ethnological cultures (e.g., Childe 1925, 1929). Therefore, change and variation in the material record could be explained in terms of the diffusion of ideas, the migrations of peoples, and/or the adaptation of a particular ethnic group to a particular set of environmental and social circumstances (e.g., Childe 1928, 1936). Artifact analysis thus consisted of the sorting of assemblages into formal types and the tracking of the spatial and temporal distribution of recurring sets of types in order to identify a prehistoric culture. Functional inferences could be made about those recurring morphologies, providing information about the adjustments that different societies made to prevailing environmental conditions (Trigger 1989, 172).

These ideas were not immediately transferred to studies of the Paleolithic record, partly because students of the Paleolithic period maintained an interest in the evolution of human behavior and partly because the existing database did not lend itself easily to the task of identifying particular ethnic groups. For many portions of the record, little change and variation were noted in either stone technology or the types of artifact forms produced. Instead, Paleolithic archaeologists were more interested in documenting a sequence of technological changes that could be related back to the fossil record, thus providing tangible evidence for the evolution of modern human behavioral capacities.

However, the schemes proposed at the end of the nineteenth century to replace de Mortillet’s scheme reflected a growing awareness of the inadequacy of a single unilineal scheme for all of the Paleolithic record (Daniel 1975, 124). If it was a universal scheme, the archaeological evidence from outside France should show the same sequence of epochs, but continued archaeological investigations revealed an increasing regional diversity. Clearly, units of classification were needed that dealt with geographic as well as with temporal differences.

henri breuil’s paper of 1912 foreshadowed the breakup of the epoch system. In that paper, Breuil introduced a complex subdivision of the Upper Paleolithic, with three divisions of the Aurignacian and Solutrean followed by six divisions of the Magdalenian (Daniel 1975, 232). He thought the Upper Paleolithic was distinct from the Middle and Lower Paleolithic and a product of a diverse set of modern human races, all from outside Europe. Although the French Aurignacian might appear as a lineal succession of assemblages, it did not represent a unilineal evolutionary sequence (Sackett 1991).

Breuil conducted research outside France, particularly in eastern Europe but also in the Near East and China, and became convinced that regional variation in the types of artifacts found in the archaeological record was the result of the coexistence of contemporary groups (Daniel 1975, 240). Demonstrating that core, flake, and blade assemblages did not always follow in a neat temporal sequence, he was able to argue, for example, that overlap between Acheulean hand-axe and pebble-tool technologies meant the coexistence of different cultural traditions (e.g., Breuil 1939). This and other studies laid the foundation for the so-called parallel phyla model, which dominated European research for the next two to three decades (Movius 1953; Trigger 1989, 155).

Given the time span of the Paleolithic record, it is not surprising that parallel phyla came to be viewed not just as the coexistence of major cultural traditions but as the material record of different biological groups (races) or different types of human ancestors (i.e., different species). denis peyrony (1933, 1936), for instance, developed a rigid scheme for the French Upper Paleolithic with Aurignacian and Perigordian assemblages manufactured by distinct races of Homo sapiens (Sackett 1991).

The old idea of epochs, which was still apparent in the textbooks of the 1920s, gave way to parallel phyla in the textbooks of the 1930s as can be seen by comparing Miles Burkitt’s 1921 Prehistory with his 1933 The Old Stone Age (Daniel 1975, 244). Childe’s The Dawn of European Civilisation was published in 1925, and that work can be credited with much of the impetus for a change in the concept of culture.

Also of significance was the broadening of the Paleolithic database, particularly the discovery of Paleolithic records outside Europe (Daniel 1975, 9). The French had been involved in archaeology in North Africa at an early stage, and