84 Giants and pygmies: the professionalization oj Canadian Archaeology
'T'
-
'\(JllLL W.e:. 1972 One Hundred and TIVent,­
fi\T Y cars of Archaeolog) in the Canarlian
PrO\·inces. Bulll'lill 0/ Ihl' Canadian Arduu­
o!o,gica! ~1,w(i(lIi()Jl -t: 1-713.
197:J C:anada. In The Do'elo/Jlllmi oj'. Vorlh
.·llIInican Ardwmlog)', J. E. Fitting (cd. : 49­
8j. "eIV York.
ORR R.n. TC)I I Dr. Dal id Bo) Ie. . ll1nu([1 Ar­
dw('ologieal Re/JorlJi!r Olliario. ':)11: 7-8.
P WKLR A.C. 19°7 h'x(rl"l.'atiofll in at! Frie indian
r 'illage (lwl Barial Sill' (II Riple)'. Chaul([uljua
Coanlr .. \'I'l<' link .\liJan): :";ell York Slate
.\ 1u:-,cu III Bulletin I I 7.
PL'\[)!J(('\'>l J.F. and B.G. TRI(,(;I.R J972
Carlin'.\ Horhda/!,a (Jnd Ihl' j)OU'IOti Site.
:-IOIllITal.
Pr(,(,()IJ.Sn \Rldnd.\1. ROBl.RJ'-,O,\I977 7hrce
(;m!ltril',\ (!/,)'m/til!l J/c!WCO!O,!!,.'J'. Edinburgh.
R IBI.-.., RL\1. J q()G PiiTC' ell' 1£1 p{Til-Jdc
at'chaiclue trOU\-cT'> \'('r" 1700 clans 1<1 IT­
giOllC de lkcancouL (;altitf\ d'archi%/,!i{)
(jll/bl'mi\c 2, llO. T: 22-3-t.
Rlw:-d' I In !'\(, Iqi'l h/l/odu(l/ot! /0 Prl'hi,l!oJJ.
"ell York.
SI\"'''''.\\·.!). [{)ti3 Sir DaIIiel \\'i],oIl aIld the
Prl'!li\/orir JllJwl.\ (!l·)(ol!(llId: :\ CCIltcnar:
Stud ~. Prorecdillgl (!/ Ihr Sorie(J' (!/.1nliqllari('.\
!i/Smill/nd Cj(): I-g.
SeLl ILR E.G. ,B-tq ~lI)()rI~S!,iJl(l! JloJluJJlI'!l(\ (:J th('
,)'Iale (:( \'ell' 1(1/"1..-. \\'a'ihington: Slnith­
sonian C:onlribulion:-, to Kno\\'ledge:2, i:'\.
SURR F. 1882 .\nthropological \\'ork in An1­
crica. Po/m!m ,)(/>11(( J[ot!lh{r -tI: 28q-30j.
TIII(,(,I'R B.G. I ()()tia Sir Daniel \\'ilSOll:
C:;ulacla'-" Fir:-,t :\Tllhropologi'it. .111/hro­
/)o!o,gi({f B: 1-28.
J{)(jlib ,Sir John \\'illiaIll nall'SOIl: .\
Faithful .\lltlHopolngi:-'L. .1nlhrojJO!ogi((I B:
3~I-,-)().
1~.l7u "I"he Slrdtcg~ (IC IroClLl()iaIl Prc­
hislO!\·. On Iorio .Jrdweolog)' 11·: :J-t8.
I qit> The .\rchacolog-ical Ba\c 111
C:allacla: Traillillg, Facililil',"" ()pportu­
nitic'-'. Ill. \"e/, , PO,I/il'(lh'(\ ill ((1!I(u!iw/.lr(/w(­
o!()/!,r .. \.C . .\IcKa~ cd. : IHj-2()1. ()lta\\a:
Ro) al So"i"ll oj' Calla,!;\.
I~)ig a liJIIl'aJl(/1J(u!itioJ/I: Fu({),\ /11.1/­
(!1(/(o!ogi((/!lll/I'J/Jlt!al/o)/. EdinIHlrg:h.
- I 97 g b \\'illiam \\'intemberg: lroquoian
Archaeologist. In Xorlhl'a.ltertl Anlhropology
III iv[of/ol)' oj idarwn rr hill'. \Yilliam
Engelbrecht and D.K. Grayson I.eds), PI'.
5- 21 . Rlndgc: OccaSional Papers in
:'\ortllcasLern Anthropology, ~o . .1.
v." Cm·RII.\'IlE. 1()3:J "otice of an Indian
Burying Ground, By-lown. Canadian .Journal
r: 160-61.
\\' II.!"\' G. R. andJ .A. S \l'J.()I I' I 974 A lIislor)' ~{
.lmeri(an .Irrhato!ogr. London and San
Francisc() .
\\·ll.so,.D.",,:1.18+g .ifcmmiall o{ledinburgh in
Ihl' Olden Time. Edinburgh.
rBj I The .-1rchaco!og,J and Prdll:,.\!orir ~"lnl/als
u/Scotland. London.
I BS-t Remarks on SOine Coincidences
between the Prilnitin' AntiCluities of the
Old allCl "cw \\'orld. Calladiall }ournal 2:
21j-I ~.
18S5 Hints f()l' the Formation of a Can­
adian Collection 0 r Ancien l Crania.
Canadian }oumal :r 345-+ 7.
18.36 DiscO\Try of' Indian Remains,
Count\ :\orfc)lk. Canada \\'est. Canadiall
.lol1l/wl. ".S. 1: ~I 1-19.
1857 Supposcd Prn'alenee of One
Cranial T\pe Throughout the .-'..merican
.\borigines. Canadiall .lUllmal ".S. 2: 40(j­
33·
- 1862 Prehi)/(!lic .\lall, London.
I Wi) The Plehislolic .1I1na!., 0/ Scollalld.
I . onnon.
188+ The Huron-Iroquois of Canada: A
'I\pical Race oL-\lnerican .\borigines. Pru-.
ctfdiJlp,,\ alld 7 wJl\(Jrtions (!llhe R(~}'(J! So, ;t(1" oj
Canada 2, Scric\ L Section ii: 55- 106.
18Bc) The Rigltl 11mul: l.eji Halldedm.'.,.
I,ondon.
- -- I 89~ 7 hI' Losl .lllanlil and olhn f;lltllo­
grajJltic Siudifs. :\c\\ York ..
\ \' L\'>( lit.] l'~ 11'\ I88q ,Yarratll't and enllta! HiS
lo/)' oj'.lmniw. Yol. I. Boston.
\\' I' Il'.IIBI.R(;. \\'..J. Ii)+O Harlan Ingersoll
Smith . .·!mcriCIIII .111Iiqllil)' 6: 63-6+
\\. R"" , (;.:-1. and H.H. L \\(;'1'0' eds
Rcl'in.l' (!/ lli,ltori((l! Publica/lo!l.\ Rdating /0
CaJlada. 'l'oronlo.
VII
From de Mortillet to Bordes:
a century of French Palaeolithic research
JAMES R. SACKETT
Cllien.li!)' o/C(J/ljOllli(J. 1,0\ .111,~i'/11, CS.l
French archaeology may neHT again ofkr the drama 01' intellectual
excitement proyided by the heroic age which culminated ill thc ofllcial
endorsement in 1839 of Boucher de Pcrthes' eyidcnces for thc anti­
quity of man. But it was one thing to demonstrate.thc cxi~te~lC~ oft~1c
Palaeolithic world, and quite another to estabhsh a dlsClplllle for
attacking its archaeological record in an organized f~1shion. The his­ 1" 1
i
ton of this discipline in France may be diyided into thrc~e periods, or
era'~, which respecti\'Cly began shortly bclcll'e Til70' shortly after 1900,
and about 1950. Such diyisions are of course arbitrary. ~onetheless,
each of them conveniently sen'Cs to characterize a marked ady<mce in
the degree of refinement with which prehistorians excayated and
processed their data and an equally marked change in the manner
they went about classil\'ing and interpreting them. By extension, each
represents a distinct stage in what might be termed the logic ofinqlliry
of French Palaeolithic research.
As Laming-Emperaire (1964) so richly documents, it was in the
1860s that there emerged in France a sc1f~conseious science of pre­
history with its own proper congresses, journals, and researches. This
formati\'C period is inevitably associated with the name of Gabriel de
:\Iortillet ( 1821- 1899), owning both to the ubiquitous role he played as
prehistory's chief editor and publicist and the rousing claims he so
boldly pronounced lor the new science's responsibilities and potential.
The era was never in fact so unif()l'l11 in thought and thrust as de
II) 0 I
:\Iortillet's own wri tings suggcsted or as prehistorians during the era
which followed sometimes characterized it v\hell hi'rhlightin(J' b ( ::-,
the
nO\Tlty of their own achin'el11cnts. Yet his successiH' publications,
e~Jlminating in IJI Pr/hil!oriljlll' ( 1883) and I~e Jlus/e Plihis/oriljul' 18B I
(111 whose writing Adriell dc' Mortillet was a major colla borator ,
cle~rly sen'Cd as a frame of reference for the work of his contempo­
:anes. And his dominant themes were largely theirs. One was a lively
ll1terest in the significant palaeoethnological questions posed by Stone
Age culture history, sustained by considerable optimism regarding
t~e relative case with which these could he illuminated by compara­
tive ethnography. A second, closely related to the fIrst, was the attempt
to order the archaeological record in terms of a scheme of phases, or
86 From de A10rtilletto Bordes: a cel/tUl)' of French Palaeolithic research
