Comparisons with Upper Palaeolithic patterns

The final point concerns some of the significant contrasts which can now be documented between raw material procurement and distribution patterns in the Middle Palaeolithic and those in the Upper Palaeolithic. A full discussion of these Upper Palaeolithic patterns is beyond the scope of this study, but from important work carried out by workers such as Demars (1982, 1990b), Chadelle (1983), Larick (1983, 1986, 1987), Bricker (1975) and others, the following generalizations can be made (see Geneste 1989b for a review):

1. The basic sources of raw materials exploi ted in the Upper Palaeolithic sites of the

Perigord region are broadly similar to those documented in the Middle Palaeolithic. Again, most sites tend to show a primary reliance on materials derived from local sour ces (Fig. 5.20), while the sources of more distant and generally higher quality raw materials correspond essentially with those documented in the Middle Palaeolithic -most notably various sources of Bergerac flint, several varieties of fine-grained jasper and high-quality flints from the Fumel and

Gavaudun areas. The general directions of movement of materials across the region are also similar in the two periods - i.e. predominantly aligned along the major river valleys from east to west but frequently cutting across these river catchments from north to south (Fig. 5.19). On present evidence, therefore, there is no reason to suggest that Upper Palaeolithic groups were securing raw material supplies from more extensive catchment areas than those documented in the majority of Middle Palaeolithic sites in the same region (Geneste 1989b).

2. The major contrast between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic lies in the relative quantities in which raw materials from the more distant and better quality sources were transported by Upper Palaeolithic groups. Whilst the overall quantities of these more distant materials (i.e. materials from distances greater than 30 km) rarely exceed ca 1-2 percent of the total lithic assemblages in the majority of Middle Palaeolithic sites, the corresponding frequencies recorded in Upper Palaeolithic sites may be as high as 20-25 percent (Fig. 5.20). This is especially true of the best quality Bergerac flint, now known to have been used extensively in Upper Palaeolithic industries, from the earliest stages of the Aurignacian onwards (Geneste 1989b; Demars 1982, 1990a).

3. Equally significant contrasts can be seen in the precise forms in which these more distant materials were transported. In the Middle Palaeolithic, materials from relatively distant sources (more than ca 20 km) were almost invariably introduced into the sites in a specific form, normally restricted to fully retouched tools occasionally accompanied by a few carefully selected primary flakes, but hardly ever including cores. In the Upper Palaeolithic, by contrast, distant materials were transported not only in the form of finished tools and specific blank forms but also as either partially or completely shaped

Figure 5.19 Integrated map of the raw material sources exploited from a range of Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Perigord and adjacent areas, after Geneste 1989b. The overall distribution patterns are generally similar to those recorded for the various Middle Palaeolithic sites shown in Fig. 5.5.

Figure 5.19 Integrated map of the raw material sources exploited from a range of Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Perigord and adjacent areas, after Geneste 1989b. The overall distribution patterns are generally similar to those recorded for the various Middle Palaeolithic sites shown in Fig. 5.5.

cores. Thus, raw material supplies seem to have been introduced into sites from these sources not only in more substantial quantities than those in the Middle Palaeolithic but also in forms which would allow more extensive and systematic reduction and working of raw materials within the occupation sites (Geneste 1989b).

4. Many Upper Palaeolithic industries also seem to show a more specialized pattern of use of particular varieties of raw materials for particular forms of retouched tools. In the Aurignacian sites of the Brive region, for example, Demars (1982) has demonstrated that typical 'lamelle Dufour' forms were manufactured predominantly from certain types of jasper from specific sources located mainly to the east of the region. Larger and more heavily retouched 'Aurignacian blades', by contrast, were manufactured more commonly of Bergerac flint, while nosed and carinate scrapers show a less selective pattern focused mainly on more local flint supplies (Demars 1982: 140-2). Similar selectivity of particular flint types for particular tool forms has been documented in the production of Noailles burins in the Upper Peri-gordian industries and in the manufacture of Solutrian bifacial leaf points. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is some limited evidence for raw material selectivity in the production of Middle Palaeolithic tools - notably in the contrast between materials used for rela-

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment