Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition Research Articles

Land-Use Dynamics and Socioeconomic Change: An Example from the Polop Alto Valley

AbstractThe Polop Alto valley, in eastern Spain, serves as the focus of a study of long-term temporal and spatial dynamics in human land use. The data discussed here derive from intensive, pedestrian, non-site survey. We employ the concept of artifact taphonomy to assess the various natural and cultural processes responsible for accumulation and distribution patterns of artifacts. Our results suggest that the most significant land-use changes in the Polop Alto took place at the end of the Pleistocene and accompanying the late Neolithic, while much less notable changes in land-use patterns are associated with the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition and the initial use of domestic plants and animals in the valley.

Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: new perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère valley of France

During the past decade the chronology and hominin attributions of the Aurignacian have been revised or called into question. These controversies have coincided with an increased appreciation for the social complexity of Aurignacian culture in the realms of organic technologies and mobiliary and parietal manifestations of symbolic behavior. Lithic raw material procurement and reduction intensity evidence from Aurignacian occupations at the Vézère Valley sites of Abri Pataud, Le Facteur, and La Ferrassie may reflect complex group mobility strategies. The lithic components under consideration were always dominated by cherts available within a few kilometers radius. Assemblages associated with the early Aurignacian have elevated proportions of cherts from distant sources. Lithic retouch data indicate that some early Aurignacian assemblages reflect greater extent and/or intensity of marginal retouch compared with the later Aurignacian. Lithic reduction data, however, reveal evidence of greater core reduction intensity during the later Aurignacian. Flexible strategies of residential mobility, possibly in response to changes in the subsistence environment, may account for some of the variability between early and later Aurignacian assemblages. Similar shifts in raw material procurement were evidently associated with the Middle Paleolithic in southwestern France. However, Aurignacian populations may have acquired most lithic materials by movement directly to sources, while certain non-utilitarian materials were probably obtained via some form of indirect social exchange. This suggested coexistence of direct and indirect procurement mechanisms serves to distinguish Aurignacian assemblages from earlier Middle Paleolithic deposits and emphasizes that socially-directed intensification was one of the fundamental elements of the suite of cultural changes referred to as the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition.

The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: a review of current evidence

In spite of an active and sophisticated archaeological research program, the Paleolithic of the Iberian peninsula remains comparatively little known to English-speaking prehistorians, with the exception of Cantabrian Spain. The rich data set compiled by Spanish prehistorians and their colleagues over the past several decades stands to make a valuable and unique contribution to our understanding of the Pleistocene prehistory of Europe. We present a detailed overview of Upper Paleolithic chronology, sites, and assemblages for Mediterranean Spain, an area of over 1,600,000 km 2 that extends from the French border to the Straits of Gibraltar. To interpret these data, we employ a regional perspective that emphasizes studies of paleoeconomy (especially zooarchaeology) and settlement. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition and Upper Paleolithic art also receive detailed treatment, and the Upper Paleolithic of Mediterranean Spain is discussed in the broader context of the late Upper Pleistocene of western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.

Radiocarbon Chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic

We have compiled 462 C-14 determinations for 120 Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites from Siberia and the Russian Far East. The Mousterian sites are dated to ca. 46,000–28,500 BP. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition dates to ca. 43,300–28,500 BP. Although there are a few earlier sites, most of the Upper Paleolithic sites are dated to the time interval between ca. 34,000 BP and 10,000 BP. The earlier Upper Paleolithic stage is characterized by macroblade technology and is radiocarbon-dated to ca. 34,000–20,000 BP. The earliest microblade technology occurs in the late stage of the Upper Paleolithic, dated to ca. 23,000–20,000 BP, but the majority of microblade sites is dated to ca. 20,000–11,000 BP. The Final Paleolithic (Mesolithic) sites date to ca. 12,000–6000 BP. At ca. 13,000–11,000 BP, the earliest Neolithic appeared in both the Russian Far East (Amur River basin) and the Transbaikal. The Paleolithic–Neolithic transition occurred ca. 13,000–6000 BP.

A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts

The French site of Arcy-sur-Cure is a key locality in documenting the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe. Reliable attribution of the fragmentary hominid fossils associated with its early Upper Palaeolithic Châtelperronian industry has not been possible. Here we report the first conclusive identification of one of these fossils as Neanderthal on the basis of newly discovered derived features of the bony labyrinth. Dated at about thirty-four thousand years (34 kyr) ago, the fossil is representative of the youngest known Neanderthal populations, and its archaeological context indicates that these hominids used a rich bone industry as well as personal ornaments. The evidence supports the hypothesis of a long term coexistence with technocultural interactions between the first modern humans and the last Neanderthals in Europe. However, the complete absence of the derived Neanderthal traits in labyrinths of modern Upper Palaeolithic specimens from western Europe argues against phylogenetic continuity between the two populations in this region.

Errata

Previous articleNext article No AccessErrataOriginal articleSymboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A Theoretical and Methodological CritiquePDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 36, Number 2Apr., 1995 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/204351 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1995 The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological ResearchPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Olivia Soohae Kim How Costly is Political Uncertainty? Evidence from Cross-Country Syndicated Lending, SSRN Electronic Journal 12 (Jan 2013).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2362071Related articlesSymboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique19 Oct 2015Current Anthropology

Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique

Cet article est destine a soutenir l'affirmation que la transition du Paleolithique moyenau paleolithique superieur constitue la premiere manifestation de l'apparition de la symbolique humaine. Pour le confirmer, il faut de larges implications archeologiques qui requierent les conclusions que toutes les activites d'une population humaine symbolisante sont auto-reglees et que tous les materiaux culturels ont un style auto-regle

Archaeology and the population-dispersal hypothesis of modern human origins in Europe.

The transition from anatomically 'archaic' to 'modern' populations would seem to have occurred in most regions of Europe broadly between ca. 40 and 30 ka ago: much later than in most other areas of the world. The archaeological evidence supports the view that this transition was associated with the dispersal of new human populations into Europe, equipped with a new technology ('Aurignacian') and a range of radical behavioural and cultural innovations which collectively define the 'Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition'. In several regions of Europe there is archaeological evidence for a chronological overlap between these populations and the final Neanderthal populations and, apparently, for various forms of contact, interaction and, apparently, 'acculturation' between these two populations. The fundamental behavioural adaptations implicit in the 'Upper Palaeolithic Revolution' (possibly including language) are thought to have been responsible for this rapid dispersal of human populations over the ecologically demanding environments of last-glacial Europe.

Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe

Early Upper Paleolithic sites are known in various parts of Eastern Europe, but the two main concentrations of them are the Prut-Dniester basin and the middle Don. The flint industries are divided into archaeological cultures (cultural traditions), of which some show clear archaic features (Kostenki-Streletsian, Gorodtsovian, Brynzenian, etc.), while others have no Mousteroid characteristics (Spitsynian, Telmanian, etc.). Both types of culture coexisted throughout the Early Upper Paleolithic. In some cases, it is possible to trace genetic links between archaeological cultures and to follow the transition between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. The radiocarbon age of the oldest Upper Paleolithic sites in the Russian Plain is about 40,000 B.P., but some sites may be older. The Early Upper Paleolithic ended about 24,000–23,000 B.P. In the Crimea, the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition appears to have taken place at about 20,000–18,000 B.P.

The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Southeastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary)

Southeastern Central Europe is quite rich in finds of progressive Neandertals from Middle Paleolithic contexts and early modern humans associated with evolved Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian and Pavlovian). There are no human fossils that can be related to the transitional Middle-Upper Paleolithic units (the Bohunician and the Szeletian); thus, from anthropology we know only that the transitional period began with Neandertals and ended with modern humans. The archaeological record is more complex. The Jankovichian industries of Hungary differ from the mostly non-Levallois Middle Paleolithic of Central Europe in the presence of some Levallois; they seem to be technologically related to the Levallois-Leptolithic Bohunician industries of Moravia, dated to 43,000–38,000 B.P., which are the first transitional Upper Paleolithic unit. The appearance of the Szeletian before 42,000 B.P. in Hungary and at about 39,000 in Moravia represents a technological variation of the transition, although retaining marked local Middle Paleolithic elements. The date of the appearance of the typical Aurignacian, the first culture clearly related to modern humans, is unclear, but it certainly developed after 36,000 B.P. and has several dates between 35,000 and 30,000 B.P.