't'pochs', which embodied the dc\'elopmental doctrines of late nine­
teenth cen tury evolu tionism, \ Vhether these doctrines derived from
evolutionary thought in geolog\' morc than in cultural anthropology
can be dcbated, Judging Ii'om his fondness for the great capitaliz~d
abstractions of the day, in particular Progress 'which invariably hin­
ders clear tl:i~king ,about the alternat? fc)rms de\Tlopmental change
may take, It IS unhkt'h that de \lortdlet hnnself worried O\Trmu~h
abou t t he distinction bet ween tilt' two,
Mortilletia~1s\st~'mati,cs represented ,the hrst enlightened attempt to
grasp somt'tillng 01 the full range proflered by the Stone Age archae­
ological rt'cord and, as such, desenTs rt'cognition as a majo-r achieve­
ment an excellent rniew of its dt'\Tlopment may be found in Daniel
1975: 99- 1°9, ICZCZ , :\'onethekss, close examination of its design and
substallce can be a highly disconcerting experience for the modern
student. Its epochs, even though they bt'ar such familiar names as
\:Iousterian and ~Iagdalenian, do not in fact constitute discrete in­
dustrial complexes like those we recognize toelav, but instead represent
intcrgrading temporal phases within the unilinear evolution of what
seems to ha\'C becn regarded as a single unbroken Palaeolithic cultural
tradition, The elt'finition of tht'se phases, although well illustrated by
depictions of indi\'idual artifacts, betrays no rigorous knowledge of
either artifact typology or industrial variation, And even their tem­
poral ordering is based more upon consideration of how Stone Age
technology should logically haH' e\'()h'ed than upon concrete stratig­
raphical nidence. This thinness of bct and method is richlY documen­
ted in Smith's H}66: 5-cz I splendid sunTy of the history ofSolutrean
research, which remains the only dt'tailt'd case-study of the era written
\n someone \\ith intimate knowledge of the data im·olyed. Even more
tt'lling would be a similarly dctaikd examination of the logic and
empirical naiwte responsiblt' for tht' ultimate failure of \lortilletian
systt'matics to giH~ cxplicit recognition in the form of one or more
epochs to the distineti\'t' Aurignacian-Perigordian block of cultures
(an issue briefly sketched in Sackett ICJ65: I-30), This we now know
occupies more than half of the entire Upper Palaeolithic, exhibiting
cOtlsiderabh more stratigraphical and artifactual heterogeneity t~an
that displayt'd by the Solutrean and \lagdalenian cultures which
succeed it.
It \\as, in filct, a debatc O\'Cr this last issut', the extraordinary bataille
de l' Aurigrwcien, that most clearly sig'nals the beginning of a new era. Its
chie I' protagonist was Henri Breuil (1877- 1 96 Ii, whose opening shot,
'Essai de stratigraphic cit's deptlts de I'age du Renne' (1905): ~nd
culminating masterpiece; 'Les subdivisions du Paleolithique superieur
et leur signification' ! 1913), serve to bracket the rather turbulent
passagc f~om the age of de :\lortillet to the t'llSuing perio~. Th,e
historian of archaeology would discover a rich vein to mine 111 ~llls
con troversy, inel uding Breuil's sarcasm, Pe~Tony's stra tigraphlcal
From de ivlortilletto Bordes: a antury of French Palaeolithic re5earch 87
committees (the fIndings of whose sitc VISits were sometimes noted
down on the spot by a la wyer), and, on the opposing side, the attempts
o I'
Adrien de Mortillet and Paul Girod to defend the Mortillctian .
tradition by alternating strategic silences with righteous indignatIOn
and, ultimately, downright fraud (sec BreuiL 19 1 3: 167), But we !I
should not allow these dramatic e\Tnts to divert our attention from the
quieter but more fundamt'ntal revoluti?n in researe~ stratcgy of,whlch Ii..
I
Breuil's brilliant syntheses are but a smgle expression and which, as
one quickly percei\'es in working through the pages ?f the Bulletin of I
the then newly f(JUndcd Socihc Pr(~historiqueFranc;alse, would in any II!
casc ha\'e crushed tht' old ways undt'[ the sheer bulk or its empirical
results. \Vhat was emerging was the school of thought that was to IH
dominate Frt'nc h prehistory righ t through \Vorld \Val' II and which
continues to influence the conduct of research even today. It is difficult
to hnd a label other than 'traditional' for this school's approach and
the period it dominates, both because it was t'ssentially synonomous
with French prehistory as such, and because it cannot bc idt'ntified
with the namt' of any individual. (This last follows from the strong
regional t'mphasis of the period, which guaranteed that no singIt'
scholar could playa commanding roIt' in France as a whole compara­
!III
ble to that once enjoyed by dt' Ylortillet.)
The tradi tional school was Francc's version of what ont' somt'times
hears referred to as straight archarolo,gr. In this approach rt'scarchers
tend to dismiss palaeoethnological interpretation as mere speculation, I
and - in\'Clking the principle of unripe timc - defer tht' writing of
culture history to some unspecified point in the future 'when the data
arc in', They cultivate instt'acl a narrow devotion to the empirical
content or the archaeological record, engaging in inlensive programs
of cxcavation and prcoccupying themselves with the tvpology of
artifacts and the structure or the sites from which they ckrive, The
object oftht'ir work is to construct schcmes ortime-spa~e systematics.
Here the basic task is to defint' the artifactual similarities and di ffcr­
ences among assemblagt's and, taking advantage of whatever light can 1111
be shed by stratigraphy, to seriate them illto regional sequt'nccs which
I
at least potentially can be brought into alignment with one anothn by [
crosS-correia tion. The craft-like ill\'olvement with stont' tools an~l
~trata reflected in Victor Common t's sophisticated pre- \ Vorld \Var I
mvestigations into the Lowt'r Palaeolithic 0 r the Sommt' Valley t\pi­
~es the straight archaeologisl at his best sec Bordes and Fitte, '1 (33). ,
I
owever, perhaps the most remarkable product of this aeme of
research by the French school was the regional succession otcultural 1
~a~itions worked out I)-v Denis Peyrony' (1869-1954) in the Ltmous 111111
engord rockshelters of southwestern France, Among his other
achievem en t s, t h'IS procI'IgIOuS
, ~'.
cxcavator \vas the first to recoglllze
?n~hrono~s., interstratifying industries within the :\Iiddle Palaeo­
lthl c ; additIOnally, he succeeded in establishing the industrial SllC­
8 Fma de M"til!d I" B"d,'>' a "al'''r ,,[ FW"'h Pala",lilhie
essions wh~ch lay wit!li.n the Solutrean and ~lagdalenian traditions
""",I,
,n a much firmer empirIcal base than Breuil had furnished them with
11 'Les S~I)Clivisions'. Bu~ most important was Peyrony's seriation of
