No abstract

a b s t r a c tA new interdisciplinary project was initiated to excavate a portion of the Palaeolithic site of La Ferrassie left intact by earlier excavations. One of the aims of this project was to provide chronological information on the succession of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic layers, as well as on the skeletons unearthed by Capitan and Peyrony in the early 1900's. We report here preliminary results on the lithics, faunal remains, site formation processes, and on the stratigraphic context of the La Ferrassie 1 and 2 skeletons that were found adjacent to our excavations. Finally, results from luminescence dating of the sediments and a preliminary set of radiocarbon ages are presented. Quartz OSL, both at the multi-grain and single-grain levels of analysis, and post-IR IRSL of feldspar at various stimulation temperatures are compared. The quartz/feldspar comparison revealed a bleaching problem for the quartz OSL (and the feldspar pIRIR signals) from Layer 2; as a consequence, the age of this Layer was determined using a minimum age model.A Mousterian industry with bifaces, at the base of the sequence, has been dated between 91 ± 9 and 44 ± 3 ka. The Ferrassie Mousterian layers are attributed to MIS 3, between 54 ± 3 and 40 ± 2 ka, and thus appear very late in the final Middle Palaeolithic of the region; furthermore, these ages constrain the chronology of the La Ferrassie 1 and 2 skeletons, which have been attributed to one of these Ferrassie Mousterian layers. The Châtelperronian layer is dated to 42 ± 3 ka and the Aurignacian to 37 ± 2 ka. Implications of the ages for the La Ferrassie 1 and 2 skeletons, and for the variability of late Mousterian, are discussed.

While lithic objects can potentially inform us about past adaptations and behaviors, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of all of the various processes that influence what we recover from the archaeological record. We argue here that many assumptions used by archaeologists to derive behavioral inferences through the definition, conceptualization, and interpretation of both individual stone artifact forms and groups of artifacts identified as assemblages do not fit squarely with what we have learned from both ethnographic sources and analyses of archaeological 1 digitalcommons.unl.edu 2 D i b b l e e t a l. i n J. o f A r c h a e o l o g i c a l M et h o d a n d T h e o ry (2 0 1 6) materials. We discuss this in terms of two fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the "desired end product" in stone artifact manufacture, which also includes our ability to recognize such end products. The second fallacy has to do with the notions that lithic assemblages represent simple accumulations of contemporary behaviors and the degree to which the composition of the depositional units we study reliably match the kinds of activities that took place. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a comprehensive set of new methodologies and theoretical perspectives to solve these problems, our goal here is to stress the importance of rethinking some of our most basic assumptions regarding the nature of lithic objects and how they become part of the archaeological record. Such a revision is needed if we want to be able to develop research questions that can be addressed with the data we have available to us.

No abstract

No abstract