Author Institution: Department of Antrhopology, Case Western Reserve UniversityAn integral part of the New Archeology is a method of dealing with lithic variabilities based on a behavioral model and the use of mathematical techniques for the analysis of variance. To test some of the underlying assumptions of this paradigm a factor analysis was performed on published data for several Russian Mousterian sites. Seven factors were produced, and their content was interpreted as indicating two different types of activity: base camp killing and butchering and work camp transient food preparation

Prior, Fred W.

The Ohio Journal of Science

KnowledgeBank at OSU

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL VARIABILITYIN THE MOUSTERIAN OF LEVALLOIS FACIES:A REEXAMINATION1FRED W. PRIOR, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland,.OH 44106Abstract An integral part of the New Archeology is a method of dealing with lithicvariabilities based on a behavioral model and the use of mathematical techniques forthe analysis of variance. To test some of the underlying assumptions of this paradigma factor analysis was performed on published data for several Russian Mousteriansites. Seven factors were produced, and their content was interpreted as indicatingtwo different types of activity: base camp killing and butchering and work camp tran-sient food preparation.OHIO J. SCI. 77(3): 119, 1977Binford and Binford (1966; 1968), S.R. Binford (1968), and L. R. Binford(1972) have proposed an explanation forthe observed variability in lithic as-semblages, based on hypothetical func-tional tool kits, and an analytic tech-nique for the delineation of these func-tional groups. With one exception (Bin-ford, 1972) this work has centered on thequestion of Mousterian variability andthe results have sparked a healthy con-troversy.Bordes (1961; 1972) recognized fourmajor types of Mousterian assemblagesbased on a fixed typology of tool typesand a technique for quantitatively de-fining an assemblage from the shape of acumulative plot of these tool types.The phenomenon of more or less randomalternation of these assemblage typeswithin successive layers of one site iswell established (Bordes, 1972) and hassparked considerable interest. Bordes(1961) offered three major hypotheses toexplain this alternation:1. The different types of Mouster-ian are associated with patternsof seasonal occupation.2. Each type of Mousterian repre-sents a slightly different eco-logical adaptation.3. Each type of Mousterian repre-sents a particular tribe of peopleManuscript received March 17, 1976 (#76-28).characterized by a particulartradition of tool making.Bordes reviewed these theories and re-jects all but the last one. It is preciselythis theory that the Binfords sought todisprove.The Binfords applied a multivariatestatistical technique of factor analysis tothe question of Mousterian variability.They found five factors or tool groupswhich they interpreted as indicative ofdiffering behavioral complexes (Binfordand Binford, 1966). They have since ex-pounded on the full implications of thesefindings within the context of the formu-lation of the Processural School ofArcheology and have extended the an-alysis to Acheulean assemblages (Bin-for, 1972).Implications of the Binfords' work isrevolutionizing the theoretical structureof archeology. An independent exami-nation of the analytic techniques theyemployed and the assumptions involvedin their approach has not, to my knowl-edge, been attempted. The purpose ofthe present study is to briefly explore themethodology proposed by the Binfords'work and its implications for paleolithicresearch. A preliminary analysis of se-lected Russian Mousterian sites has beenattempted to provide a basis for com-parison.TECHNIQUES AND ASSUMPTIONSBinford and Binford's (1966) two basic119120 FRED W. PRIOR Vol. 77assumptions in their approach to the re-lation of artifact assemblages to humanbehavior are:1. The form and composition ofassemblages recovered from geo-logically undisturbed context aredirectly related to the form andcomposition of human activitiesat a given location.2. The minimal social processes andorganizational principles exhib-ited by human groups today wereoperative in the past.Extrapolating from these, they arrived attwo propositions which are the origin ofboth their work and the present study:1. An undifferentiated mass of ar-cheological data can, by the useof methods designed to revealpatterns of covariation, be par-titioned into subunits of arti-facts which we can infer wereused in a related set of activities.2. Groupings of artifacts that ex-hibit mutual determinancyshould also share morphologicalcharacteristics which, on thebasis of simple mechanics, canbe reasonably inferred to havebeen used in a set of relatedmechanical tasks.Implicit in the above propositions aretwo probable sources of error which theyassumed to have been minimized. Thefirst proposition implies that the fre-quency of stone tool types from a par-ticular site is dependent only on theactivities of the persons who made andused them. It is assumed that samplingerror, destructive geologic processes, ta-phonomic processes, and arbitrary sort-ing by the original users have not skewedthe relative frequencies of tools found.While this may seem to be, perhaps, abit too much to assume, it must berealized that other proposed methods ofanalysis (e.g., Bordes' cumulative graphs)are forced to make the same assumption.The second proposition implies that thecontemporary observer can determine thefunction of a particular tool from its ap-pearance. It must be remembered thatthe function assigned to a particular toolis entirely an educated guess on the partof the researcher and not necessarily thetrue function of the object.In order to study patterns of covarianceBinford proposed the use of factor an-alysis. This technique allows a set ofvariables to be represented by a smallerset of factors which take into account thecovariance of the original variables. Themain function of factor analysis is, there-fore, one of data reduction by determin-ing underlying patterns of covariance.(For discussion of factor analysis and itsapplications, see Harmann (1961), Rum-mel (1967), Kim and Nie (1970), andBlackith and Reyment (1971).)MOUSTERIAN STUDYNine Mousterian activity levels werechosen to provide data for the presentanalysis. Eight of these are located inEuropean Russia as described by Klein(1969): Molodova 1-4,5; Molodova V-XI, XII; Kiik-Koba III/IV; Starosel'e;Volchij Grot; and Volgograd. The ninthsite is Pech de Aze 11-4 which was de-scribed by Bordes (1972). The assem-blages from all sites were classified ac-cording to Bordes typology.Molodova I and V and Volgograd areopen-air stations located in the Dnestrand Prut basin, and near the city of Volgo-grad respectively. Kiik-Koba, Starosel'e,and Volchij Grot are all cave sites lo-cated in the Crimea. Pech de Aze is acave site located in southwestern France.The latter was included because Bin-ford's analysis of Near Eastern Mou-sterian also incorporated a French site,Houpeville.Published tool lists from the above siteswere compiled and percentage values foreach variable were entered into the com-puter. Bordes' list of 63 tool types wascondensed to 46 variables after the man-ner of Binford and Binford (1966).Table 1 lists these 46 variables, theirnumber in Bordes' type list and in theBinfords' analysis, and their postulatedfunction. It should be noted that whereasthe Binfords had 40 variables, the pres-ent study employs 46. This is due to thepresence of significant numbers of toolsin categories which were relatively emptyin Binford's data. No categories werecombined except those combined by theBinfords.Ohio J. Sci. MOUSTERIAN VARIABILITY 121The theory of factor analysis is basedon the assumption of a normal frequencydistribution which requires, among otherthings, a large sample size. The usuallyaccepted lower limit of the number ofcases required to assume a normal dis-tribution is 40 (Ingram, 1974). It hasbeen suggested, however, that a normalmultivariate distribution requires a sam-ple size significantly larger than this(Blackith and Reyment, 1971). Ob-viously the present sample of 9 cases israther small and the results are question-able. It must be stressed that this is apreliminary exploratory study and theresults should not be pushed too far. Inthis regard, it should be noted that Bin-ford's sample sizes, 17 in the case of theMousterian study (Binford, 1968) and 32in the Acheulean study (Binford, 1972)suffer the same deficiency.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe data were submitted to subroutineFACTOR of the Statistical Package forthe Social Sciences (SPSS) and a quarti-max rotation was performed (see Binford1972). The output (summarized in table2) shows that 7 factors were producedwhich had eigenvalues greater than 1(factor 7 eigenvalue — 1.89303); and these7 cumulatively accounted for 1.00% of thevariability. The variables for each factorare those diagnostic of the particularrotated factor and are those which havethe highest loading for that factor. Thesuggested activity associated with eachfactor was arrived at by comparison withthe Binfords' results (Binford and Bin-for 1966), and by extrapolation from thefunctions listed in table 1.The most obvious difference betweenthe results of the present study and thoseTABLE 1Classification of artifact types and input variablesNo.Bordes'type list*12345(5789101112-1718-202122-2425262728293031323334Binfords'variableindex**123456789101112—131415——1617181920Prior'svariableindex12345678910111213141516171819202122232425Artifact nameTypical Levallois flakeAtypical Levallois flakeLevallois pointRetouched Levallois pointPseudo-Levallois pointMousterian pointElongated Mousterian pointLimaceSimple straight side-scraperSimple convex side-scraperSimple concave side-scraperDouble side-scrapersConvergent side-scrapersCanter side-scrapersTransverse side-scrapersScrapers on the ventralsurfaceScrapers with abruptretouchSide-scrapers with thinnedbackSide-scrapers with bifacialretouchSide-scrappers withalternate retouchTypical end-scrapersAtypical end-scrapersTypical burinAtypical burinTypical borerBinford's functionalinterpretationDelicate cuttingDelicate cuttingSpear pointSpear pointPerforating (?)Spear pointSpear pointCutting-scraping, non-yieldingsurfaceCutting-scraping, non-yieldingsurfacefScraping cylindrical objectsPush planeDeep incisingHeavy cuttingPerforating122 FRED W. PRIORTABLE 1. ContinuedVol. 77No.Bordes'type list*353637383940414243444546-4748-495051525354556162Binfords'variableindex**212223242526—27282930—3132———33—3536Prior'svariableindex262728293031323334353637383940414243444546Artifact nameAtypical borerTypical backed knifeAtypical backed knifeNaturally backed knifeRacletteTruncated flakeMousterian TranehetNotched pieceDenticulateBeeVentrally retouched piecePiece with coarse, abruptor alternate retouchUtilized flakesPieces with bifacial retouchTayac pointNotched TrianglePseudo-MicroburinEnd-notched pieceHachoirChopping toolMiscellaneousBinford's functionalinterpretationPerforatingHeavy cuttingHeavy cuttingHeavy cuttingGut-stropper, small objectsSawingPerforating?—Scraping cylindrical objectsHeavy-duty cleaving*See Bordes 1961 and 1972.**See Binford and Binford, 1966.of Binford is the number of factors theycontain. There are three possible rea-sons for the increased number of factorsresulting from this analysis:1. The factor structure is unstabledue to small sample size andsome of the factors are re-dundant.2. There is a difference in the levelof cultural complexity betweenthe sites sampled by Binford andthose represented here.3. The results reflect the presencein the sample of different typesof activity centers, i.e. basecamps and work camps.While the first reason cannot be ruledout, as mentioned previously, the secondis probably unlikely inasmuch as thetypes of functions being considered re-flect a general level of cultural develop-ment and would be expected to be con-stant within a particular time level.The third point seems the most reason-able based on the current data. Ourresults require a careful, in-depth studyof a significant sample for their veri-fication.Factors III and VI (table 2) representtool kits which are comparable in func-tion, but differ in complexity. The datasuggests what Binford has described asfunctionally analogous factors. Basedon a presence-relative absence correla-tion, factor III seems to be most stronglyrelated to the Russian cave sites whilefactor VI is related to the open-air sites(with the exception of Volgograd whichseems to correlate better with factor III).Based on the factor structure, it wouldappear that factor III represents a "basecamp" type of killing and butchering kitwhile factor VI serves the same functionbut is correlated with more transient"work camps". Factors IV and V seemto be similarly related.The technique of factor analysis wouldseem to be well suited for the task ofanalyzing lithic assemblages with the fol-lowing restrictions:1. The mathematical requirementsnecessary for factor analysis tobe valid must be met {e.g., aOhio J. Sci. MOUSTERIAN VARIABILITY 123normal density function, whichimplies, among other things, alarge sample size).The indeterminancy of factorsunder rotation must be takeninto account.The limits of the assumption thattool frequencies reflect behaviormust be recognized.4. The fact that tool functions area posteriori assumptions and notnecessarily accurate representa-tions of reality must be con-sidered.TABLE 2Factor analysis of Mousterian variabilityNumber Diagnostic variable Factor loading* Suggested activityI I111IVVV IVIINotched trianglePseudo-microburinHachoirMiscellaneous toolsVentrally retouched piecesTypical burinTypical borerPieces with bifacial retouchAtypical end-scrapersTypical end-scrapersSimple straight side-scrapersSide-scrapers with thinned backSide-scrapers with bifacial retouchDouble side-scrapersSide-scrapers with alternate retouchSimple concave side-scrapersUtilized flakesConvergent side-scrapersElongated Mousterian pointsTayac pointsAtypical borersCanted side-scrapersRetouched pieces—coarseMousterian pointsEnd-notched toolsDenticulatesNotched toolsChopping toolsTypical backed knivesAlternate borinating beesVentral side-scrapersLimaceMousterian tranchetsAtypical backed knivesTransverse side-scrapersPseudo-Levallois pointsScrapers with abrupt retouchAtypical burinsLevallois pointsRetouched Levallois flakesRacletteNaturally backed knivesAtypical Levallois flakesTruncated flakesSimple convex side-scrapersTypical Levallois flakes3209732097320972998727315 <272802590030757306222923928942278682719825764256522544421721207203808137493336933230827790272902646322527200214865745438 I3636023614514405071034906 '222734122541143387972260856123326373067529213977QQ2496022777Manufacture ofnon-flint tools(Hide preparation)Killing andbutchering(cave sites)fFood processing—vegetables(open air sites)Food processing—vegetables(cave sites)[Killing andbutchering(open air sites)Cutting and incisin—food processing*See Harmann, 1961 for details.124 FRED W. PRIOR Vol. 77Even with these restrictions, however,the factor analytic technique and thebehavioral paradigm would seem to pro-vide the most useful and valid analysiscurrently available.LITERATURE CITEDBinford, L. R. 1964 A consideration of ar-cheological research design. Amer. Antiq.29:425-441.1972 An archeological prespective.Seminar Piess, N.Y.and S. R. Binford 1966 A preliminaryanalysis of functional variability in theMousterian of Levallois facies. Amer. An-thropol. 69:238-295.Binford, S. R. 1968 Variability and changein the Near Eastern Mousterian of Levalloisfacies. In: New perspectives in Archeology.(eds Binford, L. R. and S. R. Binford).Aldine, Chicago.and L. R. Binford 1968 Stone toolsand human behavior. Sci. Amer. 220: 70-84.Blackith, R. E. and R. A. Reyment 1971 Mul-tivariate morphometrics. Academic Press,London.Bordes, F. H. 1961 Mousterian cultures inFrance. Science 134: 803-810.1972 A tale of two caves. Harperand Row, N.Y.Harmann, H. H. 1961 Modern factor an-alysis. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Ingram, J. A. 1974 Introductory statistics.Cummings, Menlo Park.Kim, J. and N. H. Nie 1970 Factor analysis.In: The SPSS manual, (eds. Nie, N. H.).McGraw-Hill, N.Y.Klein, R. G. 1969 Mousterian cultures inEuropean Russia. Science 165: 257-264.Rummel, R. J. 1967. Understanding factoranalysis. Conflict Resolution 11: 444-480.

Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies: A Reexamination

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/22446/1/V077N3_119.pdf

Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies: A Reexamination

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU