On the Validity of the Capsian and Iberomaurusian Entities (Northwest African Later Stone Age)

Abstract

The Capsian is an early Holocene Northwest African tradition. Since 1933, it is divided into two facies: the Typical Capsian and the Upper Capsian. Recently, Dachy et al. (2023) claimed to have discovered a third facies. Their evidence for this claim comes from two key observations: one distinguishing the new facies from the Upper Capsian and the other from the Typical Capsian. But a passage from Sheppard (1987), who studied much of the same material, seems to directly contradict one of these observations. Meanwhile, the other observation is challenged by doubts previously expressed by the authors themselves (Perrin et al., 2020), doubts that seem to have been set aside in their 2023 paper. It therefore seems currently difficult to recognize their third Capsian facies. The authors further imply that their discovery of a third facies would mean that the “term ‘Capsian’ alone can no longer be used to designate a single, coherent cultural whole.” They suggest, therefore, redefining the word “Capsian” in terms of space and time. But the existence of a third facies would not necessarily render the Capsian incoherent. The Iberomaurusian’s unity is here also provisionally defended in response to a similar idea expressed recently. Despite these issues, the work of Dachy et al. (2023) remains an interesting contribution that highlights the potential value of future excavations in the Oum el Bouaghi region of Algeria. The current paper, in closing, argues that to discuss the value of traditional labels like “Iberomaurusian” and “Capsian,” lithic analysts would need to adopt a standard method for data collection and publication. Such a method is in development.