|
Levels J3a-c were thought by
Bordes to represent an entirely new facies of Mousterian, what he termed
the “Asinipodian,” and indeed, there are many features of these
assemblages that stand out. Typologically,
the industry resembles either a Denticulate Mousterian or a Typical
Mousterian rich in denticulates, as there are more notches/denticulates
than scrapers, and virtually all of the latter are single types. This suggests a relatively low degree of utilization of the
assemblages, and this is borne out by the very low percentages of blanks
to cores and of tools to flakes. One
other type, however, is heavily represented in these layers, namely
truncated-faceted pieces. This
type was not recognized in Bordes’ analysis (not being a part of his
original type-list, and it is interesting to see how he tried to deal with
their classification – calling them either cores, burins, truncations,
or, most often, simply “miscellaneous”. Now truncated-faceted
pieces are known to occur in varying frequencies in Middle Paleolithic
assemblages from all over the Old World.
Another characteristic feature of the Asinipodian, and one
that was recognized by Bordes and confirmed through our analysis, is the
very high percentages of Kombewa flakes and cores – the percentage of
cores that are classified as Kombewa reaches a high of over 12 percent in
Level J3a. What we have found
however, is that truncated-faceted pieces and Kombewa cores may be part of
the same strategy – two different sides of the same coin, as it were --
given that truncated-faceted pieces are flakes with removals usually from
the exterior face while Kombewa cores are flakes which, by definition,
have removals from the interior face (i.e., removal of the bulb of
percussion). In fact, there
is a clear relationship in the occurrence of these two forms throughout
the sequence.
Another interesting aspect
of these Asinipodian levels is the production of very small Levallois
flakes, which again may be technologically related to both the
truncated-faceted pieces and Kombewa cores. Bordes himself was struck by the extremely small size of these
pieces – in fact, many are less than 2 cm in length. That they should be considered Levallois flakes and not the result
of retouching bifaces or scrapers is first clear from the fact that
bifaces are absent and scrapers are rare, but more telling is the presence
of undeniable Levallois cores that are themselves extremely small: almost
10 percent of these are less than 3 cm in maximum length, and the lengths
of the primary removal scar average less than 2 cm with a minimum of 1.4
cm. In other words, the
flakes that were prepared and removed are smaller than what is commonly
piece-provenienced according to modern excavation standards. Related to this emphasis on small flake production is the fact that
many of these cores are made on flakes (it was also common in these layers
to utilize a small knob of flint as a core, as in 13 in the above drawing),
and, in fact, there is a whole continuum from small Levallois cores or
Mousterian discs, truncated-faceted pieces, and Kombewa cores.
Although the average sizes
of Asinipodian tools and flakes is more or less similar to what is seen
throughout the Pech IV sequence, the small size of some of the Levallois
flakes led Bordes to considered the term “Micromousterian” to
describe this industry; he
settled instead on Asinipodian (a Latin translation of Pech de l’Azé)
to emphasize his belief that Pech de l’Azé IV was the only site where
it is known to exist. In
fact, however, some of these same elements do occur in other kinds of
industries – the high percentage of truncated-faceting, for example, is
well attested at the site of La Cotte de St. Brelade and in the Zagros
Mousterian. The latter
includes a number of small, radially-prepared Levallois flakes and very
small radial cores as well.
Finally, adding to the
interest of this industry is the fact that such an emphasis on the
production of small flakes does not seem to be simply a result of
increased core reduction due to decreased raw material supplies. In this
case, according to the models put forward earlier, we would have probably
seen increased tool production and tool reduction as well, but neither of
these is apparent in the Asinipodian, which indicates that relatively
little emphasis was placed on creating blanks and on retouching blanks
into tools. Thus, despite the
fact that some Levallois cores were either made from very small blanks or
reduced to such diminutive sizes, some other factor besides intensity of
utilization, perhaps some as yet unidentified functional need or even a
style, may be responsible.
|