Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial technologies across northwest Europe: Typo-technological variability and trends

Despite a rich archaeological record, northwest Europe (Belgium, the Netherlands, western, northern and eastern France) is often not included in detailed debates on Middle Palaeolithic lithic variability. This is, in part, related to a lack of contextual information for some assemblages, but also to a scarcity of widely accessible publications, especially in relation to early 20th century excavations. However, it is clear that across Europe, including in this northwest region, the late Middle Palaeolithic (here MIS 5d–3, ∼115–35 ka) is characterised by an increase in the use of bifacial technologies, and this paper provides a wider, integrative perspective on late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability in northwest Europe.Primary data from seven key assemblages (Oosthoven, Grotte du Docteur, Sint-Geertruid, Saint-Just en Chaussée, Saint-Julien de la Liègue, Bois-du-Rocher and Champlost) is integrated with published data from an additional 45 assemblages, allowing for an extensive assessment of the characteristics of these biface-rich assemblages. Results suggest a large amount of typo-technological variability, as expressed through the varying nature of several technological attributes (raw material, blank type, cortex remnant, cross section and edge angles), as well as through the presence of different bifacial tool concepts and bifacial tool types.The limited chronostratigraphic information available suggests the presence of bifacial tools in northwest Europe throughout the warm phases of both MIS 5 and MIS 3. Furthermore, a detailed regional overview identifies common ground within many of these northwest European late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages. Rather than a series of region-specific entities, this research proposes that a larger-scale distinction can be made between assemblages dominated by classic handaxes, and assemblages characterised by the generalised application of bifacial retouch. The latter contain a wider variety of bifacial tools and it is, therefore, suggested to group these assemblages under the overarching label of ‘Mousterian with Bifacial Tools’ (MBT). Detailed studies of new, well-contextualised assemblages are needed to fully unravel the causal factors and behavioural intricacies underlying this bifacial tool variability and the MBT entity.