Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:21:43.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

research-article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jan F. Simek
Jan F. Simek*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional distinction between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic is a technical one, the change from flake industries to blade industries. Finding a distinction in more active terms of human behaviour is a rewarding prospect, rather harder to achieve. Here, an attempt is made to find a fundamental distinction in the way groups of humans organized their lives, as recorded in the patterns of scattered stones and bones. The study depends on the meticulous and very detailed records of findspots made by excavation teams led by Jean-Philippe Rigaud, Director of Prehistoric Antiquities for Aquitaine, Bordeaux.

Type
Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 61 , Issue 231 , March 1987 , pp. 25 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammerman, A., Kintigh, K. & Simek, J.. In press. Recent developments in the application of the k-means approach to spatial analysis, in Sieveking, G. & Newcomer, M. (ed.), The human uses of flint and chert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. 1983. Late Pleistocene economies of the French Pyrenees, in Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective: 168–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, G. 1983. Economic change in Late Pleistocene Cantabria, in Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective: 149–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1978a. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1978b. Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure: learning from an eskimo hunting stand, American Antiquity 43(3): 336–61.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation, American Antiquity 45(1): 4–20.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1982a. Comment on White (1982), Current Anthropology 23: 177–81.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1982b. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1): 5–31.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1983a. Working at archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1983b. In pursuit of the past: decoding the archaeological record. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Clark, G. & Straus, L.. 1983. Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer adaptations in Cantabrian Spain, in Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective: 131–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delpech, V. 1983. Les faunes du paléolithique supérieur dans le sud-ouest de la France. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1983. Culture and society in the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe, in Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective: 201–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. & Ammerman, A.. 1982. Heuristic approaches to spatial analysis in archaeology, American Antiquity 47(1): 31–63.Google Scholar
Laville, H. 1975. Climatologie et chronologie du paléolithique en Périgord: étude sedimentologique de dépôts en grottes et sous abris. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Laville, H., Rigaud, J.-Ph. & Sackett, J.. 1980. Rock shelters of the Périgord: geological stratigraphy and archaeological succession. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J.-Ph. 1969. Note préliminaire de la stratigraphie du gisement du ‘Flageolet I’ (commune de Bézenac, Dordogne), Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 66(3): 73–5.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J.-Ph. 1978. The significance of variability among lithic artefacts: a specific case from southwestern France, Journal of Anthropological Research 34(3): 299–310.Google Scholar
Rigaud, J.-Ph. 1982. Le paléolithique en Périgord: les données du sud-ouest Sarladais et leurs implications. Thèse de doctorat d’état es sciences naturelles no. 737. Université de Bordeaux I.Google Scholar
Simek, J. 1984a. A k-means approach to the analysis of spatial structure in upper palaeolithic habitation sites: Le Flageolet I and Pincevent 36. Oxford: BAR. International Series S205.Google Scholar
Simek, J. 1984b. Integrating pattern and context in spatial archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 405–20.Google Scholar
Simek, J. In press. Structure and diversity in intrasite spatial analysis, in Jones, G. & Leonard, R. (ed.), The concept and measure of archaeological diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simek, J., Ammerman, A. & Kintigh, K.. 1985. Explorations in heuristic spatial analysis: analyzing the structure of material accumulations over space, in Voorrips, A. (ed.), To pattern the past: mathematical methods in archaeology. Rixensart (Belgium): PACT.Google Scholar
Simek, J. & Larick, R.. 1983. The recognition of multiple spatial patterns: a case study from the French Upper Palaeolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 165–80.Google Scholar
Straus, L. & Clark, G.. 1983. Further reflections on adaptive change in Cantabrian prehistory, in Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective: 166–7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, R. 1982. Rethinking the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition, Current Anthropology 23(2): 169–92.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. 1977. Archaeological approaches to the present: models for reconstructing the past. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar