Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise)

Audouze, Françoise; Cahen, Daniel; Keeley, Lawrence H.; Schmider, Béatrice

doi:10.3406/galip.1981.1667

Cited by 54 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…comparable to Pincevent at the bottom of the valley floor, and the heavy domination and characteristics of reindeer bones, Verberie is also regarded as a location associated with specialized reindeer hunting in the autumn (Audouze et al 1981). On the contrary, in Marsangy (horse, deer, reindeer) and Etiolles (reindeer, bison, horse), diversity in faunal species can be observed among the different occupation units and evidence of specialized hunting is absent (Olive et al 1991;Schmider 1992).…”

Section: Pincevent and Other Sites In The Paris Basinmentioning

confidence: 93%

Pushing the Envelope

Murray¹

1995

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I want to devote most of my comments on Rensink's interesting article to the issues raised by his review of current thinking about the Magdalenian of north-western Europe, rather than make detailed observations about the sites referred to in the text. I am particularly interested in ascertaining (as well as I can in such a limited space) the value of a concentration on the analysis of lithic raw materials as a way out of the theoretical morass he believes we have collectively become enmired in. In the course of doing all this I will advance a very simple proposition: that our salvation will spring from a comprehensive revaluation of the phenomenology of upper palaeolithic archaeological records, conducted against a background of concerted exploration of the presuppositions which currently pass for archaeological theory in this domain. Obviously salvation is not going to be easy to achieve, as witnessed by Rensink's brave but unsuccessful tussle with the problem of modelling magdalenian mobility. My central point is that given the magnitude of the task before us we should not expect early success, rather we should continue the process of reevaluation which he has begun.

show abstract

Section: Pincevent and Other Sites In The Paris Basinmentioning

confidence: 93%

Pushing the Envelope

Murray¹

1995

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Verberie's lithic assemblage is broadly similar, but there are a few noteworthy differences. Its assemblage is smaller, its refitting sequences show fewer core reduction episodes, and the refitting rate at the site is lower (Audouze et al 1981;Keeley 1987). Usewear studies show a relatively high frequency of discarded backed tools, with wear resulting from hafting, representing the discarded components of composite tools (Symens 1986).…”

Section: Learning About the Technological Properties Of Stone Tools-pmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Blade cores refit at nearly complete levels and are missing only the highest-quality blades. Use-wear studies have shown the use of blade debitage for a wide range of technical tasks, especially the manufacture of bone and antler tools (Audouze et al 1981). Verberie's lithic assemblage is broadly similar, but there are a few noteworthy differences.…”

Section: Learning About the Technological Properties Of Stone Tools-pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnoarchaeology and the Organization of Lithic Technology

McCall

2012

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the modern production and use of stone tools is rare, ethnoarchaeological research on this subject has provided important perspectives on methodological approaches to archaeological lithic analysis. Recent ethnoarchaeological research on lithics frequently takes the form of ''cautionary tales,'' warning against the primacy of functional variables most commonly invoked by lithic analysts. I argue that lithic ethnoarchaeology would benefit from a comparative organizational framework for explaining variation in patterns of stone tool use that takes into account the predictability and redundancy of the location and timing of technological activities. Understanding the underlying causes of modern patterns of stone tool use, in turn, offers a framework for exploring sources of lithic technological variation in the archaeological record. I also argue that technological analytical perspectives, such as the chaîne opératoire and sequence of reduction approaches, can benefit from the insights gained through lithic ethnoarchaeological research, helping us define important analytical concepts and identify appropriate units of analysis.

show abstract

“…Dissection of deposits into finer stratigraphic units, piece plotting of artefacts and other materials, refitting of conjoinable stones and bones, quantitative analyses of spatial patterns, taphonomic analyses of differential decay and destruction and micromorphological analyses of sediment formation have all been recruited in the hope of providing a richer insight into patterns of change and variability in the prehistoric past (Cziesla et al 1990;Hietala 1984;Kroll and Price 1991;LeroiGourhan andBrezillon 1966, 1972;Simek 1984;Simek and Larick 1983;Villa 1982;Whallon 1984;Yvorra 2003). Much of this work has been applied to greatest effect to open-air sites, such as Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1972), Etiolles (Pigeot 1984(Pigeot , 1987, Verberie (Audouze et al 1984), Monruz (Bullinger et al 2006;Plumettaz 2007), Meer (Cahen et al 1979), the Dunefields midden (Parkington et al 1992) and Boxgrove (Roberts and Parfitt 1999), where spatial differentiation of deposits and activities and rapid burial seemingly offer a better opportunity to recover snapshots of past activities and insights into social organization and the details of everyday life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Caves, palimpsests and dwelling spaces: examples from the Upper Palaeolithic of south-east Europe

Bailey

Galanidou

2009

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deposits in caves and rock-shelters typically occur in the form of low-resolution palimpsests or timeaveraged deposits, resulting from the superimposition of repeated and variable episodes of occupation, low rates of sedimentation and mixing by natural and anthropogenic processes. Despite the development of an impressive array of analytical techniques to disentangle these palimpsests into their constituent episodes of occupation, high resolution chronologies and detailed snapshots of activity areas and spatial organization have proved elusive. Here we suggest that, rather than seeing palimpsests as a problem, we take them as they are, as mixtures of materials that may have been actively recognized as such by the prehistoric occupants and deliberately enhanced, providing both physical resources that could be recycled for subsequent use and material cues for a sense of time and place. We illustrate this approach through a comparison of the spatial and material structure of four Upper Palaeolithic cave deposits in Southeast Europe, focusing on hearths and hearth-related distributions of material as clues to the active role of palimpsests in determining the use histories of different places.

show abstract

Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise)

Cited by 54 publications

References 4 publications

Pushing the Envelope

Pushing the Envelope

Ethnoarchaeology and the Organization of Lithic Technology

Caves, palimpsests and dwelling spaces: examples from the Upper Palaeolithic of south-east Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About