types, Bordes’s method broadened the range of interpretative possibilities. Finally, the conclusion that variation in contemporaneous artifact assemblages reflected the existence of established cultural traditions brought Paleolithic archaeology closer to the explanatory frameworks being applied under the influence of Childe.

Functional Approaches

At the same time that Bordes was discussing cultural traditions, other archaeologists were exploring the possibility that recurring assemblage types might represent seasonal or functional differences in activities undertaken at different sites (e.g., Binford and Binford 1966; Clark 1959; Freeman 1966; McBurney 1950; Oakley 1952, 18). Of these, lewis binford’s study became the best known because of a lively debate between Binford and Bordes (e.g., Binford 1973; Bordes 1973; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970), a debate that arose from fundamentally different views about the type of behavioral information preserved in the archaeological record.

Bordes argued that variation in material remains reflected ethnic or cultural groupings. Binford argued that differences in the activities undertaken in different parts of the landscape, at different times of the year, were such pervasive features of hunter-gatherer societies that they must have been major influences on the composition of past material culture assemblages. At the heart of the debate lay the problem of disentangling the effects of functional and stylistic differences on the composition of artifact assemblages and of deciding which artifact attributes were stylistic or functional in origin.

Although the debate between Bordes and Binford dominated the literature for a time, there were archaeologists working on other time periods who were keen to explore the interpretative implications of new data being generated, not only by an expanding archaeological record but also by the incorporation of new techniques. For example, in a discussion of the implications of new dating techniques for the interpretation of the archaeological data, glyn isaac (1972a) noted that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the geographic and temporal distributions of Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblages when compared with those recovered from the Upper Paleolithic record.

Isaac suggested that these differences could relate to the evolution of specific behavioral capacities and that different explanations for the existence of patterned variation in artifact assemblages might be sought for different portions of the record. For example, he postulated that while Upper Paleolithic artifacts may have served as cultural markers, this could not be considered an appropriate explanation for the similarities and differences exhibited, for example, by Acheulean artifact assemblages, simply on the basis of the spatial and temporal scale of the documented pattern of variation. This observation, coupled with the long-standing suggestion that the Upper Paleolithic record marked the establishment of modern human populations and a unique set of behavioral traits (e.g., Burkitt 1955, 143–161; McBurney 1950), was reinforced by studies of many different components of that record (e.g., Binford 1973; Mellars 1989).

From the 1960s to the Present

In the last four decades of the twentieth century, another shift occurred in the way Paleolithic archaeologists ascribed meaning to the succession of stone technologies first documented in the late nineteenth century. Even during the 1950s, a number of archaeologists working with the earliest Paleolithic record had expressed dissatisfaction with the multiple phyla concept (Isaac 1972b), opting instead for an explanation that involved relating assemblage differences to different activities between sites (e.g., Clark 1950, 1959; Howell and Clark 1963; Kleindienst 1961). Following this lead, archaeologists once again became interested in the comparative method as a means for learning about human evolutionary history.

During the late nineteenth century, evolutionists like Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel had begun to ask questions about the kind of ancestor that had given rise to humans. In trying to answer the question, they attempted to identify the closest living relatives to humans and drew up a list of human-versus-ape characteristics.