Grenal in Southern France, there are 68 layers of Mousterian culture. Within these layers the Mousterian variants occur and reoccur without chronological segregation. Francois Bordes, the excavator, suggests that these different varieties of Mousterian industries should be viewed as different tool kits to be employed as the occasion required, perhaps because of environmental changes. A brief description of the salient features of each of these variants is presented below (Bordes 1968, 1972).

Fig. 7-2 Flint implements of the typical Mousterian: 7. convex sidescraper; 2. Levallois point; 3,4, 5., Mousterian points; 6. canted scraper; 7. transversal scraper; 8. convergent scraper; 9. double scraper; 10. Levallois flake. (Bordes 1968:Fig. 33.)

Typical Mousterian Group

The Levallois technique is present with handaxes being rare to not present. Scrapers make up 25 to 55 percent of the tools. Points are well made, and backed knives are rare. The limace, a double-pointed scraper, is rare. Notched flakes and denticulates are also rare. The typical Mousterian is present from the beginning of Wurm I to the end of Wurm II.

Fig. 7-3 Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, Type A: 7. point with a thinned butt; 2. concave scraper; 3. backed knife; 4, 12. double scrapers on blades; 5. denticulated tool; 6. bladelet with a small retouch; 7. bifacial point; 8. burin; 9. short end scraper; 10. small border; 11. cordiform handaxe; 13. convex side scraper. (Bordes 1968:Fig. 36.)

Fig. 7-4 Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, Type B: 7. bad point, more or less bifacially worked;

2 backed knife on a blade, foreshadowing the Chatelperron knives of the early Upper Paleolithic;

3 denticulated and truncated flake; 4. backed knife on a flake; 5. denticulated tool; 6. core for the production of bladelets; 7. borer; 8, 7 7. small handaxes; 9. end scraper; 70. double burin.

(Bordes 1968:Fig. 37.)

Fig. 7-5 Tools from the Quina-type Mousterian: 7. convex side scraper; 2. thick end and side scraper; 3. transversal scraper, Quina-type; 4. bifacial scraper, Quina-type; 5. bone retoucher. (Bordes 1968:Fig. 34.)

Fig. 7-6 Denticulated Mousterian tools: 7. side scraper;2, 3,4. Clactonian notches; 5, 7,8, 7 7, 13. denticulate tools; 6. knife with natural back; 9. Tayac point; 70. broken tip of a point made of reindeer antler; 72. borer; 74. bola stone. (Bordes 1968:Fig. 35.)