Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)
closed access
The production of bifacial tools is one of the main technological strategies practiced throughout both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of northwestern Europe (MIS 15 – 3; ca. 600-35 ka BP)....Show moreThe production of bifacial tools is one of the main technological strategies practiced throughout both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of northwestern Europe (MIS 15 – 3; ca. 600-35 ka BP). Within the broad definition of this tool category, there exist wide variation in morphological and technological properties. Additionally, the occurrence of particular biface types seems to vary, both chronologically, as well as geographically. Nowadays, many archaeologists focus on the steering mechanisms behind the observed variations and in doing so apply different methodologies. The bifacial objects used in this thesis to address these broader theoretical questions come from the southern Netherlands, a thus far marginally explored area when it comes to Palaeolithic archaeology. Published data on bifaces is combined with object registrations in the national database (ARCHIS) and primary descriptions of bifacial objects by the author to form a comprehensive dataset of 122 bifacial objects in total. Primarily, these objects are typologically classified with the help of a synthesized methodological framework that combines the main northwestern European typological traditions. The outcome of this analysis shows that the overall typological variation in bifacial objects from the southern Netherlands is more diverse than currently envisaged, which has direct consequences for the conceptualization of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation of the research area. Consecutively, hypotheses for the observed variations in bifacial tool morphology are explored. Despite the limited chronostratigraphic information available for basically all objects, the combined analysis of associated geological formations, their age implications, and the distribution of particular tool types throughout norhtwestern Europe suggests that chronological differentiation in bifacial tool morphology occurs in the research area. At the same time, this explanation does not seem to fully explain the overall variation. Therefore, the technological aspects of morphological variation are explored as well. Scar pattern analysis is performed on four bifaces and shows that these all display long and extended artefact biographies during which likely different phases of use, re-use and recycling occurred. Based on the technological properties of the overall dataset it is proposed that economizing behaviours, in combination with different functional desires, have strongly affected biface morphology in the research area. The final hypothesis explaining variation is that of socio-cultural interactions. A re-analysis of bifacial tools from Sint Geertruid, previously used in such models by other researchers, in combination with their depositional context shows that the current dataset is unsuited for contributing to supra-regional contemporaneous cultural interactions between Neanderthal groups. This examination of the bifacial record of the southern Netherlands has shown that this material has higher potential for understanding hominin occupation and behaviour in this particular region than is currently being exploited. Finally, some suggestions for how to come to such understandings are proposed.Show less