hc depOSIts at La FerrassH' and Laugerie-Haute, which IT\'Caled that
he Aurignacian complex was \'astlv more complicated than Breuil
lad im,~gined .. Instead of I:er:resentin?'.three intergrading temporal
,hases, It constltutcd two chstll1ct trmhtIons - the Aurignacian sensu
tric/o (Breuil's middle phase) and the PerigordianBreuil's lower and
lppt'!' phases! - which evoked as parallel phyla through a successinn
,fmore or less synchronous industrial stages. (A useful crash Course on
he f(lrmidabk topic of Aurignacian-Perigordian systematics is fur­
,ished b\ Movius 197+: (37-91.
:"Jaw, altilOugh the work ofPeyrony and his counterparts elsewhere
onstitutes the most produetin' era of French Palaeolithic research, it
; in many respects the least well understood of any of our periods. For
,ne thing, there are no sophisticated treatments of its de\'elopment
omparable to those which Laming-Emperaire 19 6 4) and Daniel
1975) han' pmvideel for the formali\'l' era and the heroic age \\hich
,receded it. Space-time systematists, stolidlv beating the path of the
rchaeological recorel, ob\'iousl\' do not make as good press as de
ilortillet's grand \,ision of the past or as Boucher de Perthes' rewriting
f the Book of Genesis. But t'\'Cn more important is the fact that the
::-emingly oln'ious business 0 I'conducting straight arehaeolog\' is nol in
ealit\' so ob\'ious after all. Straight archaeolog-ists are almost in­
ariably preoccupied with the details ofreg-ional sequences; this lends
strongly arcane and parochial element to their writings,which puts
Iwm bnond the grasp of the reader unl~lmiliar with the specific data
1\'oked. :\loreO\Tr, since they arc directed toward colleagues who
resumably share the same body of assumptions regarding the nature
fthe archaeological record and ofarchaeologieal inquiry itself, these
Titings seldom ifC\'Cr treat issues ofmetllOd and theory in an explicit
lshion. Assumed to be undcrstood because they arc Euniliar, these,
•
Xl, usually go unstated.
But it is clearly necessary that \n' attempt to understand the assump­
ons held by traditional French prehistory and the methodology to,
'hich thc\ ga\'l' risc. \\'ithout sucll understanding the hridge of
lougllt and achie\(']l1ent which COIllItTts de :\Yortilkt's era with our
wn cannot be reconstructed san' in terms ofa mere chronicling of its
lajur excavdtions and publications. Equalh important. such und('~-
anding has quite prag'matic r'llllifications ill current research. For.lt
the tr~ditiOl~al scho~ll's artiLtets. whiclt.fi.lI (mr,museum:, and ItS
stematlcs winch contInue to pl'onde the IdIOm of much of OUI ()\\n
lOught and eH;)rt. And \ct we ell! nnd lhis Icgac\ somewhat impo­
. IH'( I anu,J can f"Il1lng. L'
~'fIS L' or one t I'
ling, t IIe c Iassl'f'IcatIons
, , pro(
It . IUCCli
,.-1
o not ah\'a\;, hold., The. i~npressio~1 or Sul.lslanee ,.uld Ol:der gin'n 1)\
on ~~~v~'\Crc' \~hik thcjo,l.Iile itself llIa\sug'~e~t a Il1c'tapIH:r, it floatcd
Ie statt'!) march of tradItIons andll1dustncs 0\(']' ItS reglOnalsequen-
,UI facc of a deeper and more nnphut eurrenl of thought 111
T
'
F,,,,, de Mmtdl'" la IicmJ"c " m"'''' a[hmeh Palm'"lilhic "ua"h
ccs turns out to bc O\Trsimplil1ed and e.n'n IJ.lisle~lding" Eqllalh im­
n,)
portant, IH'lther thc data nor the theorctIeal (!IrcctHlIl left to us h) the
designers of tl1Csc~ schem,es seem to conform \\lIh .the llccd~ 01 an :']',1
which i..; once ag'aln tllrIJIllg to t.he pa!aeO!'t1lllologlcal questlollS \I'lnch
wcre set asidc when the formatl\T era came to a e1me. Presull1abh ,Ill
I understanding of wll\ this is so is prerequisite to gain.ing ~l, clearer
perceptIon 01 what \\T oursckes arc. and ,should 1)(', domg. Ihus til('
question ofwhat constituted the lugic ol'inquir) ofr-renc)l PaLteolithic
research during the first h,Jlfofthis ('('ntnn mav I~lirh he regarded a'i
I ha\'ing the highest priori ty both to those \\'!1o \\'ish to wri te its h islOI'\
and to those who need to understand it in order to go I'nrthn, Thcn'
should he profit then in dnoting to this question the bulk oftilC pagTs
which remain, ('\'cn though thcir ro,trietecl scope dictates tltat man\ of'
the issue" involved be O\'ersimplified and that wltat arc in mall\
in,stances impressionistic guesses 1)(' presentcd as assertions,
In essellce, the aims and procedures or traditiolla] Frellclt Palaeo­
lithic research \I('re no diffcrenl ii'om those of allY olher field or
straight archaeology. But ill thi" case a distiueti\'c turn \\'as lent to the
ellterprise by the assumption that the at lack upon the archaeological
record should in some malllwr emulate the approach that earlier had
been used with such gTeat succe", b\' palaconto]ogists in unra\'elling
the fossil record. The most singular alld explicit e:"pression of this
: belie I' \\'as the gToundi ng of s\stema tics n pOllju,lli!c, dil'c(/(, II 1'1 , tha t is,
diagnostic artifact tvpes whose restricted distributions in the arch'le­
ologieJl record were belin'ed to delineate tllc major cultur,d traditiolls
and industries which make up their succes"i\e temporal subdi\isions,
The analogue between artifactual j(J,Ui{C,1 and the 'index' or'zone'
t\pe-f(lssils employed In palaeontologists is obviolls. ami usc of the
I term in fact dates back to the explicitly geological I'ormats in which
:\Iortilleti'lIl svstel1lilties wt'l'e fi'anwd. Hm"C'\'er, ~lS is tlte case with'io
malI\ of the terl1lS archaeologi'its borrO\\' todm fi'OIl! the ph\sictl and
natural sciences, the label in it.self' larrreh sC']'\'l'd au idiomatic func­
• i} •
t~on, It \\'as applied simply to wh,lten']' one considered to be (Ii,lgnos­
tIc ~or purposes of space-lime classification and its usage cOllsequenth
vaned from one researcher to the next depending upon the tasks that
l~appened to engross him, .\ dedicated fieldworker like Pc) rom' pre­
,(er~Td to regard the .iii,ISile dil'l'I'/eul' ,IS a discrete and highh specific
<lf~d~ct t)'pe. \~'hieh possessed eC)lIalh discrete and specifiC
s~~atlgTapl1l(' SignIfIcance. On the othn hall(l, in the \\Titings ol'sophis­
~cated laboratory tnJOlogists like those or the lkin' seltool e.g.,
ro~~~r})~l~, ~~' a~l~J: ~oll\:sonie, 1<)12 • it as.sulTl(:d the 11101'.e ideali~ed
h' . . 1 rCprtsClltatl\ e form that summarIzed 111 normatI\T faslnon
t
b ( major ~1}(.lrpl~ological themes which characterized a much broader
lock of (hStlll
' C't 1\"t
'- ) 'pu
I oglca
. I'Il1tergracI '
atlOn,
 From de .\1orlillr'! 10 Bordes: 1/ relllUl)' ~/Fmlrh Pa/~leolilhir research
sterna tics which did in fact accept palaeontology as a moeiel. The ke\'
otion at v\"(Jrk here v\as that Illildamental patterning in the artifaetu~1
nd f()ssi! records is essemialh the same and that, as a consequence
ulture history can be regarded and accounted fc))' in essential orualli;'
,Tms, This notion more specifi.cally e[Hailed. two u~lspoken assl;~mp_
lIons. 1 h(' hrst vvas that a chrect parallcbsrn eXIsts between the
ultur,t! and organic \\'(Jrlds or,uch a kind that \\e can e"lwC( to lind a
llle-to-one correlation Iwtwcen archaeolog'ical and natur;11 strati­
raphy, The second v\as that anv givTn cultural complex, like an\'
;ivTn palaeontological complex, should be more or less inyariant i;1
he manner in \\hich it c'xprt's,es itself'. This last means thal the
'ultmal entities recognized in archaeological systematics arc to he
'egarded as ill/II/rill categories, which - in the manner, saY, of organic
,pecies - arc inhercntly discontinuous and do not modil\ their '[(Jrm
'{'rom one context lo the ne"t. It f(Jllcl\\s li'oln this thal a specific
Itradition shoule! gi\"f' rise to but one characteristic type ofindustn in
any specific block of time' and space in the archaeological record ..-\s
\\T shall sec. no mat tn hov\' much such assumptions seem alicn to most
modern prehistorians, lhe grounds fell' making them were under­
standable and ('Ven perhaps sound. Yet their practicli consequences
v\"('[e manifold, serious, and restrietivT.
Their most immediate' impacl is manifested in the interrelated
domains of data collection and classification. For. despite the racl that
e"c;l\atioll techniques in the period under consideration constitute a
stratigraphic re\"(Jlution ill comparison to those of its predecessor.
prehistorians nonetheles,.; ,till grossly underestimated the comple"ity
or their archaeological record. This in pan arose from [hei I' assum­
pticm or a one-to-otle correlation between cultural anei nalual strati­
graphv. It was deemed sulficient. as a result. to eXClyate a site only in
terms of its more obvious stratigraphic units, that is, the usuallY thick
zones ofrelali\'ely homogeneous sedinlt'ntological composition \\'hich
represent the majlJr episodes or its history of drposition and, b~
extension, 0 f regional em'ironmen tal e\'(Jlu tion. Palaeoecological
data recoyered were mainly confined to representative specimens of
large' mammals, lhese being'considered the more sensiti\T iudicators or
the climatic succession vdlich accornpanied that n'olution, ,\lId the'
arti raet assernblagTs themselvTs were collected with Ii ttle or no regard
to the vTrticaL let alone the horizontal, tool distribulions within these
major straligraphic zones. This last point is of particular significance
because wc know fi'om modern cxcavatiotl in similelr (and indeed,
sometimc's the same deposits that such zones more often than not
incorporate senTal distinct archaeological horizons which can v'an'
significantly in their tool t\pC'. and type frequencies.
Equally important, giv'en the im'ariant manner in which any tin:~­
space segm('lIt of a cultural tradition was assumed to express itsel1, It
{(Jllowed that the classificatory procedures whieh accompanied such
From de A/orlif!el 10 Bordes: a cenlUlJ o/Frcrlch Pa!a(()!ilhic research 91
zone-oriented excayation could safely be pursued in an ('sselltiall;.
qualitatiYc maImer. In other words, the differences v\hich distill­
eruished one archaeological industl'\ from another were assumed to be
;ufllciently clear-cut for UbSCT\'atioll of the simple plTsence or absence
_ or at most, impressionistic guesswork regardi ng the rela tiVT freq uen­
cies - of the keyjiJSslli's tool fClrms tu 1)(' cOllSidered sullieient j()r most
taxonomic purposes. ",,10reO\er, the distillction between describing
assemblages and classi1\ing them into industries ane! traditions \\as
operationallv blurred, since the establishedjiJ.I'.lihl were emplmcd in
such a manner as to deline simultaneously both their ICJlrnal ("ontent
and lheir genetic a lfiliations. Thus no clear line \\ as drm\"ll bet\\"('cll
what we regarci toda\ as the clistinct realm, ofartil~lct t;.pologv and
general typological description' and ordering a,.semblag'es. I t is not
surprising thndore that the anal;. tic circularism inherent ill such
thinking fed hack into [he sampling procedures that accompanied
eXC1\'at~on itself. In brier. since the clata reqnirements o ljii.I. 1 ile classifi­
cation were limited, t!Jere was a strong tcncl.ency to O\Trlook the
supposedly 'banal' areas of typological v'ariation in l~l\'our of the
established j(iJ.,i!e l - a tFllclcnC\ so stl'ong in Ll('( that a large pro­
portion of the artif~1Cts initiallv- recO\crednenT found their \\'a\' hack
to the laboratory at all. One of thc sadder if more' inflJrmatin'
exercises in the history of archaeology would be to excav'ate the spoil
heaps of our predecessors in order to clisco\Tr the amount and kind of
artifaetual material so mam' of them discarckd.
The net efTect o I' such procedures was to greatly rcstrain. and en'll to
a considerable extent, pr('detcnnine, \\hat a prehistorian would sec.
Hav'ing segregated his assemblagFs onlv in global terms with referencc
to the broad stratigraphical /.ones, he masked allCl avcraged out lhe
subtle interoccupational differences \\ ithin thelll that would han'
been reyeakd!)\'• stratioralJhical U
salllIJlilH.: conducted at a hio. her lcvel
'.J ()
ofresolution.l\t the sallie time, !r<l\'ingdi.'icare!ed so much of the hanal
element. his attention in v'i('wing these global assemblages necessarih
concentrated upon the Jossiles which were the sole items that had
con~istently been sav"CCl. Incv'itablv', lhercfor(', the artif~lct assemblages
aYa~l~blc to him Ic)r any givTn time period within a region tcnded lO
exlnbll a homogeneous and C]uite stereotvj)ed aspect.' And vdl('n in
tu~n those from difTerent time periods wcre compared lhey as iu­
e\'ltably .appeared to exhibit fairlv- distinct qualitative breaks in the
~anner III which the jiJllilel dcliue,J(ed temporal phasing in lhe re­
gIOnal c~d,tural succession, In hrief prehistorians literalh created in
thh~ e,m~lr1cal sen~e an archaeological recore! that did in L'let parallcl
t , c . 10ssII
'. r"c'01'c1
, . '. .
III eonslstmg 0 I' a .stralg·
. I11 f'orward .successlon . 0 f' n1­
.
\an~nt stages which could be silllultaneollsh' identified ancl defined b\
a senes. of'In e!'ex f"1 0,,/ e I'onns. I t would be an ' . tlOn ,
to eI,lI111 t ha 't
they the' ,c ,. '
exaOOTra
.v,
h' Ie lore werc capable 01 ohsernng as exca \'ators onlv what they
ad alreadY, ,." 'IS' 'U
mc d t 0 f· '.
Je true as ta"onOllllstS. B ut It
" IS f',·
,ur to statc''
C)~ From de }'drrlilli'! 10 BMde,l: a renlUlJ 1!I F rench Palaeolilhic research
tha t thei I' sampli ng ancl classificaton proced mes dramat icall Y r('­
