A Microarchaeological Study of Combustion Features and Site Formation Processes at Shualim Rockshelter, an Upper Paleolithic Site, Central Negev Highlands, Israel

As of today, very few Upper Paleolithic sites are known on both the southern and the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Their materials allow tracing settlement dynamics in the region from 40/39 to 20 cal ka BP. The change of the research methodology, which today is focused on thorough excavations involving a range of natural science disciplines for complex investigation of the materials, including complete water sieving of the cultural de-posits, enables obtaining many new, often unique data on human occupation, life-support strategies, and adapta-tions of humans in different periods of the Upper Paleolithic in the Caucasus. In our paper, a wide range of issues is discussed, concerned with the cultural affinity, diversity, and interaction of the Upper Paleolithic population of the Caucasus. The earliest Upper Paleolithic industries (40–35 cal ka BP) of the southern as well as the northern slopes of the Caucasus show the closest affinity. Studies of the raw-material strategies indicate the presence of contacts between populations of the northwestern and South Caucasus throughout the entire Upper Paleolithic and the development of extensive social networks. During the Late Upper Paleolithic period, the materials of the North and South Caucasus acquire certain features of distinctiveness, as in the stone industry and in bone tools and decorations. The appearance of geometric microliths in the South Caucasus contemporaneously with the Near East attests to the contacts between these regions. The delivery of seashells from the Caspian Sea coast to the Lesser Caucasus also indicates the southeastern direction of the contacts. The import of seashells from the Black Sea coast to the northwestern Caucasus indicates the southwestern direction of contacts. The unique finds that have analogies in the Upper Paleolithic of the Russian Plain indicate contacts between populations of the northwestern Caucasus and the Russian Plain that belong to different cultural areas. The current data demon-strate formation of local differences in the culture of the Upper Paleolithic populations in both the South and the North Caucasus, including under the influence of the neighboring regions.

The Iranian Plateau and the Zagros Mountain chain, located at the crossroads of Africa and Eurasia, occupy a critical geographical position in out-of-Africa scenarios, sitting astride a major dispersal corridor into southern and central Asia. Yet, the region’s role in human population expansions remains under-investigated. Here, we present findings from new excavations at Pebdeh Cave, a site located in the southern zone of the Zagros Mountains. Pebdeh contained a well-defined layer dating to ∼42–40,000 years ago (ka), with Levallois elements alongside laminar reduction. This transitional feature in the Zagros was not dated and recorded before, and, given its similarity to Western and Central Asian industries with respect to chronology and technological features, we define it here as the Zagros Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP). Although Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic technologies have been identified in the Zagros in the time period ranging between 50 and 40 ka, suggesting the presence of Neanderthals and modern humans in the mountainous region, the overall abrupt and constrained chronology of the IUP at Pebdeh, together with the penecontemporaneous appearance of other Upper Paleolithic sites in the Zagros Mountains, is compatible with a population expansion of Homo sapiens rather than an autochthonous development.

A Complex of Stratifi ed Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Foothills of the Northern Tien Shan: General Data and Research Perspectives

The emergence of the Upper Paleolithic and regional variability in early Upper Paleolithic industries are prominent topics in Paleolithic archaeology, with special relevance to the dispersal and differentiation of early modern human cultures across Eurasia. The so-called Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) has been considered a key element in the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in northern Asia. Here, we examine the intra-assemblage variation in the collection from the 1963 excavation at Shuidonggou locality 1, a major IUP site in northern China. We combine technological and quantitative attribute analyses to investigate the variety of core reduction sequences and tool manufacture behaviors at the site. A range of core reduction sequences have been documented at Shuidonggou locality 1, including both simple core reduction and prepared core reduction yielding laminar (blade-like) products. The simple core reduction component may due to mixed non-IUP assemblages from different archaeological layers. Among the laminar core reduction sequences, the main strategy involves asymmetrical exploitation of the broad face of core blank, producing blades and elongate flakes, and resembling a recurrent Levallois blade method sensu lato. We compare Shuidonggou laminar blank production with that of IUP assemblages in the Siberian Altai, northern Mongolia, and the Transbaikal region. The comparison demonstrates a general consistency to the basic blank production in IUP assemblages across northern Asia, with some regional variation. The results suggest a multi-directional model of diffusion of the IUP in northeast Asia.

Northern Mongolia and southwest Transbaikalia, encompassing the Selenga River Basin, constitute the geographical core of the earliest known Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) laminar industries. Comparison of the broad spectrum of criteria presented here allows reconstructing variability within these IUP industries, determining regional traits in settlement systems, and the character of population mobility. Workshops were the main site-type identified, visible as several short-term occupational episodes. One of our foci is illuminating the role of the Selenga River Valley and its tributaries as the principal migration corridors for population diffusion in the Upper Paleolithic. Although some unique regional features are apparent, the technology and typology of the lithic industries demonstrate great similarity. We suggest that the cumulative evidence indicates the recent divergence of Mongolian and Transbaikalian IUP populations stemming from a common ancestral group of humans.

The open-air site of Shlyakh, located near Volgograd in southern Russia, contains two assemblages of stone artifacts assigned to the Middle Paleolithic. Most of the artifacts are buried in low-energy stream deposits and appear to be in primary context (i.e., they do not exhibit signs of stream transport). The lithic technology reflects an emphasis on blade production and Levallois products are present. The artifacts lie in sediments formed during and immediately following the Laschamp Paleomagnetic excursion (41.2 ± 1.6 ka); they underlie the Mono Lake excursion (34.2 ± 1.2 ka). Although the radiocarbon dating is broadly consistent with the paleomagnetic stratigraphy, the wide range of ages obtained on bone from the upper assemblage suggests that older materials may have been introduced to one or both cultural layers. The dating and contents of Shlyakh are discussed in the wider context of events in Europe during ~ 50–40 ka. At this time, an Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) industry (Bohunician), characterized by Levallois blade technology and a high proportion of Upper Paleolithic tool types, is established in central Europe and on the southwest plain of eastern Europe. A different pattern is evident on the south-central plain, however, where the IUP is absent and a local “transitional unit” in the form of a Middle Paleolithic blade industry is represented at Shlyakh and other sites during 50–40 ka.

Dumped deposits are a valuable source of information for inferring past behaviour. They provide insights into site maintenance, social organization and settlement dynamics. Hohle Fels Cave in SW Germany offers a unique opportunity to investigate the importance of dumping and site maintenance during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Swabian Jura. In this paper, we analyse anthropogenic deposits at Hohle Fels employing micromorphology and fabric analysis in order to reconstruct their formation and understand the human behaviours behind their accumulation. Our study indicates that dumping residues from combustion features in the interior of Hohle Fels Cave has a long history extending back to Neanderthal occupation at the site during the Middle Palaeolithic. Despite some reworking via down-slope movement, most of the features demonstrate that the site’s inhabitants dumped burnt material, which was previously the fuel for domestic hearths, in specific locations within the cave. The intentionality of the action and the characteristics of the features provide important information for reconstructing the mode and spatial organization of occupations at the site. The combustion features from the Middle Palaeolithic allow us to reassess the hypothesis that Neanderthals’ use of the site was less intense and documented a lesser degree of spatial patterning than subsequent Upper Palaeolithic occupations. This research also provides insight for examining the regional variability of pyrotechnology and site maintenance during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic.

There are many trait-parallels between the Upper Palaeolithic of southwestern Europe and North America. They are present in the latter in four main areas, that of the Eskimo culture, Newfoundland, the St. Lawrence drainage and the Greater Southwest. Among the more important North American parallels are certain boats and house-types, bone pendants, design motifs, and representations of animals. These resemble paintings in Upper Palaeolithic caves or actual objects from Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Biscayan area and farther north, as well as in two caves on the southeast coast of Spain. There is also a close correspondance between the points of the Sandia culture of New Mexico and those of a Solutrean site at Montaut, southwest France; at least one heavily stylized pictograph in Lower California is directly descended from one specific painting at Castillo Cave, northwest Spain. Several other specific Southwestern traits are present in the St. Lawrence drainage, Newfoundland, and in the Upper Palaeolithic of the Biscayan region. A crossing of the North Atlantic in skin boats during the last glacial period was made possible by the presence of floating ice in the form of bergs, ice islands, and ice floes. There is solid evidence from the contents of sea-bottom cores, between Newfoundland and the European coast, of a great amount of gravel rafted by floating ice in Upper Palaeolithic times and Eskimo way of life was possible in this North Atlantic ice archipelago, independantly of bases on the European shores. This ice, coming from some 4,000 miles of coastline in Europe and North America, and the possession of a variety of boats in the Upper Palaeolithic of the coastal areas of southwest Europe have not heretofore been considered in connection with the earliest entry of man into the New World. The Bering Strait hypothesis is not discarded as a possible route of entry concurrently with that across the North Atlantic, but Bering Strait need not be considered until there is better evidence than the close proximity of Asia and North America, especially in the absence of bifacial blades from Siberia of an early enough time to be the source of those of the Early Man cultures in North America. The practise of giving a Siberian origin to any Alaskan feature that is duplicated in Siberia is faulty. The Direction of diffusion may usually have been from east to west. The Upper Palaeolithic cultures represented in North America appear to be the Solutrean and the Magdalenian minus its flint component. But certain animal petroglyphs in the upper St. Lawrence drainage show similarities to Aurignacian styles. The petroglyphs of all of North America show many correspondances to figures in Upper Palaeolithic caves. Fragments of French and Spanish animal figures seem to have been brought to the New World and carved or painted on rock surfaces. The petroglyphs of the New World represent a long tradition in which the most ancient figures were obliterated as others were carved or painted over them. Though some of the New World traits like the unique Beothuk canoe and on Eskimo-solutrean effigy cannot be shown to have been in North America previous to 1500 A.D., the literature of the folk rat and the fine art of the whole of Atlantic Europe fails to reveal anything suggesting an origin there at any time during or after the first Norse settlements in Greenland.

Investigating changes in lithic raw material use from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic in Jebel Qalkha, southern Jordan

The article is devoted to the coverage of a little-known aspect of D. Ya. Telehin’s scientific activity, namely his research related to Palaeolithic sites and Palaeolithic issues. Although this was clearly not the main area of the scientist’s concern, his interest for Palaeolithic studies has accompanied him throughout his scientific life.
 In the early 1950s, D. Ya. Telehin participated in the works of I. F. Levytskyi at the site Mynivskyi Yar at Seversky Donets, in eastern Ukraine. The lower layer of the site belongs to the period 18—13 thousand years ago. In fact, at the time of excavations, it was the only Upper Palaeolithic site in the region that was investigated on a relatively large area.
 In the mid-twentieth century, a cascade of new hydroelectric power plants and reservoirs was being built on the Dnieper. During the field seasons of 1953 and 1957, D. Ya. Telehin’s explorations in the area of construction of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power plant and the Kakhovskoye reservoir discovered, in addition to numerous sites from later periods, the first upper Palaeolithic locations of the Lower Dnieper, namely: Shyroka, Valivalska and Merzlyakova gullies.
 In 1975 together with N. I. Tarasenko, D. Ya. Telegin conducts excavations at the Rogalyk farm. According to modern interpretation, the remains of three new stratified sites were discovered during these works. The authors have identified the materials as early Mesolithic; they are now attributed to the final Palaeolithic.
 In 1976 D. Ya. Telehin researches the Upper Palaeolithic site of Zbranky near the eponymous village in the Ovruch loess area. The materials found once again, after the works of I. F. Levytskyi and V. A. Mesyats, confirmed that this region was actively exploited by the Palaeolithic man at the end of the Pleistocene.
 A number of new, mostly surface, Upper Palaeolithic sites were discovered by the «Dnieper-Donbas» and «Slavutych» expeditions led by D. Ya. Telehin in 1970—74 and 1980—83 on the territory of the Middle Dnieper Basin (Chernyavshchyna, Pereschepyno, Khizhnyakivka, etc.) and the middle reaches of Southern Buh (Apolyanka, Berezyno).
 During the 1980s, D. Ya. Telehin investigated the area of the left bank of the Dnieper River near the mouth of the Sula River. This work resulted in the discovery of a new concentration of Upper Palaeolithic sites. The features of lithic assemblages make it possible to identify groups of later and earlier sites in the preliminary view, including the so-called archaic Upper Palaeolithic.
 In 1984, D. Ya. Telehin investigated the location of Semenivka 1 in Baryshevsky district of Kiev region in the valley of Trubizh river. The peculiarities of the stone tools allowed to see the nearest analogies to the findings in the materials of the sites of Epigravettian mammoth hunters. Studies at Semenivka 1 gave an impulse for further searches in this area.
 The brief overview offered shows that although Palaeolithic studies were not in the focus of D. Ya. Telehin’s attention, his works are nevertheless deservedly included in the general fund for achievements in domestic Palaeolithic studies.

Although the first numerical dating of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites in Poland was applied at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, it has only been in the last two decades that a data increase has been recorded, making it possible to discuss both the development of human behaviour and cultural phenomena in time perspective. This paper aims to show the chronological diversity of sites dating from the beginning of the Weichselian glaciation (MIS 5a – MIS 5d, GI-19 – GI-23, Greenland Interstadials) to the middle part of MIS 3 (GI-8 – GI-10). We considered sites dated mainly by thermoluminescence dating (OSL) and radiocarbondating. We relied on a series of recent datings. We attempted to analyse the stratigraphic integrity, the archaeological finds and the numerical dating results. Through OSL dating, we could establish the chronology of Micoquian sites, previously regarded as middle Pleistocene, to the last glaciation. The dating compilation also shows that the Late Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) sites are unlikely to overlap, or if they do, it is only over a small period. Unfortunately, this period is poorly interpreted because it spans the limit of the radiocarbon dating reliability and goes beyond the bounds of the calibration curve. Confronting the datings of the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) complex and the oldest finds associated with Aurigniacian sites in Poland lead to the conclusion that these sites may have co-occurred for some time.

The Neronian is a lithic tradition recognized in the Middle Rhône Valley of Mediterranean France now directly linked to Homo sapiens and securely dated to 54,000 years ago (ka), pushing back the arrival of modern humans in Europe by 10 ka. This incursion of modern humans into Neandertal territory and the relationships evoked between the Neronian and the Levantine Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) question the validity of concepts that define the first H. sapiens migrations and the very nature of the first Upper Paleolithic in western Eurasia. Direct comparative analyses between lithic technology from Grotte Mandrin and East Mediterranean archeological sequences, especially Ksar Akil, suggest that the three key phases of the earliest Levantine Upper Paleolithic have very precise technical and chronological counterparts in Western Europe, recognized from the Rhône Valley to Franco-Cantabria. These trans-Mediterranean technical connections suggest three distinct waves of H. sapiens expansion into Europe between 55–42 ka. These elements support an original thesis on the origin, structure, and evolution of the first moments of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe tracing parallel archaeological changes in the East Mediterranean region and Europe.

This paper discusses the Upper Palaeolithic sites situated in the Ural region within the chronological context, as well as their implications for our views on the occupational history of the Urals during the Upper Paleolithic. Two clusters of distribution of Upper Paleolithic sites have been identified: the Middle and the Southern Urals, located on the border between the East European Plain and the foothills of the western slope of the Urals and confined to the meridional parts of the valleys of the Kama and Belaya rivers and their tributaries. The data on the chronology and cultural features of the sites of the Upper Paleolithic of the Urals are given, the stages of the human settlement of the region and the initial areas of the advance of the human groups to the Ural region in the second half of the Late Neo-Pleistocene are determined. Two stages of human advances to the region during the Upper Paleolithic have been identified. The first stage consists of two episodes and refers to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic (38–28 kyr BP). The oldest site of the Upper Paleolithic in the Ural region is Mamontova Kurya (38–34 kyr BP), cultural affiliation of this site is unclear. The assemblage of the second site of the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic — Zaozer’e (35–33 kyr BP), belongs the circle of contemporaneous European industries. The next episode of the human advance to the Ural region dates back to the end of the Early Upper Paleolithic and associated with the appearance of ca.29–28 kyr BP in the basins of the upper Kama and Pechora rivers the sites of the East European Streletskian culture and the sites similar to the Streletskian according to the features of the assemblages. The second stage of human settlement of the region (19–9.5 kyr BP) is characterized by the appearance of the regional Ural Late Paleolithic culture, originally connected to the North Asian Late Paleolithic “small-blade” industries. The num- ber and spatial-chronological allocations of the sites of the culture, appearance of the cave sanctuaries testify the existence of permanent population in the Urals in the second half of MIS2. Between the stages of human advances to the Urals, a period of depopulation of the region (27–19 kyr BP) is distinguished, which connected with sharp and significant climatic deterioration in the first half of the MIS2, thereby evidencing correlation between the stages of settlement of the region and paleoenvironmental changes in the Urals in the second half of the Late Neo-Pleistocene. Рассматриваются вопросы появления и развития культуры верхнего палеолита в Уральском регионе. Выделены два кластера распространения верхнепалеолитических памятников – среднеуральский и южноуральский, расположенных на границе между Восточноевропейской равниной и холмисто увалистой полосой западного склона Урала и приуроченных к меридиональным участкам долинам Камы и Белой и их притоков. Приведены данные по хронологии и культурным особенностям памятников верхнего палеолита Урала, определены этапы освоения региона человеком современного вида и исходные районы продвижения первобытных коллективов в Уральский регион во второй половине позднего неоплейстоцена. Выделено два этапа проникновения и освоения региона человеком на протяжении верхнего палеолита. Первый этап состоит из двух эпизодов и относится к началу и ранней поре верхнего палеолита (38–28 тыс. л.н.). Древнейшим памятником верхнего палеолита в Уральском регионе является Мамонтова Курья (38–34 тыс. л.н.). К началу верхнего палеолита относится стоянка Заозерье (35–33 тыс. л.н.), которая входит в круг европейских памятников этого периода. Следующий эпизод освоения человеком Уральского региона относится к финалу ранней поры верхнего палеолита и связан с появлением около 29–28 тыс. л.н. в бассейнах верхней Камы, Печоры и Белой в результате миграции населения стоянок костёнковско-стрелецкой культуры и памятников, близких к ним по общим показателям каменной индустрии. Второй этап (19–9,5 тыс. л.н.) характеризуется формированием региональной уральской позднепалеолитической культуры, генетически связанной с североазиатскими позднепалеолитическими индустриями с мелкопластинчатым инвентарём. Выделены хронологические этапы существования памятников культуры. Высказано предположение о появлении на Урале в позднем валдае постоянного населения и, следовательно, о заселённости региона, начиная с позднего палеолита. Между этапами освоения Урала человеком выделен период депопуляции региона (27–19 тыс. л.н.), который совпадает и обусловлен резким и значительным похолоданием в первой половине позднего валдая, тем самым устанавливается связь этапов заселения региона с изменениями природной среды Урала во второй половине позднего неоплейстоцена.

Subsistence behavior during the Initial Upper Paleolithic in Europe: Site use, dietary practice, and carnivore exploitation at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria)

Previous articleNext article No AccessA Structural Comparison of Disposal of the Dead in the Mousterian and the Upper PaleolithicSally R. BinfordSally R. Binford Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 24, Number 2Summer, 1968 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.24.2.3629419 Views: 46Total views on this site Citations: 30Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in the Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (1945-1972), which is continued by the Journal of Anthropological Research (1973-present). Copyright 1968 Department of Anthropology, The University of New MexicoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Mary C. Stiner Love and Death in the Stone Age: What Constitutes First Evidence of Mortuary Treatment of the Human Body?, Biological Theory 12, no.44 (Aug 2017): 248–261.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-017-0275-5Lorna Tilley Care Among the Neandertals: La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 and La Ferrassie 1 (Case Study 2), (Jan 2015): 219–257.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18860-7_9Terry Hopkinson ‘Man the symboller’. A contemporary origins myth, Archaeological Dialogues 20, no.22 (Nov 2013): 215–241.https://doi.org/10.1017/S138020381300024XLawrence Guy Straus Has the Notion of “Transitions” in Paleolithic Prehistory Outlived Its Usefulness? The European Record in Wider Context, (Jun 2009): 3–18.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_1Peter Frost European hair and eye color, Evolution and Human Behavior 27, no.22 (Mar 2006): 85–103.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.002 Julien Riel‐Salvatore and Geoffrey A. Clark Grave Markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research RielSalvatore and Clark, Current Anthropology 42, no.44 (Jul 2015): 449–479.https://doi.org/10.1086/321801F. Bernaldo de Quiros The origin of ethics, Human Evolution 15, no.1-21-2 (Jan 2000): 149–155.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436243Robert H. Gargett Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: the view from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh, Journal of Human Evolution 37, no.11 (Jul 1999): 27–90.https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1999.0301L. A. Schepartz Language and modern human origins, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 36, no.S17S17 (Jan 1993): 91–126.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330360607Donna C. Roper A Comparison of Contexts of Red Ochre Use in Paleoindian and Upper Paleolithic Sites, North American Archaeologist 12, no.44 (Nov 2016): 289–301.https://doi.org/10.2190/AH7V-FPM6-PRDX-FNQEAlexander Marshack The Origin of Language: An Anthropological Approach, (Jan 1992): 421–448.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2039-7_22Robert Layton Trends in the Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art of Western Europe and Australia., Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, no.0101 (Feb 2014): 163–174.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00004953Yuri Smirnov Intentional human burial: Middle Paleolithic (last glaciation) beginnings, Journal of World Prehistory 3, no.22 (Jun 1989): 199–233.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975761Alexander Marshack Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32, no.S10S10 (Jan 1989): 1–34.https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330320503Paul G. Bahn Triple Czech burial, Nature 332, no.61626162 (Mar 1988): 302–303.https://doi.org/10.1038/332302a0Philip G. Chase, Harold L. Dibble Middle paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, no.33 (Sep 1987): 263–296.https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(87)90003-1Randall White Thoughts on Social Relationships and Language in Hominid Evolution, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2, no.11 (Jun 2016): 95–115.https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585021006Paul A. Mellars The Ecological Basis of Social Complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France, (Jan 1985): 271–297.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-564750-2.50015-9 REFERENCES, (Jan 1982): 273–296.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-425020-8.50014-9 References, (Jan 1981): 299–312.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-100036-3.50020-1Francis B. Harrold A comparative analysis of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials, World Archaeology 12, no.22 (Jul 2010): 195–211.https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979792Nan. A. Rothschild Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization at Indian Knoll and Dickson Mounds, American Antiquity 44, no.44 (Jan 2017): 658–675.https://doi.org/10.2307/279105Alexander Marshack SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE PALEOLITHIC SYMBOLIC EVIDENCE FOR THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280, no.1 Origins and E1 Origins and E (Oct 1976): 289–311.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25495.x Alexander Marshack Some Implications of the Paleolithic Symbolic Evidence for the Origin of Language, Current Anthropology 17, no.22 (Oct 2015): 274–282.https://doi.org/10.1086/201716H.Martin Wobst Locational relationships in Paleolithic society, Journal of Human Evolution 5, no.11 (Jan 1976): 49–58.https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(76)90099-3 Alexander Marshack Cognitive Aspects of Upper Paleolithic Engraving, Current Anthropology 13, no.3/43/4 (Oct 2015): 445–477.https://doi.org/10.1086/201311James A. Brown Introduction, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25 (Jun 2018): 1–5.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0081130000002513Karen Ann Watson Neanderthal and Upper Palaeolithic Burial Patterns: A Re-examination, Mankind 7, no.44 (Feb 2009): 302–306.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.1970.tb00424.xBruce G. Trigger Aims in Prehistoric Archaeology, Antiquity 44, no.173173 (Jan 2015): 26–37.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00040953 Desmond Collins Culture Traditions and Environment of Early Man, Current Anthropology 10, no.4, Part 14, Part 1 (Oct 2015): 267–316.https://doi.org/10.1086/201019