/i ?\ The Old World Paleolithic and the Development of a National Collection MICHAEL PETRAGLIA and RICHARD POTTS ILLUSTRATIONS BY MARCIA BAKRY SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY ? NUMBER 48 SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Emphasis upon publication as a means of "diffusing knowledge" was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement; "It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge." This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Smithsonian Contributions to Botany Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Smithsonian Folklife Studies Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology In these series, the institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review. Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover. Lawrence M. Small Secretary Smithsonian Institution S M I T H S O N I A N C O N T R I B U T I O N S TO A N T H R O P O L O G Y ? N U M B E R 4 8 The Old World Paleolithic and the Development of a National Collection Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts FOREWORD BY Lawrence Guy Straus ILLUSTRATIONS BY Marcia Bakry Smithsonian Contributions and Studies Series AN IMPRINT OF SMITHSONIAN BOOKS Washington, D.C. 2004 A B S T R A C T Petraglia, Michael, and Richard Potts. The Old World Paleolithic and the Development of a National Collection. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 48, 148 pages, 99 figures, 5 tables, 2004.?Beginning with the first accession of Paleolithic collections in 1869, the Smithsonian Institution and its scientific staff have shown great interest in pursuing research, education, and exhibition of early human lifeways. During the more than 130-year history of acquiring objects from the Old World, a total of 22,000 objects has been amassed from some 332 Lower to Upper Paleolithic localities. Certain objects are rare pieces from clas? sic Paleolithic localities, although many others were obtained as representative pieces for com? parative purposes and exhibition. Documents and letters of correspondence between Old and New World investigators provide the historical context of collection acquisition and the moti? vations of those involved in the international transfer and exchange of artifacts. Synthesis of the documentation shows variability in the tempo of collection acquisition and biases in geo? graphic interests that are tied to patterns of scientific inquiry, world wars, and later, adherence to antiquity laws and reorientation of modern paleoanthropological methods and approaches. Because we refer extensively to archived letters and memoranda in the text, Appendix 1 pro? vides a chronological list of these materials and the specific Smithsonian Institution archive where they are located. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Annals of the Smithsonian Institution. SERIES COVER DESIGN: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data Petraglia, M.D. (Michael D.) The Old World Paleolithic and the development of a national collection / Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts ; with a foreword by Lawrence Guy Straus ; and illustrations by Marcia Bakry. p. cm. ? (Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; no. 48) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Paleolithic period-Collectors and collecting. 2. Tools, Prehistoric-Collectors and collecting. 3. Museums- Acquisitions-Washington (D.C.) 4. Museums-Collection management-Washington (D.C.) 5. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. 6. Museum of Natural History (U.S.) Dept. of Anthropology. 1. Potts, Richard, 1953- II. Title. III. Series. ? The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48?1984. Contents Page Foreword: The Paleolithic in America, A Preamble to the "Excavation" of a Great Museum, by Lawrence Guy Straus ix Introduction 1 The Paleolithic Collections and the Smithsonian Institution 5 Background 5 Archival Documentation 6 Computer Database 6 Accession Tabulations 6 Motivations for the Acquisition of the Collections 8 Involvement of the Secretaries and the Administration 11 Involvement of Anthropologists 15 Thomas Wilson, Curator of Prehistoric Anthropology 15 Career and Appointment 15 Intellectual Outlook 16 Museum Arrangement 18 The North American Paleolithic Debate 21 Collection Controversy: Deposit or Smithsonian Property? 21 Ales Hrdlicka and the American School of Prehistoric Research 23 Career and Intellectual Outlook 23 Importance of Travels 25 Involvement with the American School of Prehistoric Research 25 James Townsend Russell, Jr 35 Career and the Old World Archaeology Fund 35 Excavations in France 36 An Abrupt End to a Promising Career 37 The Modern Era of Paleoanthropology 37 T. Dale Stewart and the Post-World War II Period 37 The Human Origins Program 39 Overview 41 The Paleolithic Accessions, 1869-1990 45 Lartet (ace. 1529, 3546) 45 Blackmore (ace. 1846, 2371) 64 Wyman (ace. 2587) 67 Garrow (ace. 4044) 68 Feuardent (ace. 7825) 68 Dawkins (ace. 10115) 68 Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique (ace. 10470) 69 Museum of Le Havre (ace. 10666) 69 Pengelly (ace. 13075) 69 White (ace. 26918) 70 Wilson (ace. 42207) 70 Musee des Antiquit.es Nationales, St. Germain-en-Laye (ace. 18891) 78 Rau(acc. 19931) 78 Lovett(acc. 20116, 20225,23040, 23170, 25615, 27077) 78 Ransom (ace. 20668) 81 American Museum of Natural History (ace. 21293) 81 Reynolds (ace. 21386) 81 iv SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Cresson (ace. 23766) 81 Balfour (ace. 24708) 82 Museo Zoologico dei Vertebrati, Florence (ace. 24918, 25949) 82 Powell (ace. 27665) 8 3 Camp (ace. 28914) 8 4 Quick (ace. 29853) 8 4 Harrison (ace. 30109) 8 4 Hough (ace. 31440) 8 5 Seton-Karr (ace. 32485, 40597, 47957) 85 Miguel (ace. 36097, 43727, 44831, 46030) 8 8 McGuire (ace. 37330) 8 8 Steierli (ace. 38268) 8 8 Else (ace. 38778) 8 9 Albany Museum (ace. 43544) 89 Nightingale (ace. 46550, 49416) 90 Martin (ace. 47416, 55671, 71635) 90 Stonestreet (ace. 49689) 91 Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Elbeuf (ace. 49696, 50268) 91 Clark (ace. 50010, 57311) 92 Gorjanovic-Kramberger (ace. 54826) 92 Talken (ace. 54988) 93 Rehlen (ace. 55321) 93 Stadtisches Museum (ace. 55436) 94 Rutot (ace. 55867, 56614, 58532) 94 Marett (ace. 56924) 96 Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm (ace. 57262) 96 Buckingham (ace. 59162) 96 The Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology (ace. 62402) 96 Marriott (ace. 63670) 97 American Presbyterian Congo Mission (ace. 70046) 97 Moir (ace. 71310) 98 Hrdlicka (ace. 71514, 89903) 98 Archaeological Society of Washington and American School of Prehistoric Research (ace. 84988, 90005, 98484, 95150, 95604, 103151, 107359, 112197, 115831, 121286, 126298, 132332, 133080) 98 Williams College (ace. 85687) 106 Reygasse (ace. 88916) 106 Government Museum, Madras (ace. 88426) 108 Jones(ace. 89904) 109 Bodding (ace. 90169) 109 MacCurdy (ace. 92141, 99368, 108178) 109 Bushnell (ace. 93521) 109 Indian Museum, Calcutta (ace. 88427) 110 South African Museum (ace. 101485) 110 Provincial Museum, Czechoslovakia (ace. 107637) 110 Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund (ace. 112339, 116916, 117631, 117750, 118935, 121411, 124072) I l l Serrano y Sanz (ace. 114125) 113 Begouen(acc. 117494) 114 Abbott (ace. 124660, 128495, 134685, 140811, 150229) 114 Leach (ace. 134860, 134861) 115 McGregor Museum (ace. 141245) 116 Swan (ace. 150659) 116 Franssen (ace. 159728) 116 NUMBER 48 Reeves (ace. 170049) 117 Bruce Hughes Fund (ace. 177782) 117 Wymer (ace. 197463) 117 Vass (ace. 197993) 117 Bordes (ace. 213032) 117 Paige (ace. 214613) 118 Solecki (ace. 217009) 119 Iraq Museum (ace. 220078) 119 Government Museum, Madras (ace. 202973) 123 Jones (ace. 249458) 123 Uganda Museum (ace. 259009) 123 Hole (ace. 265162) 124 Citron (ace. 268093) 124 Shiner (ace. 278180) 124 Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (ace. 295641) 125 Gibson (ace. 307731) 125 Barbour (ace. 305126) 125 Lightner (ace. 316299) 126 Klima (ace. 322222) 126 Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (ace. 323176) . . . 126 Sims (ace. 351570) 127 Eichenberger (ace. 358176) 127 Old (ace. 387104) 129 Human Origins Program 129 Kenya Collections 129 Zaire Collections 130 Botswana Collections 130 Ethiopia Collections 131 India Collections 131 China Collections 131 Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects 131 Appendix 1: Location of Correspondence 135 Literature Cited 143 FIGURES Figure 1.?Example of an incoming letter of correspondence, from George Grant MacCurdy to Ales Hrdlicka, 23 September 1932 2 Figure 2.?Typical accession documentation for a collection 3 Figure 3.?Typical accession cards 7 Figure 4.?Map of the Old World, showing the number of Paleolithic localities represented in the NMNH collections 8 Figure 5.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic localities represented in the NMNH collections 9 Figure 6.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic artifacts in the NMNH collections 9 Figure 7.?Number of Paleolithic artifacts accessioned by decade 10 Figure 8.?Archaeological sites represented by the greatest number of artifacts in the NMNH collections 11 Figure 9.?Photograph of exhibits in the first Smithsonian museum ("the Castle").. . . 14 Figure 10.?Photograph of Thomas Wilson 16 Figure 11.?Paleolithic "Chelleen" implements 17 Figure 12.?Representation of the Neanderthal or Canstadt Race of Men. (The Chellean epoch of the Paleolithic Age.) 19 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Figure 13.?Representation of the Cro-Magnon Race of Men. (Cavern period of the Paleolithic age) 20 Figure 14.?Chipped quartzite implements of Paleolithic type, found at Mount Ver? non, Virginia 21 Figure 15.?Shipping stamp on an incoming box 23 Figure 16.?Ales Hrdlicka seated at his desk, ca. 1930s 24 Figure 17.?Photograph of M. Lesvignes taken at La Madeleine, France 26 Figure 18.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Basse, France 26 Figure 19.?Photograph taken at Cro-Magnon, France 27 Figure 20.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France 28 Figure 21.?Photograph taken at L'Abri du Chateau Les Eyzies, France 29 Figure 22.?Photograph taken at Sergeac, France 30 Figure 23.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France 31 Figure 24.?A postcard of Castel-Merle, France, sent by MacCurdy to Hrdlicka . . . 33 Figure 25.?James Townsend Russell, Jr., pictured in the Binghamton Press, on 10 August 1932 35 Figure 26.?T. Dale Stewart examining a Shanidar Neanderthal, 1958 37 Figure 27.?Exhibit in the National Museum of Natural History, 2001 38 Figure 28.?International research team directed by Richard Potts (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution) at the Olorgesailie Prehistoric Site 39 Figure 29.?Excavation conducted by the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian In? stitution, of an elephant (Elephas recki) butchery site in Member 1 of the Olorgesailie Formation, southern Kenya 40 Figure 30.?Smithsonian excavation at Kanjera North on the Homa Peninsula, west? ern Kenya, a collaborative project of the National Museums of Kenya and the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution 41 Figure 31.?International team excavation at Katanda 2, in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), directed by John Yellen (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution, and National Science Foundation) 42 Figure 32.?International team excavation at Katanda 16, in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), directed by Alison Brooks (Human Origins Pro? gram, Smithsonian Institution, and George Washington University) 43 Figure 33.?Joint excavation at the Lakhmapur locality, in the Malaprabha Valley, India, co-directed by Ravi Korisettar (Karnatak University, India) and Michael Petraglia (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 43 Figure 34.?Joint excavation at the Isampur Site, Hunsgi Valley, India, co-directed by K. Paddayya (Deccan College, India) and Michael Petraglia (Human Or? igins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 44 Figure 35.?Excavation in the Bose Basin, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China, co-directed by Huang Weiwen (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Academia Sinica, China) and Richard Potts (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 44 Figure 36.?Sagaies from La Madeleine, France 60 Figure 37.?Worked and incised bones, decorated sagaies from La Madeleine, France 61 Figure 38.?Harpoons from La Madeleine, France 62 Figure 39.?Drawing of Baton de Commandement from La Madeleine, France 62 Figure 40.?Worked antler with horse engraving from La Madeleine, France 63 Figure 41.?Burins and composite burin-scrapers from La Madeleine, France 63 Figure 42.?Antler from Cro-Magnon, France 64 Figure 43.?Drawing of worked antler from Le Moustier, France 64 Figure 44.?Worked bone from Massat, France 65 Figure 45.?Worked stag antler from Massat, Ariege, France 65 Figure 46.?"Mortar" from La Madeleine, France 65 Figure 47.?Horse skeletal elements from Solutre, France 66 NUMBER 48 vn Figure 48.?Handaxes from Thetford, England 67 Figure 49.?Handaxes from St. Acheul, France 68 Figure 50.?Solutrean points, scrapers, and burins from Laugerie Haute, France 71 Figure 51.?Worked bone, sagaie, and harpoon from Laugerie Basse, France 72 Figure 52.?Needle fragments from Laugerie Basse, France 72 Figure 53.?End-scrapers, burinated scrapers, and gravers from Laugerie Basse, France 73 Figure 54.?Drawings of worked bone from Rossignol, France 74 Figure 55.?Cave bear coprolites from a cave near Pisa, Italy 75 Figure 56.?Drawings of worked bone and photograph of splintered antler from Laugerie Haute/Basse, France 78 Figure 57.?Drawings of worked bones from Solutre and La Madeleine, France 79 Figure 58.?Drawings of worked bone awls from unknown location, France 80 Figure 59.?Cave bear canines and mandible from Breonio Cave, Italy 83 Figure 60.?Handaxes from Somaliland [Somalia] 86 Figure 61.?Handaxes from Penaar River valley, India 87 Figure 62.?Hyaena mandible and gnawed bones from Kent's Cavern, England 89 Figure 63.?Handaxes from Rephaim, Palestine 92 Figure 64.?Handaxes from Windsorton, South Africa 93 Figure 65.?Handaxes from Templeux Le-Guerard, France 95 Figure 66.?Handaxes from Caraminco, Italy 96 Figure 67.?Handaxes from Maidenhead, England 97 Figure 68.?Photograph of an excavation at Foxhall pit near Ipswich, England 99 Figure 69.?Photograph of the Foxhall pit near Ipswich, England 100 Figure 70.?Cross section of Abri des Merveilles excavations 101 Figure 71.?Scrapers from Abri des Merveilles, France 102 Figure 72.?Long-bone fragments and split long-bone shaft from Abri des Mer? veilles, France 103 Figure 73.?Cleavers and hammerstone from Abri des Merveilles, France 104 Figure 74.?Point, perforators, scrapers, and core from Kebara, Palestine 105 Figure 75.?Scrapers from Mugharet es-Skuhl, Palestine 106 Figure 76.?Photograph of the Mugharet et-Tabun excavations 107 Figure 77.?Chopper, discoid, side scraper, handaxe, points, and graver from Mugharet et-Tabun, Palestine 108 Figure 78.?Cores, handaxe (cleaver), and handaxe from Montagu Cave, South Af? rica 110 Figure 79.?Handaxe from Meyral, France I l l Figure 80.?Handaxes from Chambe, France 112 Figure 81.?Drawings of two flint artifacts from Chambe, France 112 Figure 82.?Cross section of the Marsoulas excavations 113 Figure 83.?"Artist's Palette" from Tarte, France 113 Figure 84.?Handaxes from Swanscombe, England 115 Figure 85.?Handaxes and discoid from Klippies Pan, South Africa 116 Figure 86.?Worked stone from Patjitan, Java 117 Figure 87.?Photograph of Francois Bordes replicating stone-tool manufacture . . . . 118 Figure 88.?Photograph of T. Dale Stewart meeting with Dr. Naji al Asid from Baghdad, January 1959 119 Figure 89.?Cross section of Shanidar excavations 120 Figure 90.?Photograph of Ralph Solecki and a Kurdish woman excavating skele? ton of a child found in Mousterian deposits in Shanidar Cave, Zagros Moun? tains, Valley of the Great Zab River, northern Iraq 121 Figure 91.?Drawing of animal bones overlying Neanderthal skeleton no. 1, and showing areas of soil samples for botanical analysis 122 Figure 92.?Carinated burins, Baradostian burin, and cores from Shanidar Cave, Iraq 122 viii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Figure 93.?Bifaces from Nsongezi, Uganda 123 Figure 94.?Points, scrapers, and side scrapers from Gar Arjeneh, Iran 125 Figure 95.?Breccia from Choukoutien, China 126 Figure 96.?Handaxes from Sebha, Libya 127 Figure 97.?Flakes from Dingcun, China 127 Figure 98.?A discoid and three handaxes from Fjaje, Jordan 128 Figure 99.?Scrapers from Qasr Kharanah, Jordan 128 Foreword The Paleolithic in America, A Preamble to the "Excavation" of a Great Museum Although perhaps a platitude, it is nonetheless true to state that much of the world's pre? historic archaeological heritage already resides in museums. Paleolithic research (viz., dig? ging) has been going on for more than 170 years, particularly in western Europe. Whereas artifacts and bones are not infinite resources?any more than fossil fuels or minerals?and whereas potentially recoverable, in situ remains are strictly limited in quantity, extant mu? seum collections must be regarded as representing a not insignificant proportion of the uni? versal cultural patrimony of humankind's past. Although it is easy to bemoan the frequent lack of specific provenience information, the biased collection and curation practices of the past, and other acknowledged flaws attendant upon many museum collections, a more con? structive approach is to devise methods for extracting information about the prehistoric condition from these otherwise lifeless, often forgotten archaeological resources. Before major museum holdings can be seriously studied they must be systematically or? ganized. This immense (and generally thankless) task involves not only the formal compi? lation of inventories, verification of proveniences, afixing of labels, and securing storage locations, but also the gathering, sorting, preservation, and analysis of related archival documentation (field notes, correspondence related to donations, publications, graphic and photographic evidence, etc.). This groundwork literally enables the fullest degree of ar? chaeological analysis of the objects themselves, by providing the essential contextual in? formation (including not only historical background and provenience data, which are not always self-evident, but also indications of potential collection biases). This is the differ? ence between active and passive curation of museum holdings: scholarship versus mere custodianship. Thus, organizing old museum collections of archaeological materials of any substantial quantity requires a major institutional commitment and a significant, long- term effort. Such a commitment was made by Richard Potts when he became Curator of Hominid Evolution Research at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)?laudably supported by the administration of the museum. Such an ef? fort has been made by Michael Petraglia, first as a postdoctoral fellow and later as a re? search associate at the NMNH, ably assisted by museum research and technical staff members. The first fruits of the "organization" or "active curation" of the NMNH pale? olithic collections was a series of articles by Petraglia, Potts, and others on some of the French collections. The major material result of their commitment and effort, however, is this book, a catalog of the Old World paleolithic materials in the NMNH, which will cer? tainly facilitate further studies and analyses of the museum's collections. Furthermore, this study of the collections adds to our store of knowledge: portions of the collections are reported or described for the first time, whereas other portions are redescribed after years of silence since their initial and generally only preliminary publication. Further work is planned by the authors and hopefully others will join in, as there is material for many kinds of analyses. Once the collections are organized and their significance highlighted, then it becomes clearer how the judicious application of modern analytical methods (e.g., radiocarbon dat? ing?especially by accelerator mass spectrometry?isotopic, trace element, pigment, and residue analyses, paleontological identification, archaeozoological study, lithic microwear analysis) can extract information from seemingly marginal or apparently worthless ob- IX SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY jects. It is true, sadly, that many things (e.g., lithic debitage technological analyses, spatial analyses, economic anatomical element analyses of animal carcasses, diachronic assem? blage composition analyses requiring fine chronological control) cannot be done with old museum collections, but many others can and indeed, given the shrinking archaeological resource base in the field for especially the most ancient periods, must be done. Even if a site represented in a museum only provides a dot on a map with which can be associated an approximate age based on a temporally diagnostic artifact or a radiometrically dateable bone, this can be potentially important, as the site may have been lost or destroyed since the time of original recovery. Once properly organized, a museum's archaeological hold? ings may not only be "mined," they can be "excavated." Such was our experience with often-cited, but inadequately published sites in the foot? hill region of the French central Pyrenees, represented by important collections in the NMNH that were made through excavations in 1931 by J. Townsend Russell (an honorary Research Collaborator of the former U.S. National Museum) and Count Henri Begouen (Professor of Prehistory at the Universite de Toulouse). Among these collections are rare and spectacular antler points (sagaies), modified fossil shells, and works of engraved and pigmented antler and bone "portable art" from the rupestral art cave site of Marsoulas. They also include breccia samples from the nearby site of Tarte (described in the excava? tors' reports (Russell, 1932; Begouen and Russell, 1933). Surprisingly two of the breccia samples have a radiocarbon date of 20,000 BP. The date confirms the presence of a So- lutrean occupation at Tarte. This occupation is, in addition to the better-known Aurigna- cian one, well represented by classic artifacts in the NMNH collection that add significant data to the rather poor early Upper Paleolithic record from the French Pyrenean region. Although Russell and Begouen found no Solutrean points in the remnant breccias along the rock face at Tarte, there are old references to such discoveries at that site (see referenc? es in Bahn (1984:222)), but none have ever been analyzed or formally published (not even by P.E.L. Smith (1966) in his monumental study of the Solutrean in France) as they appar? ently had been lost. Thus, the Smithsonian's radiocarbon dates for the bone, charcoal, and artifact-containing lumps of breccia constitute the next-best-thing in terms of pinpointing human settlement along the northern flank of the central Pyrenees during the height of the last glacial maximum. Solutrean sites (especially ones that have been excavated using modern methods) along the edges of the Pyrenees are very scarce and radiocarbon dates are virtually absent, so the Smithsonian evidence is all the more valuable. They also help to shed light on the known Solutrean occupation of the adjacent localities of Roquecour- bere?which are represented in the NMNH holdings by materials from a quarry-workshop site (a type of site often ignored in the classic literature). These data, combined with those from other sketchily known find spots, indicate there was a definite "concentration" of So? lutrean sites in the area of the Salat-Garonne confluence. This cluster matches other, rather similarly isolated concentrations at the western and eastern ends of the Pyrenees (Straus, 1991). It could be hypothesized that these site clusters represent Solutrean band territories. Thus, after residing for more than 70 years in a drawer in the NMNH, the lumps of Tarte breccia have finally provided valuable information about the pleniglaical distribution of humans in southwestern Europe?even if many details have forever been lost. Furthermore, comparative analyses of ochre pigments in the collection from the impor? tant archaeological site in Marsoulas (which is almost certain to include a Middle Magdale- nian component, based on some lithic tools and antler point styles) and of ochre paintings on the walls of the same cave could be critical to the dating of the rupestral art and to plac? ing it in relationship to human settlement. The artists could potentially be shown to have left behind their materials on site. This would be very much along the lines of the pigment research that has recently managed to relate distinctive "recipes" at the nearby living and art cave sites of La Vache and Niaux in the Ariege uplands and at the adjacent Volp Caves of Enlene (habitation site) and Les Trois Freres (art site) in the lowlands near Marsoulas (Clottes, 1997). Certainly the presence of an "artist's palette" at nearby Tarte (Petraglia et al., 1992) is germane to pigment-related activities at both it and Marsoulas. NUMBER 48 xi Quite independent of our NMNH work, a study of French and American collections from the Ariege sites is underway (Foucher and San Juan, 2000a, 2000b). Thus, we are likely to soon learn even more about these often-cited but insufficiently described sites in the vicinity of such famous neighbors as the Volp and Lespugue Caves, Mas d'Azil, Mon- tespan, and Le Portel. A History of Prehistory: Writ in Stone, Bone and Bundles of Letters This book contains a microcosm of major chapters in the history of prehistoric investiga? tions in the Old World, as reflected across the Atlantic, especially in the age of steamship travel (one of the great international artifact collectors, Sir Henry W. Seton-Karr, went down with the RMS Empress of Ireland, a major maritime disaster second only to the Ti? tanic!), courtly correspondence, honorary appointments, crates of "paleoliths" and bones (some requiring two men to lift), and artifact exchanges and purchases to "fill gaps"? hopefully with "quality material." It is absolutely fascinating to read the correspondence assembled by Petraglia and Potts between Smithsonian administrators and central figures investigating paleolithic prehistory, such as Edouard Lartet, William Pengelly, Denis Pey- rony, Henri Martin, D. Karl Gorjanovic-Kramberger, J. Reid Moir, A.L. Rutot, Karl Abso- lon, and Jesus Carballo. The importance of the "type" concept comes to life, for example, in many of the letters. "Typical" pieces were most sought-after, whereas duplicates were given away as exchanges, and bone and tooth fragments and even "minimally used stone hammers" were simply "culled" (discarded) from the collections. There also is some de? gree of shock in reading how some great prehistorians needed to sell artifacts to make ends meet, and antiquarians dangled the prospect of donations (which sometimes actually be? came sales) to obtain official appointments or at least honorific titles at the Smithsonian. The line between good prehistorians and professional looters (such as Otto Hauser) seems to have been a fine one at times. The use of the famous Piney Branch quarry in Washington, D.C, as a kind of mine for items to be exchanged for real "paleoliths" is a fascinating story (Holmes, 1890, 1897). It resembles the common European practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth century by which prehistorians disposed of surplus or duplicate materials from the principal sites at which they dug or collected, in order to obtain "representative" samples from other sites being "exploited" by their confreres. For example, the collections of Guy Magnant contain many artifacts from the sites of Le Placard and Le Petit Puymoyen in Charente at which he personally "dug" in the early 1910s and 1920s; in addition, his collections contain single or small numbers of "typical" artifacts from many classic sites, especially those of Peyro- ny's "fief" around Les Eyzies, Dordogne (Straus, 1985). Thus, even as late as the 1930s the field of archaeology had yet to adopt the concept of artifact assemblages. For that de? velopment we owe a great debt to the late Francois Bordes and others of the post-World War II generation of prehistorians. In recent years, like other fields, paleoanthropology has entered a self-reflective phase, paying serious attention to its roots and development. This is perhaps best manifested by American publications by such authors as D. Grayson (1983, 1990), J. Sackett (1981, 1991), A.B. Van Riper (1993), M. Landau (1991), F. Spencer (1990), L. Straus (1994, 1996), and E. Trinkaus and P. Shipman (1992). The NMNH collections brought to these shores the artifacts of many of the great epochs and events in the history of Old World (es? pecially European and Near Eastern) prehistory: the establishment of human antiquity, the development of competing chronological periodization schemes (G de Mortillet's type- site, type-artifact scheme versus the paleontological fossiles directeurs schemes of E. Lartet and E. Piette), the "eolithic" controversy, the Moulin-Quignon fraud, the debate concerning the place of the Neanderthals in the evolutionary trajectory of humankind, the construction of universal cultural evolutionary stages based on sweeping inter-continental artifact comparisons, etc. Prehistoric discovery and polemic were made tangible, despite great physical distance, by means of collections. These were being acquired by American xii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOG institutions almost from the inception of such research in western Europe, especially France. The primacy of France in the American view of Old World paleolithic prehistory, both in terms of acquisitions and in terms of where Americans (such as George Grant Mac? Curdy) went to excavate, was established early and has been enduring. This Francocentric perspective came at the expense of not only other (nonetheless archaeologically well-en? dowed) European countries (such as Spain, whose only artifact collection in the NMNH is a small, poorly documented group of "Precapsian" pieces from a Madrid area sandpit), but also Africa and East Asia. The social, cultural, and economic reasons for American col? lecting in and archaeological relations with France deserve further scholarly treatment. It is clear, however, that as a result of this tradition, the American view of the Paleolithic was, until recent years, conditioned by a very narrow spectrum of direct experience?es? pecially in the Aquitaine region of "la belle France." Clearly, a major secondary collection focus in the twentieth century had been on the Holy Land and, by extension, the Near East, which was perceived as a critical cultural crossroads. The ability to expand the museum's holdings in this region was facilitated by complacent colonial and early post-colonial gov? ernments. Through purchases, gifts, and exchanges, the Smithsonian Institution came to possess either original artifacts ("duplicates," which were traded about like modern-day baseball cards) or casts, which allowed it and, by extension, the United States, to share in such seminal discoveries as Lartet's and Peyrony's in the Vezere valley, Pengelly's at Kent's Cavern, Henri Martin's at La Quina, or Edouard Dupont's in the Meuse valley of southern Belgium. They don't get any more classic than these! An American Enterprise Although on a scale far less grand than that of the British Museum (the great institution of another country which lacked at least the great wealth of Upper Paleolithic France, but which sought to remedy that condition by fabulous early acquisitions from "perfidious Gallia"), the museums of the United States and Canada actively engaged in paleolithic collection acquisition throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this effort, the Smithsonian,s National Museum of Natural History was by no means alone; the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the Peabody Museum of Harvard Universi? ty, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Logan Museum of Beloit College, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, among others, all acquired significant Old World?especially French?collections. A few significant individuals (Henry Field, Henri Ami, and even Henri Breuil) were instrumental in bringing major collections to America in the period before national and international antiquities laws ended such mas? sive commerce. Many American (and British and other) museums, universities, and col? leges financially participated in this process, and 40 (!) such shared in the spoils (directly or indirectly through re-sales or exchanges) of Dorothy Garrod's monumental excavations in the caves of Mount Carmel (then Palestine). This arrangement (which seems strange, if not outrageous, from today's viewpoint, as it resulted in the far-flung dispersion of the collections, making their comprehensive restudy virtually impossible) is fully (and grate? fully) described by Garrod in the preface to volume 1 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel (Garrod and Bate, 1937), the foreword of which was written by George Grant MacCurdy. The United States, as "officially" represented by the Smithsonian Institution (through the former U.S. National Museum), was becoming institutionally committed to paleolithic research throughout the last third of the nineteenth and the first third of the twentieth cen? turies. Its first agents often were members of the consular corps, as documented in this book, not only in the curious figure of Thomas Wilson, but also many other consuls in the years after the large Wilson donation/loan/deposit/sale. This phenomenon also followed a time-honored European custom, namely that of consuls (mainly British and French) ac? quiring Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian antiquities for such venerable institutions NUMBER 48 back home as the British Museum and the Louvre. The Smithsonian?sometimes in alliance with other American institutions, such as Yale University or the Archaeological Society of Washington, and their creations, the Ameri? can School of Prehistoric Research or the Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Re? search? eventually went further by actually conducting or participating in excavations, notably through the efforts of J. Townsend Russell (see above) and Professor MacCurdy of Yale. The latter can be considered the first American professional paleolithic archaeol? ogist. MacCurdy's most significant material contribution to the NMNH holdings is the substantial collections from his 1925-1930 excavations at Castel Merle, under the auspic? es of the American School (MacCurdy, 1931). This book also documents the diligent (often difficult) work of Ales Hrdlicka?the "Fa? ther of American Physical Anthropology"?to keep both himself and the Smithsonian up- to-date with developments in Old World prehistory and human paleontology. Keeping the institution's "finger in" significant paleolithic research meant that MacCurdy and Hrdlic? ka conspired to assure that the American School's representative in Garrod's Mount Car? mel expedition, Berkeley Professor Theodore McCown, would have co-authorship of the study of the hominid discoveries. (This new Smithsonian interest in Near Eastern hominid evolution would continue in the 1950s-1970s, with T. Dale Stewart's study of the Shani? dar Neanderthals.) By the 1930s, the United States and the Smithsonian were no longer content to be passive observers, purchasers, and donees of materials discovered by Euro? peans. The NMNH was a center of human evolutionary research in the United States. This research was of course interrupted by World War II but resumed after 1945, just as the ac? quisition of Old World paleolithic objects by U.S. institutions came to a virtual halt, as a consequence of the end of colonialism in the Third World and the enforcement of strict antiquities laws throughout much of the world. Significant exceptions include collections made in Jordan by the famous Biblical archaeologist Nelson Glueck of Hebrew Union College, and at Shanidar and Zawi Chemi Shanidar (Iraq) by Ralph Solecki of Columbia University. In general, however, new data and ideas?not artifacts per se?would flow back to the U.S., as American researchers took or shared the lead in prehistoric investiga? tions throughout much of the Old World and as a major shift in human evolutionary stud? ies toward Africa occurred (as witnessed by the NMNH focus of the Human Origins Pro? gram under Potts). Concluding Remarks This book, with its dual focus on archival and artifactual materials, represents a first ma? jor step in highlighting and, hence, making accessible the vast and important paleolithic holdings of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. It is itself, like the collections, a mine of information. Petraglia and Potts have done a thorough job, but it is just the beginning. Now these once forgotten collections must be classified, studied in context, analyzed to the hilt in light of contemporary research questions, and then pub? lished in detail. One can hope that similar books will be forthcoming, not only from other American museums, but also from European institutions. Such work has already begun at the British Museum, for example, with A. Sieveking's (1987) catalog of portable art ob? jects, J. Cook and H. Martingell's (1994) book on Stone Age artifacts from India, and Pe? ter Mitchell's (2002) study of its Southern African holdings. Just as archaeologists world? wide are making inventory of the (dwindling) list of surviving sites, so must we also take stock of the prehistoric cultural resources that lie neglected in our great museums. Lawrence Guy Straus Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 The Old World Paleolithic and the Development of a National Collection Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts Introduction During the summer of 1987, the authors began a collabora? tive study of Paleolithic site formation as part of Petraglia's Smithsonian postdoctoral fellowship. During our research, we wondered whether the National Museum of Natural History's (NMNH) collection of stone tools had any pertinent research value for examining our topic. Because little was known about the nature of the museum's Paleolithic collections, storage units holding the collections were inspected during one after? noon in 1988. To our delight, review of the storage units and drawers indicated that sizeable Lower, Middle, and Upper Pa? leolithic assemblages were indeed present. Further review indi? cated that the collections were from many sites in various re? gions of the Old World. It was quickly realized, however, that the assemblages were biased towards objects from classic lo? calities in western Europe, mainly France and England, and the Mount Carmel sites in Palestine (now Israel). Many typical items, such as chipped-stone artifacts, were abundantly repre? sented, among them Lower Paleolithic bifaces, Middle Pale? olithic flake tools and bifaces, and Upper Paleolithic blade tools. More rare French Upper Paleolithic objects also were identified, including stone mortars from the classic type site of La Madeleine, an artist's palette from the cave of Tarte in the Pyrenees, and a variety of worked bones from both the Perig- ord and Ariege regions, such as needles, sagaies, and harpoons, and a variety of faunal remains. We soon realized that some collections were devoid of certain tool classes, and others only contained single items from certain sites. Yet others were far more substantial, with some storage units and drawers contain? ing numerous objects from single sites, especially from France Michael Petraglia, Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Stud? ies, Downing Street, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England. Richard Potts, Department of Anthropology, National Mu? seum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-0112. and Palestine. Therefore, it was surmised that some collections represented sufficient samples of "excavated" sites, not just small collections or single artifacts. Although we did not in? clude the NMNH collections in our study of site formation, we realized that the Paleolithic assemblages were substantial and had potential research value. We also surmised that other re? searchers may wish to know about the NMNH collections. Although the "rediscovery" of these collections was fortu? nate, equally important was the related correspondence in the Smithsonian Archives (Figure 1). These letters were a crucial aspect of the research, as they shed light on the motivations and methods of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century museum professionals, Paleolithic prehistorians, and avocational work? ers from around the world. We therefore considered this to be an opportunity to detail the involvement of numerous persons and institutions in the development of Old World Paleolithic archaeology. The preservation of the artifact collections and the related archival correspondence provided the vehicle to ex? amine these historic developments. Moreover, the collections provided the potential to conduct scientific re-examination, al? though it was realized that topics would need to be specifically tailored to the condition of the assemblage in question. As background to our museum research, researchers have in? creasingly recognized the need to study the history of archaeol? ogy and paleoanthropology. Books and articles have been de? voted to the development of archaeology as a scientific discipline (i.e., the methods, techniques, and types of interpre? tation) (Daniel, 1975; Willey and Sabloff, 1993) and the cul? tural and social milieu in which the subject was born and evolved (e.g., Trigger, 1989; Patterson, 1995). Related to our topic, researchers have specifically examined the rise and de? velopment of Old World archaeology and the growth of anthro? pological museums (e.g., Sackett, 1981; Grayson, 1983; Trig? ger, 1989). Historical accounts of Old World archaeology clearly demonstrate that many important Paleolithic localities were excavated by professional and avocational investigators SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOL AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH GEORGE GRANT MACCURDY. Director Foreign Address: American University Union 1 Gordon Square London, W. C. 1 Dear Dr. Hrdlicka: Home Address: Peabody Maaenm, Yulu Uiiiuwaity O l d Lyme |??jqHS?en, Connecticut U. S. A. Sept. 23, 1932 Referring to your letter of May 12, I wrote to Miss Garrod on June 7( sending a cppy of the letter to Etof. J.L. Myres), saying that our Trustees thought an Amer? ican specialist should be joint*author withSir. Arthur Keith when it came to study? ing and publishing the human skeletal remain* from the four eaves near Mt. Carmel (these include scores of mesolithic skeletons found especially in the Cave of the Val? ley). 1/ suggested your name/. Both Miss G. and Keith feel that so far as the nine Neandertal skeletons are concerned, such fin arrangement would be unfair to McCown. Keith finally told Miss G. that he wouldnnot participate in any arrangement which does not make McCown principal author". She wrote me to this effect saying she was in complete agreement with Keith. This is a paint we can afford to concede so far as the nine Neandertalians are concerned. If you hare in mind a study of only the Neandertal material the problem would be somewhat simplified provided of course that you agree to let McCown be nominally the principal author. Keith's contibution and yours could follow McCown*s under the same cover, or at least be issued simultaneously. The big and costly job now is to detach the Neandertalians from their stony matrix. This will take many months. McCown is now teaching at Berkeley and does not plan to join Keith in London until next May. He was here with us for a day (Aug.12). We took him to Holyoke to see Chairman Green and tried to make it plain to him, that yon also should have an opportunity to study the Neandertal remains and write up the results for publication. Both Keith xut and Miss/ G. want him to have him have every opportunity to make the most of his lucky find. So do we; but we feel that our School should have something to say in naming the specialists, where help is needed outside those who actually made the finds. Donald Scott, Dir. of the Peabody Museum of Harvard(also a trustee of our School), will be in london the 1st of Nov. He has consented to discuss this matter with Keith and Myres(Miss G. is in Palestine until the end of Dec.). If you still want to goto London to study the skeletons, kindly let me know so that ?*? may com? municate your decision to Seott^*before he leaves London. We are assuming that in case you go you would finance the trip yourself. Keith had a write-up in The Illustr. London News of July 9, also in St^ New York Times of Sept. 18(Sunday). Trusting that you have had a profitable season in the northland and with best wishes from us both, Very sincerely yours, * P sj f-jpCfpAe* FIGURE 1.?Example of an incoming letter of correspondence, from George Grant MacCurdy to Ales Hrdlicka 23 September 1932. [In this case, the letter is an original type-written example, whereas others often are hand? written or a carbon-copy.] during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Significant artifacts often became part of private collections; others went to museums and universities throughout North America. Given that many important sites were excavated and assemblages widely distributed to many institutions, there has been a need to document the existence and location of these significant and often extraordinary Old World collections (e.g., Bahn and Cole, 1986; Simek, 1986; White, 1986a, 1986b, 1988; White N U M B E R 48 ACCESSION 133080 cat. No. 374,301-317 Ef*T6*EP SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION m 3 0 IS35 UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM ACCESSION MEMORANDUM Department tf?J^*?E?l?gIJU- Division of .^MliM^SSSb. ___Augus t__28?t /oj 5 . Please enter a, an accession from . . . A r c h a e o l o g i c a l J o c l e t j . Of W a s h - Ington, (Address) Southern Building, Waahlngtotij P . C. the following object (collected ISA I without the aid of a Museum outfit): Colle ct ion j)f _ Paleoli thi c artifa cts from Mu"ghaFet"et-T"abun TCave~"6f""the OvelTJ', "near Athlit, Palestine, obtained by the_ 1934 Joint "~e"xi5eaTtTbn^T""the""Amel;rcan "School" 6F"PrehTs"t6r i c Research and the British School of Archaeology ??n-pal?rst?nB". / 33a fo Papers appended A l l , J 1 5 5 , 0 8 0 } , (The Assistant Secretary directs that AIX letters in the possession of the Curator or his assistants, which relate to this accession, be attached to this memorandum and forwarded with it to the Division of Correspondence.) Gift, exchange, loan, deposit, transfer, bequest, collected for the Museum, purchase, made in the Museum. 1 . 1 . COVCflH MEBT FIIHTINS OFFICE. ! ? ! ? I S ? 1 0 f t FIGURE 2.?Typical accession documentation for a collection [accession 133080]. and Breitborde, 1992; Straus, 1996). Our work represents a historical overview of the develop? ment of the Old World Paleolithic collections curated in the Smithsonian Institution (Table 1). In compiling this book, two goals of the project were formulated: (1) to document the exist? ence of the collections and to create an inventory of accessions by provenience and artifact types; and (2) to more closely re? late archival and accession information in order to indicate why and how the collections were acquired. With respect to the first aim, artifact accession counts have been organized by geo? graphic location and site provenience (Figure 2). Thus, for the first time, this book centrally codifies the provenience, nature, and size of the Paleolithic collections. For the second goal, the original collection-related correspondence and artifact invento? ries in various Smithsonian archives were reviewed to provide a history of the activities of institutions and persons involved in the transactions. The archival material ranged from the first re? corded transaction in 1869 to the most recent accession as of 1990, a period of 121 years. Because we refer extensively in the text to archival letters and memoranda, Appendix 1 pro- SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Year 1846 1869 1887 1896 1902 1897 1903 TABLE 1.?Important events in the development of the Old World collections at the Smithsonian Institution. Event Smithsonian Institution established by the United States Congress; Joseph Henry appointed first Secretary. First Paleolithic accession, from French prehistorian Edouard Lartet. . 8 8 3 The Department of Ethnology (led by Otis Mason) and the Department of Antiquities (led by Charles Rau) were estab? lished. Thomas Wilson appointed administrator and then curator of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology. Wilson published a major work, "Prehistoric Art...," in the Annual Report, U.S. National Museum. Wilson died, and in 1904 his collections were purchased by the Smithsonian for $2,650 [about $61,426 in 2003 dollars]. William H. Holmes appointed as head curator of the Department of Anthropology. Holmes hired Ales Hrdlicka and the new Division of Physical Anthropology was established. 1918 Hrdlicka founded the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1922 Hrdlicka became a member of the board of directors of the "American School in France of Prehistoric Studies" at the invi? tation of Charles Peabody and George Grant MacCurdy of Yale University. 1923 Hrdlicka became Director of the American School for the 1923 season; traveled extensively with students in Europe. Hrdlicka received permission from Denis Peyrony to conduct excavations at Sergeac, France, and secured funding from a 1924 trustee of the Archaeological Society of Washington to conduct excavations at Abri des Merveilles, France. T. Dale Stewart hired as temporary aide to Hrdlicka. Substantial collections from Abri des Merveilles, France, were first accessioned and deposited by the Archaeological So- 1925 ciety of Washington and the American School. J. Townsend Russell enrolled as a student of the American School, became a trustee of the school in 1926. 1926 "American School of Prehistoric Research" was incorporated in Washington, D.C; Hrdlicka named as a trustee. 1927 Hrdlicka published the influential article, "The Neanderthal Phase of Man." 1928 Joint excavations conducted in Iraq with the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Russell named temporary assistant in archaeology at the Smithsonian. 1928 Hrdlicka won approval for formation of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. 1929 Joint excavations began at Mount Carmel, Palestine, by the American and British Schools. Russell became a collaborator in Old World Archaeology and establishes the Old World Archaeology Fund. 1930 The first collections from the Middle East obtained by the American and British Schools. 1931 First human fossils discovered at Mugharet es-Skuhl, Palestine, by Theodore McCown (representative of the American School). Mount Carmel assemblages were accessioned at the Smithsonian. Russell conducted joint excavations with Count Henri Begouen in France, and published his article, "Report on Archaeo? logical Research in the Foothills of the Pyrenees" (1932). 1934 Final season of joint American-British excavations at Mount Carmel, Palestine. 1937 Volume 1 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel published (Garrod and Bate). 1939 Volume 2 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel published (McCown and Keith). 1943 Hrdlicka died. 1957 Stewart began analysis of Shanidar Neanderthals. 1977 Stewart published his major and final work on the Shanidar Neanderthals. 1985 Potts hired as assistant curator in Physical Anthropology. 1990 Human Origins Program established. 1997 Stewart died. NUMBER 48 vides a chronological list of these materials and the specific Smithsonian archive where they are located. This project chal? lenged us to examine our own modern research programs in light of past work. The current Human Origins Program (1990 to the present) is presented in the context of this historic frame? work. In sum, this book documents nineteenth and twentieth century Paleolithic research and collection activities at the Smithsonian, complementing other works devoted to the estab? lishment of the former United States National Museum (which became the National Museum of Natural History) and the de? velopment of anthropology research in the institution (e.g., Riedman, 1961; Hinsley, 1981; Kohlstedt, 1991; Rivinus and Youssef, 1992). It is hoped that this project will encourage the historic and scientific study of the collections. The accessions and related correspondence offer much information about the development of paleoanthropology in particular countries and regions. We find that there is value in examining artifacts from particular countries and site materials and placing them in a historic con? text. For example, we have already examined how La Madeleine "mortars" from Lartet and Christy's excavations came to the Smithsonian in 1869 (Petraglia and Potts, 1992); how the Ariege cave and rockshelter material came to the Na? tional Museum in the 1930s (Petraglia et al., 1992; Petraglia et al., 2002); and how the Lower Paleolithic stone tool collections from India were acquired (Petraglia and Noll, 2001). Although most of the collections are clearly old and often partial in com? position, thereby limiting scientific research possibilities, it also may be reasoned that certain goals can be achieved if there is a careful match between particular questions and specific as? semblages. In fact, we have been engaged in such research, at? tempting to examine Upper Paleolithic pigment processing techniques by conducting technical analyses on specific objects collected in 1869 and 1931 (Petraglia et al., 1992; Vandiver et al., 1994), and conducting stone tool attribute analysis as part of larger analytical studies (Petraglia and Noll, 2001). As part of this re-evaluation, we also have radiocarbon dated breccia from one cave in southern France, placing assemblages in ab? solute temporal context, thus filling a gap in our knowledge of human settlement along the northern flank of the Pyrenees dur? ing the last glacial maximum (Petraglia et al., 2002). Thus, the application of modern technical analyses to old collections may prove fruitful, allowing for comparison with other modern studies. Our main hope is that this book will further stimulate others to engage in similar research projects. The Paleolithic collections project began in 1988 and contin? ued on a part-time basis for 13 years. This project would not have been concluded successfully without institutional support and the encouragement of numerous individuals during this pe? riod. Funding for this work was obtained from several Collec? tions Improvement Grants and an Exhibits Grant from the Na? tional Museum of Natural History. Previous chairpersons of the Department of Anthropology, Donald Ortner, Dennis Stanford, and Carolyn Rose, endorsed the implementation of this project from its inception; and current chairperson Dan Rogers has helped guide the manuscript to publication. Many colleagues from the Smithsonian Institution Archives, the NMNH Office of the Registrar, the Department of Anthropology, the National Anthropological Archives, the Anthropology Library, the Pro? cessing Laboratory, and Collections Management were of great assistance during the course of this project. We wish to espe? cially acknowledge the assistance of Jennifer Clark, Norma Kellogg Crumbley, Maggie Dittemore, Catherine Creek, Can? dace Greene, Greta Hansen, Deborah Hull-Walski, Johanna Humphrey, Andy Klafter, James Krakker, Mayda Riopedre, and Virtues Thomas. Mindy Zeder is thanked for providing her preliminary faunal inventory. Marcia Bakry enhanced the use? fulness and quality of this book tremendously, providing all line-art, photographs, and digital images. We also appreciate the assistance of interns Cindy Cordero and Steve Walker, who helped to update the artifact counts. Alison Brooks kindly pro? vided information on her research in Africa and China. Many of our colleagues have helped us to improve this volume by providing background information and comments, including Paul Bahn, Jean Clottes, Naama Goren-Inbar, Donald Grayson, David Meltzer, Dennis Stanford, Lawrence Straus, and Randall White. The Paleolithic Collections and the Smithsonian Institution Background The year 1869 marked the first accession of Old World Pale? olithic material at the Smithsonian Institution. For many de? cades afterwards, there was a sustained effort to obtain objects for exhibits concerning human inventions and lifeways and for cross-continental comparisons of material culture. From the outset, the secretaries and other top administrators of the insti? tution were involved in these international exchanges. As the Smithsonian grew in size and scope, curators and departmental staff became more centrally involved in collection acquisition and organization. Although Paleolithic collections were contin? uously sought, first by Secretaries Henry and Baird, and then by curators, such as Thomas Wilson and Ales Hrdlicka, their central administrative and research commitments were else? where. The result of their efforts to obtain Old World material for exhibit and comparative purposes is the vast, essentially un? published, Paleolithic collection. Prior to describing the history of collection acquisition and the involvement of museum professionals in its compilation, the methods and results of our research are briefly described. As in? dicated below, correspondence and documentation material were gathered at several Smithsonian archives, whereas initial SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY artifact provenience information was obtained from the Smith? sonian's central computer database. The positive and negative aspects behind these information sources are briefly described. Based upon this information, the nature of the Paleolithic hold? ings and an overview of collections development is provided. Archival Documentation One of the first tasks in compiling this study was to place the Paleolithic collections in their appropriate historical and chro? nological frameworks. This was possible because of the preser? vation of primary documents in three main Smithsonian ar? chives: the Smithsonian Institution Archives; the Office of the Registrar, National Museum of Natural History; and the Na? tional Anthropological Archives. The Smithsonian Institution Archives retained the records and correspondence of Smithso? nian secretaries and other administrators; the National Museum of Natural History Office of the Registrar contained artifact in? ventories and related transportation records; and the National Anthropological Archives preserved correspondence of various anthropologists. Fortunately, the Smithsonian Institution has preserved written records, thereby providing information about the motivations of scholars and about the collections. No single archival source was comprehensive, however, and in order to conduct historical research and compile information on con? text, the separate archives needed to be cross-checked. In some cases, the collections were accompanied by artifact inventories with good provenience information; in other cases, the archival documents had little information about the Paleolithic assem? blages other than simply noting country, region, or site desig? nations. Sometimes original correspondence written in foreign languages were translated by Smithsonian staff, and the origi? nal letters were not retained in the archival material. This sometimes resulted in imprecise English translations that have been reproduced here. Some of the correspondence that we quote had minor spelling mistakes and missing symbols. These minor errors have been corrected. Unfortunately, missing en? tirely from the Smithsonian archives are any field notes or pri? mary field records (if they ever existed), despite the fact that some of the excavations and material gathering were conducted by Smithsonian researchers. Computer Database Aiding in the compilation of the Paleolithic assemblages was the fact that all anthropology objects in the NMNH were en? tered into an IBM mainframe computer database in the 1970s. Each object in the database had a field for museum storage lo? cation and catalog information. The catalog information was complied from hand-written and typed catalog cards and acces? sion inventories, the earlier method by which controls and or? ganization were established (Figure 3). The computer inven? tory is continually updated with new information as collections are acquired or provenience information is improved. Storage and catalog information is accessed using a database manage? ment program called INQUIRE. In 2002, the computer inven? tory was changed to a new software, Electronic Museum (Emu), as part of a multimedia catalog system. Although computer codification is of great utility for the management of, and search for, specific objects, the database's field for cultural affiliation had not been completely coded at the inception of this project. Therefore, the first step was to find Paleolithic artifacts among the world-wide anthropologi? cal collections. This was achieved by searching the database, using variables such as site provenience and object name, and locating key words that would potentially denote age affilia? tion. From the resulting computer list, objects were then exam? ined to see if they were Paleolithic. The end result of this rou? tine was the coding of the variable "Paleolithic" into the database in order to obtain a comprehensive listing apart from other museum holdings. Although this effort was successful, it should be noted that an even more systematic review of the col? lections may yield additional items for placement on the Pale? olithic inventory. Problems persist in the database because the inventory was derived from old and sometimes incomplete cat? alog records and, additionally, artifact types were sometimes recorded by non-specialists. Exacerbating problems, quantities above a count of five were coded as ranges. In particular, counts of more than 20 artifacts were listed only as greater than 20. Numerous items from certain proveniences were assigned a single catalog number, and in the computer inventory they were counted as "1 lot." The problem was that a catalog record listed as greater than 20 or as one lot could consist of several hundred items. To help rectify this, initial hand counts were conducted for artifacts numbering more than 20, thereby result? ing in more accurate estimates. It also should be noted that the classifications as noted in the assemblage figures of this book are not based upon detailed study. Detailed examination of the collections by future researchers will certainly lead to revised counts and functional types. Accession Tabulations The Old World Paleolithic collection represents 332 loca? tions in 30 countries, ranging through Africa, Europe, and Asia (Figure 4). There are approximately 22,000 objects in the col? lection, indicating that most assemblages are, on average, small samples of localities. The assemblages consist of the entire se? quence of the Paleolithic, abundantly represented by Lower Pa? leolithic handaxe industries, Middle Paleolithic cores and flakes, and Upper Paleolithic blade and bone technologies. The collections were acquired between 1869 and 1990, mainly through donations and exchanges, in addition to some pur? chases, deposits, and loans. A total of 138 accessions accumu? lated, represented by 91 individuals and institutions. Reflecting a bias in collection, the majority of the materials were obtained from western Europe, particularly France and England (Figure 5). Of the 332 locations represented in the col? lections, 162 (49%) are in France and 49 (15%) are in England, together accounting for 64% of all the locations. The total NUMBER 48 P!.YJ?!?5 of Archeology. A?. 117760 Acquired Gift - Jan. 27, 1932. Collector Old Tlforld Aroheology Fund. Address Smithsonian Ins t i tu t ion . HISTORY OF COLLECTION. Collection of Upper Paleolithic objects excavated under the direction of J. Townsend Russell in the south of France by "The Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Research in France by the Uni? versity of Toulouse and the Smithsonian Institution" during the season of 1931 on funds coming from the Old World Archeology Fund and received by the Division of Archeology as a gift from the Fund. No. Cards 58 ia_l?n No. Specimens 45Q Cat. No. 363247 Ace. No. 117750 Orig. No. Marks Name A r t i s t p a l e t t e . People Aurignacian F rance . Locality Cave of T a r t e , Commune of Casagne, Haute Garonne, Old World Archeo logy ffcnd s b t ^ r, , - ? Collector Franco AmerrTJnion for'TPreh. Research i n F rance . Acquired G i f t Date. J a n . 2 7 , 1 9 3 2 . P l a c e d . : . .^_ ,SX? * / / -,'o.i S i le 9 X 7 " Remarks Surface . U. 8. NATIONAL MUSEUM OLD WORLD ARCHEOLOGY FIGURE 3.?Typical accession cards, [(a) History of collection card; and (b) artifact catalog card. Current com? puter database was constructed from this information.] number of objects in the collections by country or geographic area again shows the preponderance of the assemblages from France and England, accounting for 12,020 artifacts, or 54.6% of the total (Figure 6). Artifacts from Palestine (now Israel) are abundant, totaling 4033 objects. The high artifact counts and the small number of locations from Palestine are the result of intensive excavations by the American School of Prehistoric Research. The large number of artifacts from Uganda (n=1948) and Iraq (n=1462) are primarily the result of targeted excava? tions of particular areas. Tabulation of artifact totals by decade indicates variation in the pace of collections acquisition (Figure 7). The greatest numbers of artifacts were obtained in the periods 1929-1938 (n=6125) and 1919-1928 (n=4084). The large collections cor? respond with large deposits of excavated material by the Amer? ican School for Prehistoric Research through curator Ales Hrdlicka and the donations of research collaborator James T. Russell and his Old World Archaeology Fund. The surge in the period 1899 to 1908 is mainly the result of the purchase of the estate collections of curator Thomas Wilson in 1904. The small SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 4. lections. -Map of the Old World, showing the number of Paleolithic localities represented in the NMNH col- number of artifacts from 1909 to 1918 (n=765) and the acces? sion of 16 artifacts from 1939 to 1948 reflect disruptions caused by World War I and World War II, respectively. The deposit of the Shanidar Cave material in 1958 resulted in higher artifact counts from 1949 to 1958, and the deposit of material from Magosi and Nsongezi in 1965 resulted in the higher totals from 1959 to 1968. Of note is that few artifacts have been accessioned during the last three decades, even at the height of systematic field investigations by members of the Hu? man Origins Program. The lack of accessions after 1969 is the result of legal controls of home-country artifacts established by antiquities legislation. Certain archaeological locations are numerically well repre? sented as the result of excavations or repeated collections from certain areas (Figure 8). The largest collections are from Abri des Merveilles, France (n=4357), and Mugharet et-Tabun, Pal? estine (n=2793), from excavations by the American School for Prehistoric Research. The Magosi assemblages were obtained by the Uganda Museum and the excavator Glen Cole. The Shanidar material was provided by the excavations of Ralph Solecki and Curator T.D. Stewart. The Kent's Cavern material resulted from acquisition of the excavated material obtained by William Pengelly. Motivations for the Acquisition of the Collections A review of official records and letters of correspondence shows that the Smithsonian's Old World Paleolithic collections (together with many other collections of different periods and geographic regions) were obtained to acquire representative material for comparative research and for exhibit. By 1860, the consensus in western Europe was that ancient humans co-ex? isted with extinct animals and that they had been on earth prior to its present form (Grayson, 1983). The desire to gather Old World Paleolithic collections began in the early years of the Smithsonian, and geologists and archaeologists presumed that human antiquity of Europe and North America would be simi? lar (Meltzer, 1983). Secretary Henry was an ardent supporter of NUMBER 48 180 160- 140 V) W 120 < U o tin O oi w PQ D Z 100- 80 60 4 0 - 2 0 - FlGURE 5.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic localities repre? sented in the NMNH collections. ? E ^ ??^ d k i d b i P^ ZT* 1? *& of < *> ?p . < * * s> COUNTRY 10 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY No. of artifacts (1166) (2062) (201) (3385) (765) <*} (4084) K < S (6125> (16) (1620) (2297) (149) (ID (126) 1869-1878 1879-1888 1889-1898 1899-1908 1909-1918 1919-1928 1929-1938 1939-1948 1949-1958 1959-1968 1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-present o 2000 4000 6000 NUMBER OF ARTIFACTS 8000 FIGURE 7.?Number of Paleolithic artifacts accessioned by decade. archaeological work, and he was well aware of the significance of the European discoveries (Meltzer, 1983, 1998). Interest in acquiring specimens demonstrating the history of ancient humans is shown in a letter from the first secretary of the Smithsonian, Joseph Henry, to the prominent French pre- historian Gabriel de Mortillet (first curator of the Paleolithic of the Musee des Antiquites Nationales at St. Germain-en-Laye and founder of the first prehistoric archaeology journal in 1864), on 11 December 1868: We are entirely destitute of specimens illustrating the early history of the hu? man race in France, such as have excited so much interest of late years and as well expressed in the collections formerly belonging to you now in possession of the Peabody Museum in Cambridge and still now so in the magnificent es? tablishment now under your charge. If you have any duplicate specimens to spare illustrating the reindeer or other prehistoric periods of France, we shall be much indebted to you for them and will send in exchange such articles from America as we have for a similar purpose. The compilation of Old World assemblages through ex? change became a common practice in the development of the national collection. As a research institution that emphasized the anthropology of North America, exchange was the desired method because the Smithsonian had a surplus of Native American materials. During the Hrdlicka era, the exchange of materials became a viable way to secure Paleolithic material. Cases of "duplicate" materials from Holmes' famous excava? tions in the Piney Branch quarry in Washington, D.C, became a medium of exchange. Although the Smithsonian had a ready supply of common quarry material, the most valuable objects, such as platform pipes from Hopewell mounds, were never considered as a basis for exchange. Indeed, purchase of rare and expensive Paleolithic objects was never considered be? cause government funds were limited and emphasis was placed on research. As a result, the Smithsonian collections received in exchange often were considered "representative" and "ordi? nary," clearly contrasting with other Old World Paleolithic col? lections in the United States, consisting of rare pieces and spec? tacular art objects, such as those obtained by purchase in the collections of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago or Beloit College in Wisconsin (see Bahn and Cole, 1986; White and Breitborde, 1992). Exceptions to this general rule were the controversial purchase of the Wilson collections, the financial support provided through the American School of Prehistoric Research for the temporary leasing of archaeologi? cal sites for excavation, and the purchase of materials by the Old World Archaeology Fund established through the estate of J. Townsend Russell, as described below. NUMBER 48 11 U ? i?i I < PL, o PJ S D Z 5000 4500 - 4000 3500 - 3000 2500 2000 1500 - 1000 500 ^ r # ^ J* ^ ^ <&