P. Pettitt: François Bordes FRANÇOIS BORDES Paul Pettitt Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT François Bordes was one of the most influential Palaeolithic archaeologists in the western European and North American paradigms. In a career that spanned some four decades he devised the classificatory scheme that is still widely employed today, through meticulous excavation of Quaternary sites in France from the Périgord to the Paris Basin, pioneering experimental knapping, ensuring that the heuristic of l‟evolution buissonante came to define how Palaeolithic archaeologists conceived of change, and, particularly, the introduction of quantification to existing type fossil approaches to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Here, I survey briefly some main points of his work, and his contribution to and opinion of other contributions to the „Mousterian debate‟. Far from being restricted to developing our understanding of the Mousterian, Bordes‟ output was just as important in the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic. His technotypological scheme, introduced in the 1950s, precipitated a major change in the way prehistorians thought about the Palaeolithic record, and essentially ushered in the modern intellectual world. Full reference: Pettitt, P. 2009. François Bordes. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 201–212. Lithic Studies Society, London. Keywords: Lithics, Mousterian, Middle Palaeolithic, Typology, France acquaintance with lithics from southwest French sites — many of which he excavated — yet was not afraid to extend the insights he‘d gained from study of these sites to a continental or even global stage. The purpose of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive review of Bordes‘ work, but rather to ‗sample‘ areas in which his influence was (and remains) profound, and place these in something of a wider context. Readers may find it somewhat biased in favour of the Anglophone literature: it is deliberately so, to show the profound effect Bordes‘ work had on Anglo-American archaeology, and this should not be taken to lessen the considerable influence Bordes had in France and many other European countries. When discussing Bordes it is INTRODUCTION For the middle decades of the twentieth century, the Palaeolithic of the Périgord and François Bordes (1919–1981: Figure 1) were effectively synonymous. Along with his wife, Denise de Sonneville-Bordes (1919– 2008) Bordes set the technological and typological scene for the western European research paradigm from the early 1950s, and has left a legacy that still influences researchers in Western and Central Europe and North America to this day. He can indeed be regarded as ―one of the founders of modern Palaeolithic research‖ (Rolland & Dibble 1990: 481). Like his predecessors such as the Abbé Breuil (Davies, this volume) Bordes had an intimate 201 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) inevitable that the subject of ‗Mousterian variability‘ will come somewhat to the fore; I have felt it necessary to provide a brief ‗history‘ of the debate that ensued after Bordes recognised Middle Palaeolithic assemblage patterning, but this is cursory and uneven for a reason; this is a paper about Bordes, not the Mousterian, and my coverage is intended to elucidate Bordes‘ contribution and opinions about the contribution of others to the debate. First, however, I shall explore his wider interests and achievements. Figure 1: François Bordes (right) with F. Clark Howell. From the collection of Denise de SonnevilleBordes. Unknown photographer. [Photograph courtesy of Michel Lenoir] Bordes‘ work was the cornerstone of my doctoral research; I was investigating aspects of Mousterian lithic assemblage variability, in southwest France, using collections from Bordes‘ own excavations at Combe Grenal and Pech de l‘Azé. Bordes bestrode the pages of the thesis like the colossus. My supervisor Paul Mellars and I would often discuss aspects of Bordes‘ work, and particularly the debates between himself, BORDES’ BROADER CAREER AND THE BORDESIAN ERA Perhaps the best way to crystallise Bordes‘ contribution to Palaeolithic archaeology is to pose the question of what the field would be like had he not made any contribution to it. This question was, in fact, posed to me during my PhD viva in 1998 by my examiners, Clive Gamble and John Gowlett. 202 P. Pettitt: François Bordes Bordes and Binford over what the technological and typological variability recognised within the Mousterian meant. I had read most of Bordes‘ series of publications of the 1950s and 1960s in which he developed the méthode Bordes and in which he developed the typological, technological characterisation and statistical analysis of lithic assemblages, and my copy of the Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen, which I had bought in Les Eyzies in 1993, never made it from my desk to the shelf until I had finished writing. Yet the question totally threw me. I had taken Bordes‘ work totally for granted, and it took some mental gymnastics to even try to conceive what the academic field of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology might have been like if Bordes had not made such a pronounced contribution to the field. It could easily have happened, given his history and early interests. What if, for example, he had stuck with botany; specialised in geology; written science fiction as Francis Carsac fulltime; or worse, died as a resistance fighter in the second world war? Our understanding of the lithic record would be considerably poorer for want of