A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic

Abstract

In the analysis of archaeological relationships and processes, a uniform classification of the dataset is a fundamental requirement. To achieve this, a standardised taxonomic system, as well as consistent and valid criteria for the grouping of sites and assemblages, must be used. The Central European Late Palaeolithic (ca. 12,000-9700 cal BC) has a long research history and many regionally and temporally specific units-groups and cultures-are recognised. In this paper, we examine the complex taxonomic landscape of this period and critically analyse the use of typological, functional and economic criteria in the definition of selected groups. We subject three different archaeological taxonomic units, the Bromme culture from Denmark, the Fürstein group from Switzerland and the Atzenhof group from Germany, to particularly detailed scrutiny and highlight that the classificatory criteria used in their definition are inconsistent across units and most likely unsuitable for circumscribing past sociocultural units. We suggest a comprehensive re-examination of the overarching taxonomic system for the Late Palaeolithic, as well as a re-evaluation of the methodologies used to delineate sociocultural units in the Palaeolithic.

The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

“…While reviewing the existing chronology, it becomes evident that the current culture history and chronology for the Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic are constructed solely on a foundation of typology, in the absence of secure stratigraphies and absolute chronological fix-points, and in analogy with other regions, especially the Western Baltic. Given recent discussions about the robusticity of these reference sequences (Kobusiewicz 2009b;Kobusiewicz 2009a;Riede 2017;Sauer & Riede 2018), it is warranted to ask whether the Lithuanian data hold up against a critical assessment. One of the most controversial components of the current chronology is related to the possible Hamburgian presence in the territory during the Bølling/GI-1e.…”

“…While the antler axe from Parupė clearly indicates human presence in the territory of present-day Lithuania in the Allerød, this artefact class lacks cultural diagnostic value (Clausen 2004) and hence cannot resolve to which technological tradition these colonists may belong. Given the current uncertainties regarding the Final Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy (Sauer & Riede 2018), it may be best not to ascribe these finds to a specific techno-complex at this point.…”

“…Given the high level of variability within lithic assemblages of the Federmessergruppen and their wide chronological and geographic occurrence, this techno-complex constitutes the most conservative 'lumping' taxonomic unit for this period. However, Sauer & Riede (2018) have recently shown that uncertainties in the construction of archaeological taxonomic units in the Final Palaeolithic of Europe may be so acute as to warrant a more radical rejection of such traditional frameworks (see also Otte & Keeley 1990;Barton & Neeley 1996;Houtsma et al 1996). New methods (e.g.…”

“…We suggest that a model with a colonisation sequence much like the Western Baltic is not supported by the data currently at hand. Typology has been heavily criticised as an outmoded tool for constructing cultural taxonomies in the Palaeolithic (Houtsma et al 1996;Newell & Constandse-Westermann 1996;Bisson 2000;Shea 2014) and regionally specific taxonomies are argued to often obscure rather than reveal important cross-regional similarities and differences (Otte & Keeley 1990;Sauer & Riede 2018). The existing chronology which suggests the presence of Hamburgian, Federmessergruppen, Brommean and Ahrensburgian technological units in Lithuania during the Final Palaeolithic, mirroring the Western Baltic situation, is found unsupported by the evidence currently available.…”

Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data requires robust cultural evolutionary taxonomies

“…Computers and statistics were slow to make an inroad into the discipline (e.g., Aldenderfer, 2005) and cultural taxonomic studies fell radically our of fashion with the result that culture-historical nomenclatures were largely left unexamined and unrevised (Roberts and Vander Linden, 2011). The current diversity of archaeological taxonomic units and the evident methodological heterogeneity behind their construction and interpretation is a major issue for both later prehistory, as summarised by Eisenmann et al, and also for earlier periods (Clark and Riel-Salvatore, 2006;Sauer and Riede, 2019). In part at least, this heterogeneity is the result of an inertia in the revision of epistemologies and analytical methods when it comes to COMMENT PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0260-7 classification and cultural taxonomy (Bisson, 2000), an inertia linked at least in part to the obvious need to communicate within the discipline and to external stakeholders including the public.…”