<< Previous Chapter: Middle Paleolithic Stone Tool Industries
Chapter 3: Mousterian Assemblage Variability
There are four fundamental ways to interpret the meaning of the stone artifacts from Middle Paleolithic sites. Although we describe these here as if they are stand-alone explanations, in fact, we expect that some aspects of each interpretation are likely to be correct. This means that the most reasonable way to better understand the behavior of Neandertals is if we figure out which aspects of each explanation can be tested and shown to be accurate or not. Using this process, known as the scientific method, we can refine our current thinking about Neandertal behavior in a way that allows us to build testable models about the past.
Read more about these explanations:
As archaeologists interested in understanding the past, we have not yet arrived at a complete explanation for the variability we see in Mousterian stone tool industries. Not everyone, for example, accepts Dibble's work on sidescraper reduction, often preferring to think of completed stone tools as desired end products, just as we manufacture specific tool types in today's world. We anticipate, however, that in addition to those interpretations that have already been put forth (cultural groups, activity, temporal sequence, and reduction process), we will see archaeologists develop additional ways to interpret the stone tool assemblages of Neandertals during the Middle Paleolithic period.
Next Chapter: Site Formation >>
• 1. Overview
• 2. Middle Paleolithic Stone Tool Industries
• 3. Mousterian Assemblage Variability
• 4. Site Formation
• 5. Establishing Chronology
• 6. Interpreting Spatial Data
Scientific Method
The objective, unbiased process by which scientists test explanations for their observations. The first step is to make a specific observation about something, for example, a set of artifacts from an archaeological site. The next step is to develop explanations (hypotheses) for the observation. These hypotheses are then tested to assess their validity as explanations. For example, an observation might be that some stone tools have polish. Explanations for this observation might include: 1) the polish is the result of natural processes such as chemical depositions on some stone artifacts after they are buried; 2) the polish is the result of cutting certain types of plants; or 3) the polish comes from rubbing a coarse stone (in the manner of sandpaper) against a finer grain stone artifact that then acquires a polish. Testing these hypothesis would involve a combination of chemical testing of the polishes, experimental archaeology to replicate polish on stone artifacts, microscopic examination of the polishes
, and so forth.