ducc'd their abilit\ to perCei\T nmTlty or to appreciate th(' more ;;~btle
kinds oh'ariabili ty and alternale pa t terns that m igh t filld expression in
archaeological deposits,
Ll'l us tum IJridh Ii'om the realm of daw gathering and classifi­
cation to that of interpretation. I ha\(' argued elsewhere that the
assumptions and proct'dures outlined abO\T largch precluded the
attempt to deal s\stematicall:- with the archaeological record in what
a modern prehistorian \\ould regard as culturally meaningful terms
Sackett. )(JG8: Gs-(17 ' . III part m\ argument calls f()r modification. In
part icnlar. tha t trad itiona I prehis torians a \(lid cd palaeoet hnologica I
Cjuestionssuch as Stone Age economics and demogTaphic patterns in
Ll\(Jllr of a 'humanistic' emphasis upon matters of ideology and
at'slhetics I would no longer attribute to the organic model. Tlw
absence of the !<lflner is t ypica I 0 f straigh tare haeology as a genre or
rc'earch. \vhich. as \\c han' seen. dismisses such questions on the
ground.s 0 f unripe time, And the importance of the la ttn \\as no clouht
dictated by lhe truh' spectacular discO\crie, of burials, ritual equip­
ment, and art made during the era. whose impaet upon the intellt'Clual
Ii rc of the time was great indeed, :\ollethcless. while straight archae­
ology dot's not require thal we breathe ethnographic life into the past.
the genetic til11e-space schemes it generates do in Llet represent a kinc!
of culture histurical model-making. In uther words. the ddinition of
traditions and industries ne{('ssarih entails making certain as'ump­
tiuns ahout the manner ill \\'hich cultural process and pattern e""press
themse!\cs ill the archaeologic;tl record. ,\ncl here it can 1)(' bid\
;lrguec! thal the organic 11lodel pml110ted restricti\c. aml indeed Llll­
realistic eXI)(Ttations regarding the f(lrlll these should assume.
Its most o!J\'ious renection \\'as an important error of misplaced
eonCiTlene';s freq uen th huilt inlo tralli tional s\stemat ies, which seem
to imph that it is the artifacts and a,sembbgcs themscl\es that are the
agents of culture history' C\'ohing andll\bridizing as if. like li\'iug
organisms. thC\ \\cre capable of sexual reproduction. ~1()\'ius 195;r
I gg I, ;ll1lcmg othns, has commented how so orten one encountcr~ III
tlw traditional schemes the curious spectacle of tools intcractln;e;
among themselH's and of industries fusing into,oflle sort of mat.n­
rnonial alliances. Here pnltaps we ma\ again !w dealing as Illuch With
l1letaphor as mode!. HO\V('\'Cr, model surely lies bchind two much
gra \('1' assulllptions \\hiclt did incked thwart the design of schemcs
which w('I'e meaningful in culture historil'al terllls. . whi,ch these slages arc corrdated in turn with specific climatological
One was that. since prehi,storic cultural complexes necess anh
be!t<l\c as natural units which can assume hut a single f(JrIll at any
specific time aud place. it j()llows that al1\ systematic artificial \'ari­
ation that lllav be scen within a giw'n tradition in a giH'n region must
be assigncd tc;nporal significanc~' and construed so as to re!lect a lin.car
su('cession of industries. A necessan correlate of this is that dissimda r
. . . t, . - - f'lom de ",forlillel 10 Bordes: II cenlurl'
- ,
oj· French Palaeolilhic resmlCh (J:)
industries which occupy the same block of spacc amI time, in othn
words, whiclt 'intn,tratif,' within a gi\'cn regioual s('quellCl" must
neeessarih belong to distinct traditions. In brief. all signiflcatlt \ari­
abilit\ ob~enablc in the arekleological record musl be significant in
jJ/!rlogl'llelic terms. Thus !llllctional \ariabilit\: tha~ i:-.indust~'ia!di~rcr­
ences which reflect alternate complexes of aetl\Ltles which nnght
simultaneous!\' ha\T bcen pursued b\ one am! the same culture and I
which there!())'C might entail non-linear \ariabilit\ \\ithin a traditi(lli.
was h\ckfinition excluded fi'om systernatics. The st'ccmd cqualh gr;I\C
assun~ption that followed fi-om an organic model is lhat the culture
d\namics which la\' hehind tl1!' genetic groupings of the traditional
sc:hemes could he 'explained' simph h\ rekrring it to \'ariables arising
from the t!Ie world ofll~llure. ~[ost often lhis \\ ~IS clolle implicith, and
simph ill\ohcd the attempt to estabIislt as llalTo\\ a correlation as
possible between cultural and nalural .stratigrapll\. HO\\C\cr. \\hen
the opportunit\ arose, particnlarh in lhose cases w'here t\H) or more
distinct industries \\'CIT lilllllCl to interstratij\, ~lsituation \\hnein a
mOlT eulturall\ semili\(' model \\Olllci at least ha\TsLlggc,tccl the
!Jossibilit: offlllletional \ariahilit\ the pl1\ ]ogenetic integrit\ o!'their
I.
respecti\c traditions \vas presenedlJ\ atlril)Llting them to distinct lines
of biological e\'()lulioll among prehistoric Illcn tltell1sel\-es,
In that block of the archaeological record with \\'hich I am most
f~lllliliar. the Cpper Palaeolithic of Perigord. Deni,s PC\ rol1\"s work
\\oLlld ,seem to he Ltirh cOll.Sistent with til(' idealized picture of til('
traditional logic ufinCJLlir:- just described. He b\'no lIleans conl(JrIns to
il in e\er\ respect. In particnlar he was Ell' ahead of his time in (he
degree or stratigraphical I'outrol he exercisl'd in mal1\ of his exc!­
\'ations and thc relatin' completeness of lile artil~Lct asscmbLu?;cs he
recow'red. It was. in fact. thc eX(Tcise of comparati\ch relincc! field
methods which allcmcd !Jim to pcrcei\T the dislinctin'ness of the
Aurignacian and Perigordian complexes, which rareh appcared clear­
ly segregated in thc more lausch' controlled exea\'alions of his eon­
lcmporarie,. ,\nd :'ct his highl\ f(XlllUlaic publicatioll.s ou
:\urignaci;lLl-Perigorc!ian s\stelllatics pUl\'ide some (lfthe most lelling
dlustrations of the organic moclci at work I e.g., Pn rom. I~J:)3: 1(l:3(j •. I!i
I
One cannol help hut be struck !>:- the stCTeot\])ed qllalit\ artiLlct
a,ssemblages assumcd under his pcrfllncton. jil,I.Ii!I'-oriented descrip­
tions, the schematic precision wit!> \vhich thn' arc slotted into t!Jc
stages of the t\\'o parallcl induslrial slleeession~. and thc manllcr in
I
honzons distinguished b\ sllpposedh unique depositional and Elunal
c~aracteristics; there e\Tn appears a biological argument \\hich at­ II
tnbutes the parallcl plwla to distinct races ofCpper Palaeolithic mcn.
One senses almost a robot-like CJllalit\, in the manner ill whichjilldl',\,
de\'elopmental stages, geological horizons, and race, arc made fidh
cornplementan parts of a closed mechanical S:Slclll in which th(T~'
9-+ From de j\forlillello Bordes: a cef/IUI)' of Frl'lll'h Palaeolilhic research From cir' .\foril/iel 10 Bordc.l. (I (eIIllIl)' oj Frellc!l Pctf(u'olilhlc rClearc!l (I.")

seems no room at all ftJr the untidiness that attends more realistic
cnlturc historical classification. An organic cast of thought is equally
r~Yeale? by Pe\Tony's ~ubsequent interpretation of certain 'Perigo~­
chan of the lInd group assemblages as by-producls of hybridization
between thc Aurignacian and the Perigord ian ( 196-+ . For these were
character~zecl, not by artifacts in which the c1istinctiYe typological
thcmes of the two phd a aetuall\ merged, but illStead simply by the
joint appearance of some of their respectiH'}£i,I,lile diagnostics. Inother
words, hc apparently assumed that the mixture of two cultnres need
not be expressed am difTelTnth than would be the mixture of two
f<lunal cmnplexes, anclthatjos,lile to01types were no more likely to lose
their integrity as natural categories in the case of tile form~T than
would animal species in the case of the latter.
""hile readers more familiar wi th other regions must judge \dlCther
the organic model was in fact truh ubiquitous in French prehistoric
research during the traditional era, it \\'as in am e\"ent not confined
exclusi\Tly to Perigord. For example, :\elm"ius's (195:r 163-6-+) de­
piction of Breuil's Lower Palaeolithic scheme which emerged during
the 1930S suggests a particular!\ striking example of the model at
work. Here the notion of supposedh distinct parallel phda of flake
tool and core-biface traditions was reinf(lrced both 1)\ a biological
argument entailing their 'llpposcc\ association with dislinct­
palaeoanthropic and neanthropic lines of hominid ('\"olntion i and I)\"
deposits. All lithic material. including unused lool blanks and illClm­
trial debris, is sa yed in these assemblages, and thc'~ arc accompanied
both h\ fulh documen ted pr()\('nal]('C in fill'lna t ion a llCl b~ rq)J'Csc'n­
lati\'C ,samples of faunal. pah nological. and sedimentolugical dala.
This lasl infcll'll1ation has 1)('en emph)\ edlo c!e\Tlop a \1('\\ c!/iol/o\lmli­
gm/JIII((/l approach to space-time systematics. \\herein the design of
regional sequences entails a holislic 1e\'l'I-b\-lc\TI COlTel'llion or the
site straligraphies in\"(llyed, f()ulllied ,I' much upon lheir p,lbnl('mi­
ronmental 'especially scdimentological. contents as upon the seri­
ation'll infllrmatlon proyiekd by their uccupalional llOrizons ,dune
:c.g. Bonif;I). 1956: LI Yilk, 197.J:. "'hile it cou Id 1)(' arglll'd lha t such
adyance, in the tecllllolog) or prclli-;toric re,earch arc ,imph refine­
ments of earlier sampling and anahtil' procednre,. their combined
cikct has n(,\Trtlll'less been lo c<JU,C a leap ill the degree orresolution
\\·ith \\hich prehistoriall.s arc able to ohser\"l' and conlrol the ,11'­
ehaeological rccord.
:'\0 less important. this c/lclrt ha,s been cOlllplemcnlcd \)\ the cle­
\TIOplllc'nt ofa Ill'\\ approach to s\stemalics that ha, had all eCJualk
profilund elkct. In brieL the traclitional concept or the ljualilali\T
.flillilc dilc(lmr has bcen set aside ill LI\onr or the notion thal il is lhe
rebti\"l' (iTCjllellcil's of sl'\eral too] l)pes \·ie\\cd in the elisemiJlr',
rather than the simple pre"encc' or absellcc of ,I k\\ or lhem \ic'\\cd
illcli\·idualh. . that is e,sentialto rl'1inecls\Stematics. ,

The basic idea i,s i

the manner in which preconceptions born oflo.lsile systematics pre­ llot lJ('\\. BUI it \\'as fran<;oi,s Borell's. 1 (L)o, \\ho first S,I11 c!l'arh lhal .I

\"ented field workers fi'om recognizing the fact that co-occurrences of lrans!dting the llotion of 'diagllostic' into quantitati\C' tCTIl1S \\-a" lJot

the two tool C'omponents \\",1' a reasonable expectation. rather than an simpl\ a matler of counting, but il\.slead lhat it required lhl' in­

,uIUmaly that needed to be accounted f(lr in terms of periodic Ly­ trodllction of t\\"o nl'\\" elemenh into the ml'lhoclolou\ o!' S\stematics.

,'-). .
bridization between distincl cultural traditions. Such thinking, fur­ One is thaI artif~lct t\ polog) and a",r'mblagl' ordering lJ1U,l C(Hl.slilute
thermore. was b\ no means exclusi\TI\ a French phenomenon, but distinct procedures, in other lIorek thal thl' c1cJinilioll 'lr an
seenls in Llet to h<1\"e been common in all fields of Palaeolithic research asseml?lage's fCJrm,l! contl'lllll1Ust 1)(' operaliunalh dislinguishcd li'om
sec, fClr example, Isaac, 1972: 168-7] . It is tempting to speculate in t.l1(' definition of its g;enctic affiliatiollS to other assemblages in space­
this conneC'tion \\'hether the traditional legacy is still to be seen in the time s)stcmatic'..-\s \\c h'l\T 'I'CIl, this di,tinclion lias m'\Tr clearl\
inclination of researchers at the Oldu\'ai Gorgc to assume that their made in the traditiunal approach, since it lias thl' ilJ!1('rCll\h circula'l
Acheuliall and Oe\"t'lopcd Oldowan nt'ed be attributcd to distinct role OfjO.IIi!1' dlrl'(/II/I.I to ddine "imultalll'OllSh ,UI 'l.sc;elJ1lJlag(\ eonlr'nt
phyletic lines, respecli\'el\' Homo erel'lul and Homo habilis e.g., Leakey. anc.l a,sign it withiu S(HJ]e brgcr ordcrillg seiwll1l'. These~'ond is that
1 ~J7] . arll.fa(:l c1as,iiicatiull must hI' l'xtenckcl to thl' entirl' range 01 (lrmal
:\m\, 1)('(ClIT attempting to account fill' the reasons why traditional yanatlon occupil'd 1)\ ITCo.l2;lIizahll' lools ratlter lhall sill1ph lo thc)\('
French prehiston loelk the path it did, wc must examine brieflY the slwcd\('
. " " \\ '1"1
''ll'C"1 llC I P0ll'lltld. II \ pO,'SI'SS t I }C gll'alcc;t ellagnOS(lC
. .\"tluc .Il1
nature ufthe na which sllcccecled it. B\' ] (fiO the traditional approach <llssemhbge ordl'ring. This 'hdll,tlization' or' ani bet cla"iflcalion in
had begun to retreat hdclIT sC\Tral fundamental aehances in research til' {ormof'\st'l , . ,ne I,die ( ((jill !
"I',IZl ,\' i)1'-/cIiI/l'e
! ' Ir!}() I our ma k T' 'Il pOS'1'11' l I' (or

e\"(T\
.. " 'In'(~ tl' . I' \ ,h

I ,lC ) Ing WIt 1111 t IC Sl<ltl'lJ rangl' to })(' assigned to d ,specific

strategy. Tn part these ha\'e in\"(1h-ecl e!1t:Jrts to greatly el1chance the

meTall quantity allCl Cjualit\' of dala thal WeTC realized from the '"' . ''llJ cI su
C!lr'uor\ ' Il.'llIU(
' ,nt I \ l' I (I
DUlllee. .
) l\I01I.,h. .
wllholJl .cntenon

tillS ..

archacological record. E),'c'a\'ation techniqucs ha\'e come to assume of eomprehens'lo "h' I - b - ' .
, n, W Ie 1 was \. no nleans con.Slstent \. rcccwnizec I . l'
1I1

traditiOll'll\
. ·t " .' .
' s . S CmatlC's, QU<Llltltall\ l' stalemClll., ahout rc!atl\e lool
' ' " ' .

the character of stratigraphical dissection whereby assemblages are

freeluenc'I'c's 1 '
segregated with reference to the specific occupational horizons a~lc1 , Ost !l1oc;t 0 {' t I1('11'
. !l1eallll1g.

minimal sedimentological components that can be obsen'ed in site Armed with its comprehensi\c t\pe-lish and some rclati\C'1\ simple