his pioneering experimental knapping (Bordes & Crabtree 1969, and see Dibble & Debénath 1991: 222). There would be no vocabulary that focussed prehistorians on why Middle Palaeolithic assemblages varied, and therefore no structured debate as to the behavioural capacities of the Neanderthals. Lewis Binford would not have had Mousterian variability to kick-start his promotion of the ‗new archaeology‘, nor would Paul Mellars have a chrono-cultural sequence to demonstrate assemblage change over time. In turn, this would not have stimulated Harold Dibble to introduce perspectives from New World archaeology as explanations for the dynamics of lithic variability, and overall we would not have arrived at our understanding today of the variable trajectories of Middle Palaeolithic technologies that resulted from Neanderthal behavioural flexibility (Hovers & Kuhn 2006). Of course one can argue that others would have found the route at some point, but one wonders how far behind the discipline would have been if, for example, Palaeolithic lithic analysis had missed the ‗new archaeology boat‘ of the mid-1960s. Bordes was, for much of his career, Professor of Prehistory and Quaternary Geology at the University of Bordeaux, where he had studied botany and geology in the 1930s. At Bordeaux he inherited an intellectual tradition that could be traced back through Peyrony to Breuil, in which the sequences of Palaeolithic assemblages derived from the rockshelters of the Dordogne were seen to have wider (at least western European) significance, unfolded in a temporal succession over Pleistocene time, and could be described and distinguished on the basis of technotypological traits which formed the basis of an artefact taxonomic system (Sackett 1991, and see also Davies, this volume). Bordes, however, brought geological expertise to Palaeolithic archaeology; his contact with Raymond Vaufrey and Jean Piveteau in Paris during the second world war led to research on the loess sequences and Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology of the Somme and Seine Basins just after fighting ended, resulting in the presentation of a thesis to the Facultés des Sciences in Paris. From this time onwards Bordes was working on a standardised typology of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic that culminated in the Typologie (Bordes 1961b). The use of fossiles directeurs had been promoted by the brothers Bouyssonie, but it was only with the méthode Bordes that assemblages could be compared objectively in terms of the frequency of these type fossils (Binford & Binford 1966: 238; Kozlowski 1992). The emergent patterning revealed, in Bordes‘ term, l‟évolution buissonante — branching (or bushy) evolution — through which archaeologists could recognise that lithic assemblages, and thus behaviour, evolved in complex ways as did biological species (Bordes 1950a). Straus & Clark (e.g. 1986) coined the term phylogenetic paradigm to 203 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) describe French lithic systematics, which to some seemed self-contained and inward looking, although which, with the benefit of hindsight, had a profound effect upon later twentieth century Palaeolithic archaeology. Sackett (1991: 132), for example, has defined the ‗Bordesian era‘ as the period with which ―we enter modern times‖. Bordes‘ method ―is [still] considered the standard typology for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in most of the western Old World‖ (Dibble & Debénath 1991: 222). To Sackett, the Bordesian era ―saw a significant leap in the degree of resolution with which prehistorians were able to exercise control over the empirical contents of the [Middle and] Upper Palaeolithic record‖ (ibid: 133). Implications of this new ability to quantify, characterise, compare and interpret lithic assemblages were profound, and affected even recovery methods and sampling strategies; ―excavation took on the character of stratigraphic dissection…all lithic materials were now saved…techniques were devised to use…palaeoenvironmental data in conjunction with the artefact industries to seriate site stratigraphies holistically, thus recasting regional taxonomic schemes into the form of ‗chronostratigraphies‘ which eventually came to be supplemented by a time line of radiocarbon dates (ibid: 133). In this sense, in addition to provoking for the first time rigour in recovery strategies, Bordes‘ scheme can be seen as transitional, in the sense that it both represented the most sophisticated expression of relative schemes in archaeology and the absolute chronostratigraphy that was just around the corner. formative period — that in which he was developing his method and interests and essentially laying down the contribution for which he is mainly remembered — essentially spans two decades from 1950 to 1970. Subsequent to his studies of the northern French loess sites in the late 1940s his work progressed from initial outlines of his method (e.g. Bordes 1950b) to the recognition of l‟évolution buissonante; discrimination of the Mousterian, Tayacien and Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes & Bourgon 1951b); refinement of technological criteria, notably Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes 1952a, 1953a); statistical analysis (e.g. Bordes 1953b); further refinement of typological definitions (e.g. Bordes 1953c, 1954a); stratigraphy and chronology, particularly with the new radiocarbon technique (e.g. Bordes 1956a, 1957a, 1958a, 1960); interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblage variability (Bordes 1961a, 1970); and Upper Palaeolithic typology and wider behavioural aspects including art (e.g. Bordes 1958b, 1963, 1964a, 1964b, 1965a). The excavation and study of cave and rockshelter assemblages spans the entirety of Bordes‘ formative period, involving a minimum of 38 publications on 29 sites (Table 1). Although Bordes tends to be associated most strongly with the Mousterian, it is clear from the table that his attention was focussed as much on the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic, with the Lower Palaeolithic represented by some 24% (n=7) of his published sites and the Upper Palaeolithic by 31% (n=9), i.e. a little over 50%. The association of Bordes primarily with the Middle Palaeolithic has come about by the number of publications relating to the period (44% of the total using the publication list in Bordes 1992), which is not surprising, given that they were critical to the development of the méthode Bordes. Bordes introduced statistics to the study of lithic assemblages in 1950, enabling both qualitative and quantitative approaches to lithics to be employed simultaneously. Assemblages would be characterised on the basis of a combination of his typological trait list and technological attributes, following which they could be subjected to statistical characterisation. Although Bordes was a highly prolific researcher and writer, his 204 P. Pettitt: François Bordes Sites by period Lower Palaeolithic Carrièrre Bouchon (Seine) Pech de l‘Azé Nord L‘Atelier Commont Vassincourt Combe-Grenal Amiens Pech de l‘Azé II Middle Palaeolithic Le Moustier Saint-Cyprien Pech de l‘Azé Nord La Chaise L‘Abri Armand Chadourne Pech de l‘Azé L‘Ermitage Combe-Grenal Mas Viel Haute-Roche La Micoque Roc de Marsal Upper Palaeolithic Abilly (Solutrean) Villejuif (Aurignacian) Evreux (Epipalaeolithic) Laugerie-Haute Gare-de-Couze (Magdalenian) Roc de Gavaudun (Gravettian) Laugerie-Haute (Solutrean) Corbiac (Gravettian) Publication reference 1946 1951b 1953d 1955a 1955b 1955c 1969 1948a, 1959 Bordes & Bourgon 1948 Bordes & Bourgon 1950, 1951a 1952b, 1953e, 1965b 1954b 1954c 1954d 1955b, Bordes et al. 1966 1956b 1957b 1958c 1962 1950c 1948b, 1949 1951b 1954e, 1958b, Bordes & de Sonneville-Bordes 1958 1963, 1964a 1964b 1965a 1968a, Bordes & Crabtree 1969 Table 1: Selected publications by Bordes on the stratigraphy and assemblages of major Palaeolithic sites in France & neighbouring countries 1950–1970. This is not meant to be exhaustive. Bordes recognised that Mousterian assemblages of southwestern France could be divided into four main types: BORDES, THE MOUSTERIAN, AND THE ‘MOUSTERIAN DEBATE’ Bordes, either working alone or initially in collaboration with Maurice Bourgon, developed his classificatory scheme of Mousterian variants between 1947 and 1965, although the méthode Bordes was effectively in place by 1953 (e.g. Bordes 1953c). From that point Bordes expanded his system geographically. The scheme was developed using sites and materials deriving from the Périgord to the Seine Basin. In 1981, after twenty-five years of development and discovery, Bordes (1981) felt that his scheme for western Europe was still justified and that additional aspects of Mousterian variability could be recognised from northern Europe to the Near East. Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition (characterised by the presence of handaxes and thus seen to be descended from the preceding Acheulian, as well as numerous scrapers, denticulates and, in particular, backed knives). This he subdivided into Type A (chronologically earlier and with higher frequencies of handaxes) and Type B (chronologically later, with fewer handaxes and a general rise in the importance of backed knives) Typical Mousterian (with no singularly predominant form, differing from the previous by sharply reduced frequencies 205 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) of handaxes and backed knives) common origin, and more original variants found in Central and Eastern Europe suggested centres of origin that were independent of western Europe (ibid: 108; 1968b: 106–20). Denticulate Mousterian (dominated by denticulated and notched tools, with no handaxes or backed knives and the rest of the assemblage comprised of scrapers, burins and borers in relatively low frequencies) More importantly, the recognition of patterning inevitably stimulated investigation; ‗the system [Bordes], originally descriptive, gradually called for an interpretation‘ (Rolland 1981: 16). A critical belief of the phylogenetic paradigm of Breuil –Peyrony–Bordes/de Sonneville-Bordes was that the industrial phases recognised through technotypological analysis had cultural importance in that they constituted material expressions of specific ethnic groups (Sackett 1991: 111–2). Others disagreed. Bordes expressed his views very clearly, for example; Charentian Mousterian (with few handaxes or backed knives, but with high frequencies of scrapers). This he subdivided into two subgroups on technological grounds; the Quina variant in which Levallois technology was absent or rare, and the Ferrassie variant in which Levallois technology was relatively common. Taking the two subdivisions of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition and two of the Charentian Mousterian into account, this divided the French Mousterian into six variants. Levallois technology crosscuts most of these. Statistical exploration of these variants, from sites in the Périgord (e.g. Doran & Hodson 1966; Callow & Webb 1977: 1981) and the Périgord and Near East (Binford & Binford 1966) tended to support these major assemblage divisions that