96 From de Alortillel to Border: a cOlIUl)' oll'j'endl Palatolilhic research
techniques of'statistical c!t'scription, Bordesial1 syst(>matics has OTeath­
enhancecl o.ur ~nowkdge of the archaeological record. Two ex~mple's
o [ outo;tandmg Importance ha \T been Bordes' 1<j6 I) own rc-c1elini tion
of'the :\Ioustcrian as a complex of' f'our distinct pll\la or tradition,s
whi:'h interstrati!, at random. and Denisc de Sonneyille-Bordes'
(19 60 ) monumf'ntal reappraisal of traditional Aquitanian material
and s\stematics dating from Peyrony's era. Of' e\en grealer interesl
li'om. the persjJectiyc of this f'ssay arc the results currf'nth,. beina
~ 1 q / .,'
acllln'cd I\O\\' Iha 1 a n'~lsonabh a hundant numher 0 f' arti Ltct aSScm-
blages obtained b\ the ncw rec()\'er) procedure>s arc ayailable f()r
Bo)'desian allah sis whose space-lime S\ stematics rests, lIol upon ar­
chaeological seriation alone, blll upon the more holistic and delicate
chronostraligraphical approach dcscrihed abmT sec Lnille, Rigaud,
and Sacket t. l <jBo!. For this work has nol sim ply brough t refincment to
the traditional scheme's. Im;tcad. it is n'Yealing thai tbe archaeological
rccord is a yastly more complicatcd amlir than the traditional model
Icd one to eXp(TI, and that it can, in lact. inHJhT IlIl1clamentalh
dil1l'renl kinds ofpalternillg. To poillito but one kn cxample of'lh;'
nc\\' results, it has heconw clear Iha I in the Upper Perigordian the
tr~(ditionalh rccognil',ecl ji)llil"s Sf'em not 10 1)(' time-bound in am
narrow sense al all, hUI instead to come and go in SUClTssi\T eultuf<;1
slrala in no prcdictable fashion \\'hatncL Equalh important. the
relatiYc proplll'tio])s or Ihe I(lrmcrl) 'ban,l!' tools \\ ith \\hich Ihese
associate Ii'om onc assemblage to the ncxt exhibit no consistent pat­
terns, nor - regardless of whethcr it is defined in terms of the in­
diyid ualJi!lsile.1 or the O\'erall q uan lila li\c make-up of' the ass('mblages
in which the\ occur - docs lhere appear to be ~\l1\ meaningliI!
correlation bet\\('('n indL!';trial \'arialion alld Ihe alterIlating climatic
t) pcs which make up regional enYironmental succession". In Ihis case
then a l'tnlCtional, not a ph\ letic cxplanation is oln'iollsh needed if
such \ariability is Iu be explained Rig~llId. I ()7S . In short, we no
longer expect 10 sec an archaeologicallTcord comprising simple linear
succ'C,'SiOIlS of stercot\ ped industric, which, whether in indi\'idual or
parallel phyla. succeed one another oyer time exaeth in step \\'ilh
natural cn\ironmental challgc.
:\"0 specific nc\\' model has yet heen gcneratcdto conlimll wilh these
new expf'Ctations. I n this eonncction it is relnant to note lhat tl~e
Bordesian rnolution which hegan the present era rntaikd a change In
method, not theoretical perspecti\(', and tliat much oflhe tradition,~1
kuan m<:1\ still in Ltct remain. Thus, ('xccpt where the C\'idence IS
m~('q;li\'l)(';d, as in Ihe case of thl' Upper Perigordian cxample noted
abO\T, phylelic ratilC'f than f'unctional expfanatioIlS continue to be
prd'crred in accounting for siluations where unlike induslries arc seen
to illterstratil). And again, some orthe claims made lix the inherent
integrity of the so-called 'morphological" tool classes which make .up
Bordesian type-lists arc not unlike those made fill' natural categOrIes.
Fro/ll de '\[orlill('llo Ballin: {/ C(l/III~T oj Fr(l/ciz !)ala('o!ll//lc r('\m}(1z (l7
:\,onetlwlcss, that Ihe Bord,'s!an re:-olution had led, us .to a ITnewed
, '.st I'll 1)'lhcoetlmollW\
lnlele, ., , IS. .OIJYIOllS to :\l1\one
,'-0 • !amlhar• \\'llh the
current SCl~I1e. The emphasis placed upon cultural-ec~loglcal f('COtl­
struetion in the Ahri Palauel re,earch program :vI.O\IUS, Il)74': the,
horizontal exposure 0 r acti\i Iy areas at the ex I raord Illan open slle o!
PiIlce\Tnt rLeroi-Gourhan and Brbillon, ll)(j()., cleb~lte O\'Cr the ex­
pression of style anel lunction in '.lrtifilCl ass(~mblages, e.g., S~ckett,
-()' '1IId tl](' use of' .
ethn()O'ral)h.lc analo\!'\ 111 anah'lI1g IlrclnstorIc
.. ., ." . . ' .' . .
h~lt~'hering patterns Rig~llId, I ()7S arc 11l.lt a [n\, of the SIgns o! a \laslc
shif'1 110\\' under \\'a\ toward ne\\ directlotls of research. It IS to 1)('
hopedlhal enlhusiasm O\'Cr such Iln\' deH'lopments cloes Ilot make us
f'orgetllI! of'the legan o[ our prnkcessors, I II or~I(T to fLllh ll!~derslancl
that legan \\T must close Ihis essay by looklllg OIJ(T agam at thl'
traditional schoo!' this tillle not \\'ilh respect to Ihe log-ic or inCJuin
itself hut ralher \\ith regarc! to the eonditiollS \\'hich prml10led ih
c!e\T]opmcIII.
Thcre is no single or simple ,1I1SW(,), to tl1<' CJucslion ol\d1\ !·'n'llciJ
prehislo]'\ during Ihe tr<Iclilional period adoptecl \dlat \\e ha\ c 1"('­
krredln as an organic mode!. It is not enough to poinl oul that Cahricl
ele \!ortiIlet\ nrig-inal occupation \\',lS ma!:Icnlog\ and that :\Iortil­
Iclian s\slemalies in genlTal had slrong p~daeono[()logical O\('rtone,s.
For thc lilCT~II\IlT of' tlIe f(Jrmati\c <T,l IT\Tal.s as strong a,s illierest in
anlhrupolog\ as ill gcology. This inll'ITst onl) sbckened Ileal' the tUrI!
of'tllC Cl'nlll]'\, \\hcII thc pa"illg of'ellltural c\'olulionan tlIeol'\ len in
its \\'ake no uselld palaeoctlll1ologicd IIIocleLs J()r archaeologists \\'hose
c1ata rcl(>rred to an cpoch or culture hist()] \ so Ell' ITIIlCl\cd li'olll ,n1\
ohyious ethnographic p:lrallels. .\nd, as onc C<1I1 lind doollnent(,c1 in
~!crci<T',s ' I q(j(j fine small yolumc, eark l\\'entiClh-ccl1tun anthru­
po logy in Fr,~I1(T \\ mIld scelll to han' lack~'c1 thc data hase, tl ;cor('t ical
intercsts, ancl nTn instilutiUll,Il arranO'cnlCnls I'c<juired to maintain ~In
a.eti\'(' alliance wilh prehistory. In an~ casc, Ihc adoption of'an e'isen­
tJaIly pabco!1lolog'ical li'ame of'rcl('!'cIlce \\'mdd ha\T o {krecl sC\Tral
attractions at a time \vhen prehistorians \\Tre lurniug [i'oIII pald­
eoetlll1o]ogy to the uarreJ\\Tr COnClTllS of straight arch~leolo.g\. To the
eXlcll~ thatlhe strongly cmpirical hcnt of'.straight archacolugy I(lstercc!
:tsPIrlt of'seientism that is, the desirc to assllme the trappings orall
al:eady estalJlislwd and prt,stigiou.s sciencc -- pl'ehi,slori,lIJs at thc lurn
01 thc centur) mighl easily haH' lookcc! to palaeontology in much the
same manner as self'-conseiou,sh scicntilic archaco!(wists tocl~l\ look
tOward ecology and S\,tems tl'lco]'\. Theil too, a 1~t1aeo!l[()(ogical
approach would ha\(' introe!ucee! a \\TlconH' eknwnt of'redllctionism.
B\, .SUp!Jressl' " I <Tat Ion
19'(O!lSIC
.. l.r . I comjl Iex cu I ture I1l.sto]"]ca
0 I' t](' ' . I ITa l'Il\
WhICh 1'1\ 'I' I I I I ' I
" )( lnl( 1](' arc weo oglea record, t 1(' organic model IT­'
1 I .
dueecl the number or\'aridhlcs \~ith which prehistoridns hae! to COll­
tend ancl simultaneoLIsh sence! to break LIp Iheir lask into the more
manageable unil.'i that 'sulTice when the aims of' analysi.s ex lend 110
 ,­ ~
~

~~l '­
"

yo

~ ~1i
r::~

,­

V :r

, .. ;; . ...­

- ,­­
;:::
~
"J.

:­
'-,