Bordes had identified — ―the typology seems to do what it was intended to do‖ (Kuhn 1991: 245) — although exactly how much these support the reality of the subtleties of the subdivisions is debatable (Mellars 1996: 183). “What is the significance of this variability? We tend to interpret these different industries as reflecting the cultural differences of human groups in possession of varied traditions. Others prefer to explain these variations as the result of different activities carried on by people of the same culture. And others again think that the Mousterians represent different steps in the evolution of the Mousterian culture” (Bordes 1972: 146) In support of his ‗cultural‘ interpretation Bordes suggested that the ―four main parallel lines [of the Mousterian, i.e. the variants]…did not interfere with one another to any great extent‖ (1968: 141), and famously noted that ―in primitive societies, conservatism is usually very strong. If one supposes that a Mousterian of Acheulian tradition man married a Quina woman, she might have gone on using the thick scrapers to which she was accustomed, but we doubt that her daughters would have done the same‖ (Bordes 1972: 147). Some countered that there was too little geographical isolation of the variants for such lack of interaction to pertain — effectively an argument stemming from the notion that Other than the prolongation of Acheulian traditions in the form of bifaces, which is implicit in his naming of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition, Bordes noted that the origins of these variants was difficult to establish, largely because of our poor understanding of the lithic industries of the Last Interglacial from which he assumed they all derived (Bordes 1981: 108). All he could say was that the vast geographical range of diverse Mousterian types resulted from the phenomena of convergent evolution and human dispersals from a perceived 206 P. Pettitt: François Bordes allopatric speciation could apply to lithic technology — but these objections could be conveniently dismissed on the grounds that ―man is more ready to exchange his genes than his customs, as the whole history of Europe demonstrates‖ and in any case, because ―the Palaeolithic world was an empty world…the population was certainly very thin on the ground…a man must often have lived and died without meeting anyone of another culture, although he knew ‗that there are men living beyond the river who make handaxes‘‖ (Bordes 1968: 144). How sharp a contrast in reasoning to current hypotheses which assume the contemporaneity of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens and on the basis of which promote notions of contact and interaction as factors in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition (e.g. Mellars 1999, 2004)! Bordes objectively considered other explanations; two, in fact (1961a). He felt that it was unlikely that each variant corresponded to activities in a particular season and thus could be distinguished at this level, as most of the assemblages he worked with comprised abundant lithics which were derived from thick palimpsest assemblages which would be pushing interpretative reason to squeeze into single season occupations. Similarly, he felt that one could eliminate an environmental correlation, as several variants could be found at the same location and within at least broadly similar environmental contexts. Debate instead revolved around two other potential factors; Paul Mellars‘ observations that there was at least a degree of diachronic patterning of the southwest French Mousterian variants, and Lewis and Sally Binford‘s contention that function played an important role in constituting the variants. Binford and Binford perceived weaknesses in Bordes‘ preferred interpretation; Paul Mellars (e.g. 1965, 1969) noted that a degree of chronological patterning could be observed among Mousterian variants of the Périgord region, whereby in situations of interstratification at sites such as CombeGrenal, Abri Chadourne, Abri Caminade-Est, Roc-en-Pail and others, the Quina variant of the Charentian always overlay the Ferrassie variant, and the MTA tended to overlie all variants and was typically located high in the Middle Palaeolithic stratigraphy, often close to the lower margins of the Upper Palaeolithic strata. Mellars in fact saw his observation as giving ―by far the strongest support to the major features of the Bordes taxonomy…clear evidence for the stratigraphic and chronological distribution of the principal industrial variants in the southwestern French sites‖ (1996: 183). Mellars was able to refine his observations over the next two decades or more; the application of TL dating demonstrated the relatively recent age of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition as one would expect from the stratigraphical observations (e.g. Mellars 1986, 1989, 1992); and eventually his observations were supported by the work “good arguments can be presented against such an explanation, based on our knowledge of formal variation in material remains of populations of Homo sapiens. Nevertheless, such arguments remain opinion, for as yet no one has proposed a means of testing Bordes‟ hypothesis…formal variation in material items that is inexplicable in terms of function or raw materials can be termed stylistic variation; these stylistic variations tend to cluster spatially in direct relationship to the amount of social distance maintained between societies. Spatial clusterings of the various Mousterian assemblages are not demonstrable…in the Dordogne…[they] occur interdigitated at several localities” (Binford & Binford 1966: 240) To some extent this was an unfair argument as the Binfords had used spatial (i.e. anthropological) data, and failed to account for diachronic change in the distribution of social groups, but they had at least identified the inherent untestability of loosely-defined ‗cultural‘ interpretations. 207 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) of Rolland (1988), all clear testimony to the robusticity of Bordes‘ patterning. Given his general lack of attention to its tenets, however, Bordes was clearly unconvinced by Mellars‘ argument, dealing with this in simple, pithy sentences, e.g. ―the hypothesis that different Mousterian types represent an evolution of the same general Mousterian culture is negated by the numerous interstratifications known today‖ (1972: 147), and ―the many interstratifications encountered in the deposits shows that we are dealing with different lines, and not as was formerly thought with an evolution‖ (1968: 141). Mellars made no claims to explain all Mousterian variants in terms of chronological change, so this should have been acceptable to Bordes, especially as there was a diachronic element to his own classificatory scheme where the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition of Type A preceded that of Type B (see above). Why this was apparently so unacceptable to Bordes is unclear, although presumably a demonstrable diachronic element to the Quina, Ferrassie and Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition types A and B — i.e. most of the Mousterian variants — would leave too little contemporaneity between remaining variants to allow for his cultural interpretation. past human systems of adaptation‖ (Binford 1973, quoted in Binford 1983: 153). The Binfords believed that ―the use of multivariate statistics allows us to partition Mousterian assemblages into subunits of artefacts which can reasonably be interpreted as representing tool-kits for the performance of different sets of tasks…these subunits of artefacts vary independently of one another and may be combined in numerous ways‖ (Binford & Binford 1966, quoted in Binford 1983: 123, my emphasis). Thus, contra Bordes‘ cultural interpretation, their ―findings suggest that a great deal of the variability in Mousterian assemblages can be interpreted as functional variability” (ibid: 123, original emphasis). Bordes felt that this conclusion clearly merited greater consideration than the diachronic argument, e.g. ―the ‗different activities‘ hypothesis, outlined by Lewis and Sally Binford, needs closer examination‖ (1972: 147). Despite this, Bordes was similarly dismissive of their interpretation as he was of Mellars‘. He argued that, even if one accepted the validity of the factor analysis on which the Binfords based their division of site types and thus functions, a number of objections could be raised. Tool types may co-vary with each other, but this tells us little if their function is unknown. Ethnographically, different tool kits are known, but always within the same site; how then, can we expect distinct tool kits to dominate any specific assemblage, especially when we know these are palimpsests? Why do open air sites not yield different assemblages to cave and rockshelter sites? What of regional-scale differences between variants, where, for example, in the Charente, as the name implies, the Charentian Mousterian (Quina and Ferrassie variants) dominates and the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition is exceptionally rare; and Provence, where the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition is hardly known? Bordes rightly asked why activities were so common in the Dordogne that were apparently unnecessary in Provence and rare in Charente. It is important to note that to Bordes, his cultural interpretation was not Lewis Binford, who, like Mellars, had excavated for Bordes, initially in collaboration with Sally Binford (e.g. Binford & Binford 1966) explored Bordes‘ variants using multivariate statistical analysis on French and Near Eastern assemblages. The Binfords found them to be relatively robust, even if, as discussed above, they found his interpretations of the resulting patterning unconvincing. Turning to interpretation themselves, they explored various potential explanations. Bordes had effectively precipitated a major awakening in Palaeolithic archaeology as, to Binford, this was ―an appeal to archaeologists to explain their observations…[addressing the] difficult task of determining what our taxonomies are measuring and what [Bordes‘] demonstrated patterning refers to in the organisation of 208 P. Pettitt: François Bordes mutually exclusive with the functional argument. Assuming that different ways of performing the same tasks existed…―why not admit that the different Mousterian types just represent these different ways, and that the difference is indeed cultural?‖ (1972: 149). To him, it was simply different ways of doing similar things. enough to be the subject of major intellectual paradigm shifts in the investigation of Palaeolithic lithic technology. ―If correct, the reduction models…would not invalidate Bordes‘ typology. On the contrary, it would strengthen the use of the typology as an analytical tool in interpreting Palaeolithic assemblages‖ (Dibble 1987a: 116). The first manifestation of these models, in which Rolland (1977) suggested that aspects of Mousterian variability related to ―differing degrees of secondary modification [i.e. resharpening]‖ clearly ―relies on the Bordes classificatory system‖ (ibid: 251, my emphasis) and ―confirms the usefulness of the Bordes system‖ (ibid: 35) which was ―an important means for describing and comparing Lower and Middle Palaeolithic assemblages (Dibble 1987a: 116). The last major reorientation of thought about Bordesian Mousterian variability arose in the late 1980s, stemming from a particularly North American school of anthropologicallyinformed lithic analysis. New models were initially proposed by Nicholas Rolland and Harold Dibble; most researchers tend to quote the latter — Dibble wrote more prolifically on the models and pursued their specific applications through to 1995 — although the original notion was Rolland‘s and he should be credited far more than he is. According to these models (e.g. Rolland 1977, 1981, 1988; Dibble 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1995; Rolland & Dibble 1990; Dibble & Rolland 1992), variability of the major typological forms on which Mousterian variability was predicated (notably scrapers), resulted from the degree and manner in which they were resharpened during use. The novel element of such models was that, effectively for the first time, formal type fossils of Bordes‘ system were not seen as deliberate products, but as relatively unintended by-products of a fluid technological system in which only generalised tool forms were consciously desired. The form of these general products would be determined by the quality and availability of raw material, and the concomitant intensity of use wherein resharpening of one or more edges might take certain typological forms of scraper in particular from one Bordesian category to another. It is not important here to discuss the specifics of the tool reduction models (see for example Mellars 1996 and Pettitt 1999 for critical discussions), and as these were forwarded mainly after Bordes‘ death, their relevance to this paper is simply to show how Bordes‘ system was robust CONCLUSIONS Where exactly does Bordes stand in the history of Palaeolithic archaeology? He was a colossus indeed, but with one foot firmly rooted in the French intellectual tradition of the first few decades of the twentieth century, and with the other firmly rooted in the ‗scientific‘ traditions of modern research. For the Bordesian era was transitional, one ―which redefined Peyrony‘s world in Bordesian terms…and culminated...[in]…the considerably more complex world of industrial flux with which a prehistorian of today must contend‖ (Sackett 1991: 135). Bordes had inherited the ‗palaeontological paradigm‘ from predecessors such as Breuil and Peyrony, but whilst retaining the critical basis of this paradigm — the type fossil — he shifted attention towards inclusive quantification of lithic assemblages, in a context that viewed them as samples of varying populations. One can, in particular, emphasise Bordes development of l‟evolution buissonante which took Palaeolithic archaeology out of the phase of linear geological epochs and ensured an organic heuristic, in keeping with biological 209 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) (and thus palaeontological) change that has endured to the present. Bordes, F. 1946. La Stratigraphie des limons quaternaires de la carrière Bouchon à Ivry (seine) et ses répercussions possibles sur la chronologie préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société Géologique Française 16: 503–10. Bordes, F. 1948a. Les couches moustériennes du gisement du Moustier (Dordogne). Typologie et techniques de taille. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 45: 113–25. Bordes, F. 1948b. Une station aurignacienne in situ dan les loess de Villejuif. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 45: 107–8. Bordes, F. 1949. Le limons de la région de Villejuif et leurs industries préhistoriques. L‟Anthropologie 53: 1–19. Bordes, F. 1950a. L‘évolution buissonante des industries en Europe occidentale. Considérations théoriques sur le Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L‟Anthropologie 54: 393–420. Bordes, F. 1950b. Principes d‘une méthode d‘étude des techniques et de la typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L‟Anthropologie 54: 19–34. Bordes, F. 1950c. Un abri du solutréen à Abilly (Indre-et-Loire). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 47: 146–53. Bordes, F. 1951b. Une industrie épipaléolithique à Evreux. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 48: 520–38. Bordes, F. 1952a. Technique Levallois et Levallois ancien. L‟Anthropologie 56: 554–6. Bordes, F. 1952b. Les industries moustériennes de la grotte de La Chaise. Premiers résultats et diagnose provisoire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 49: 528–31. Bordes, F. 1953a. Levalloisien et Moustérien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 226–34. Bordes, F. 1953b. Typologie et statistique. Observations sur le note de Melles Alimen et Vignal. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 74–8. Bordes, F. 1953c. Essaie de classification des industries ‗Moustériennes‘. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 457–66. Bordes, F. 1953d. L‘Atelier Commont. L‟Anthropologie 57: 1–44. Bordes, F. 1953e. Station de La Chaise, grotte Suard. Les industries moustériennes, premiers résultats. Mémoires de la Société Historique et Archéologique de la Charente années 1952–3: 17– 18. Bordes, F. 1954a. Notules de typologie Paléolithique: III, pointes moustériennes, racloirs convergents et déjetés, limaces. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 336–8. Bordes, F. 1954b. L‘abri Armand Chadourne aux Eyzies. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 229–54. Bordes, F. 1954c. Les gisements du Pech de l‘Azé (Dordogne). I, le Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne. L‟Anthropologie 58: 401–32. One cannot underestimate the heuristic and disciplinary importance of the Mousterian debate, which Bordes will forevermore be associated with. It ―provided the major intellectual focus for Middle Palaeolithic research for over two decades‖ (Dibble 1991: 240). To a certain extent it continues today, at least as it is replayed in university lectures as an object lesson in how archaeologists recognise artefact patterning and how they interpret it. Thus, while modern research into Middle Palaeolithic lithics has to some extent broadened its horizons into raw material effects on technology, the chaîne opératoire, transport in the landscape and the wider environmental context, the système Bordes is still there, underpinning the classificatory roots of the discipline; ―the Bordes typology has not been entirely forsaken: it remains the preeminent descriptive language for Middle Palaeolithic retouched tools, and the Mousterian ‗facies‘ that issue from its application continue to structure much comparative research‖ (Kuhn 1995: 15). I suspect it always will be with us. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the editors, particularly Rob Hosfield, for their kind invitation to contribute to this special issue, and for allowing me the opportunity to think about Bordes. For help with the production of the paper I owe a debt to Jean-Guillaume Bordes and, particularly, Michel Lenoir and Robin Dennell for their comments on a draft, and two anonymous referees for their improvements. Needless to say, any remaining mistakes are my own. REFERENCES Binford, L.R. 1983. Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Binford, L.R. & Binford, S.R. 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68(2): 238–95. 210 P. Pettitt: François Bordes Bordes, F. 1954d. Le Moustérien de l‘Ermitage (foilles Pradel). Comparisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 58: 444–9. Bordes, F. 1954e. Présence probable de jaspe de Fontmaure dans l‘Aurignacien V de LaugerieHaute. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 51: 67–8. Bordes, F. 1955a. L‘acheuléen moyen de Vassincourt (Meuse) et la question de l‘Acheuléen ‗Froid‘. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 52: 157–62. Bordes, F. 1955b. La stratigraphie de Combe-Grenal (Dordogne). Note préliminaire. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 52: 426–9. Bordes, F. 1955c. Un biface exceptionnel provenant d‘Amiens. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 52: 719–21. Bordes, F. 1956a. Some observations on the Pleistocene succession in the Somme Valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22: 1–6. Bordes, F. 1956b. Le gisement moustérien du Mas Viel (Lot). L‟Anthropologie 60: 209–35. Bordes, F. 1957a. Radiocarbone et corrélations lœssiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: 572–3. Bordes, F. 1957b. Le Moustérien du Haute-Roche: comparaisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: 279–88. Bordes, F. 1958a. Loess et chronologie Paléolithique. L‟Anthropologie 62: 160–6. Bordes, F. 1958b. Nouvelles fouilles à LaugerieHaute. Premiers résultats. L‟Anthropologie 62: 371–5. Bordes, F. 1958c. La Micoque. Ibidem for 1958: 166. Bordes, F. 1959. Le contexte archéologique des hommes du Moustier et de Spy. L‟Anthropologie 63: 154–57. Bordes, F. 1960. Radiocarbon dates and Upper Palaeolithic archaeology in Central and Western Europe. Current Anthropology 5-6: 355–91. Bordes, F. 1961a. Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134: 803–10. Bordes, F. 1961b. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Publications de l‘Institut de Préhistoire de l‘Université de Bordeaux Mémoire 1. Delmas, Bordeaux. Bordes, F. 1962. Découverte d‘un squelette d‘enfant moustérien dans le gisement de Roc de Marsal, commune de Campagne du Bugue (Dordogne). Comptes rendus de l‟Académie des Sciences 254: 714–5. Bordes, F. 1963. Gravure féminine du Magdalénien VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). L‟Anthropologie 67: 347–60. Bordes, F. 1964b. Le Périgordien Supérieur à burins de Noailles du Roc de Gavaudun (Lot-et-Garonne). L‟Anthropologie 68: 353–6. Bordes, F. 1965a. Une sculpture du Solutréen inférieur de Laugerie-Haute. L‟Anthropologie 69: 99–102. Bordes, F. 1965b. A propos de la grotte de La Chaise (Charente), quelques rectifications. L‟Anthropologie 69: 602–3. Bordes, F. 1968a. Emplacement des tentes du Périgourdien supérieur au château de Corbiac, près Bergerac (Dordogne). Revue des Musées de Bordeaux 14–15. Bordes, F. 1968b. The Old Stone Age. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, World University Library, London. Bordes, F. 1969. Os percé et os gravé acheuléen du Pech de l‘Azé II. Quaternaria XI: 1–6. Bordes, F. 1970. The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2(1): 61–73. Bordes, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Row, New York. Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-Cinq ans après: le complexe Moustérien revisité. Notae Praehistoricae I: 103– 8. Bordes, F. 1992. Leçons sur le Paléolithique Tome II Paléolithique en Europe. CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1948. Sur quelques éclats en calcaire, de type moustérien, provenant de Saint-Cyprien (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 45: 335. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1950. Le gisement du Pech de l‗Azé Nord. Prise de date et observations préliminaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 47: 381–3. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951a. Le gisement de Pech de l‘Azé Nord. Campagnes 1950–1951. Les couches inférieures à Rhinoceros mercki. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 48: 520–38. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951b. Le complexe Moustérien: Moustérien, Levalloisien et Tayacien. L‟Anthropologie 55: 1–23. Bordes, F. & Crabtree, D. 1969. The Corbiac blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12: 1–21. Bordes, F. & Fitte P. 1964a. Microlithes du Magdalénien VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). In E. Ripoll Perello (ed.) Miscelánea en homenaje al abate Henri Breuil, 1877–1961: 259–67. Diputación provinciale de Barcelona, Instituto de Prehistoria y Archeologia. Bordes, F., Laville, H. & Paquereau, M. 1966. Observations sur le Pléistocène supérieur du gisement du Combe-Grenal (Dordogne). Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux 103 (série B, n.10): 3–19. Bordes, F. & de Sonneville-Bordes, D. 1958. Position stratigraphique de l‘Aurignacien V à LaugerieHaute Est. L‟Anthropologie 62: 364–7. Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1977. Structure in the S.W. French Mousterian. Computer Applications in Archaeology 4: 69–76. Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1981. The application of multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern France. Revue d‟Archéométrie 5: 129–38. Dibble, H.L. 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Palaeolithic scrapers: function, style, or 211 Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 431–36. Dibble, H.L. 1987a. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52(1): 109–17. Dibble, H.L. 1987b. Comparaisons des séquences de réduction des outils moustériens de la France et du Proche-Orient. L‟Anthropologie (Paris) 91: 189– 96. Dibble, H.L. 1991. Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale. Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 239–57. Dibble, H.L. 1995. Middle Palaeolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(4): 299–368. Dibble, H.J. & Debénath, A. 1991. Paradigmatic differences in a collaborative research project. In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research: 217–26. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Dibble, H.L. & Rolland, N. 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of western Europe: history, perspectives, and a new synthesis. In H.L. Dibble & P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour, and Variability: 1–28. University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph No. 72), Philadelphia. Doran, J.E. & Hodson, F.R. 1966. A digital computer analysis of Palaeolithic flint assemblages. Nature 210: 688–9. Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S. (eds.) 2006. Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York. Kozlowski, J. 1992. Préface. Bordes, F. Leçons sur le Paléolithique Tome II Paléolithique en Europe. CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Kuhn, S.L. 1991. New problems, old glasses: methodological implications of an evolutionary paradigm for the study of Palaeolithic technologies. In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research: 243–57. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Kuhn, S.L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: an Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mellars, P.A. 1965. Sequence and development of Mousterian traditions in south-western France. Nature 205: 626–7. Mellars, P.A. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Périgord region of south-west France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: 134–71. Mellars, P.A. 1986. A new chronology for the French Mousterian period. Nature 322: 410–11. Mellars, P.A. 1989. Chronologies du Moustérien du sud-ouest de la France: actualisation du débat. L‟Anthropologie 94: 1–18. Mellars, P.A. 1992. Technological change in the Mousterian of southwest France. In H. Dibble & P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability: 29–43. University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph No. 72), Philadelphia. Mellars, P.A. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy; an Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Mellars, P.A. 1999. The Neanderthal problem continued. Current Anthropology 40(3): 341–64. Mellars, P.A. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432: 461–5. Pettitt, P.B. 1999. Tool Reduction Models, Primary Flaking, and Lithic Assemblage Variation in the Middle Palaeolithic of Southwest France. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. Rolland, N. 1977. New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic variability in western Europe. Nature 266: 251–2. Rolland, N. 1981. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42. Rolland, N. 1988. Observations on some Middle Palaeolithic time series in southern France. In H. Dibble & A. Montet-White (eds.) Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia: 161– 79. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Rolland, N. & Dibble, H.L. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity 55: 480–99. Sackett, J.R. 1991. Straight archaeology French style: the phylogenetic paradigm in historical perspective. In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research: 109–39. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Straus, L.G. & Clark, G.A. 1986. La Riera cave: Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Northern Spain. Tempe: Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 36. 212