sign in sign up
<<
Home , Behavioral modernity, Bone tool, Boomerang, Dart (missile), Gravettian, Lithic technology

Evolutionary 14:186–198 (2005)

Innovation and Technological in the Upper of Northern

JOHN F. HOFFECKER

The of modern is unique in the animal kingdom with respect rotary , shaped musical instru- to its and capacity for . Evidence of technological complexity ments, mixed chemical compounds, and in the archeological record is broadly coincident with and presum- and constructed kilns to fire . ably related to traces of creativity in , , , and other forms of symbol- They were the first to create mechan- ism. The pattern of modern technology is part of a larger package of ical devices, including -throwers behavior (sometimes referred to as “behavioral ”) that emerges with the and bows and , and to - appearance of industries in Eurasia classified as , but has deeper ticate another living species. roots in the African Middle .1–5 Archeologists, of course, have al- ways viewed technology as a topic of central concern. In the nineteenth Before the Upper Paleolithic and variation in technology reaches a level century, the study of was the later , evidence commensurate with that of recent and built on a sequence of stages in the of in the arche- living peoples and indicates a funda- progressive of technology.10 ological record is comparatively lim- mentally similar capacity for innova- But archeologists have rarely ad- ited. Some of this may be a conse- tion, defined broadly in this context to dressed questions about the pattern quence of the almost complete lack of include , improvements to and context of , the sort of preserved materials such as , existing technology, and the applica- questions that of technol- plant fibers, and , but commonly tion of both.7 ogy ask about the invention of , preserved artifacts of stone exhibit no Despite the fact that the Upper Pa- printing presses, and steam en- significant change over intervals of leolithic, with a span of more gines.11–13 Where and when did major hundreds of thousands of . than 30,000 years, represents the technological innovations take place Moreover, when a new mode of tech- longest interval of technological cre- during the Upper Paleolithic? Were nology (for example, bifacial ) ativity in modern human prehistory these innovations isolated, seemingly appears, it is often associated with the and , it has been all but ignored random events, or did they appear in emergence of a new form of .6 It by students of innovation. Most such clusters? Did they represent primarily is only with the advent of Upper Pa- students are historians or economists, new (radical or discontin- leolithic industries produced by mod- who are unfamiliar with the methods uous innovations)7 or incremental im- ern humans that spatial and temporal and data of archeology, especially the provements on existing archeology of prehistoric (continuous innovations)? Did they peoples. They have tended to view the arise in the context of larger settle- Upper Paleolithic as an extension of ments and social networks or in John F. Hoffecker is a Fellow of the Insti- the Lower and —a smaller group settings? Were techno- tute of Arctic and Alpine , Uni- period of slow and limited change in logical innovations associated with versity of Colorado at Boulder. He re- ceived a Ph.D. from the of the basic equipment of hunter-gather- changes in and the effects of Chicago in 1986, and has conducted re- ers.8,9 these changes on landscape and search on prehistoric sites in Russia and . He is the author of A Prehistory of It has become increasingly appar- biota? the North: Human Settlement of the ent, however, that the Upper Paleo- Technology is a form of knowledge Higher Latitudes (Rutgers University was a period of almost constant about the environment or, as Martin Press, 2005). technological change not unlike the Heidegger wrote, “a way of revealing” last 12,000 years. Peoples of the Upper the world.14,15 Although some tech- Key words: modern humans; technology; inno- Paleolithic invented sewn , nologies have been abandoned or re- vation; Upper Paleolithic; northern Eurasia portable lamps, and . They jected by ,16 the general trend also designed heated shelters, fishing has been cumulative growth of tech- © 2005 -Liss, Inc. equipment, baking , refrigerated nological knowledge.9,12,17,18 Histori- DOI 10.1002/evan.20066 Published online in Wiley InterScience storage pits, and artificial memory ans of technology and some philoso- (www.interscience.wiley.com). y . Upper Paleolithic folk used phers and anthropologists have Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 187

Figure 1. of northern Eurasia illustrating the locations of early Upper Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text.

emphasized the connections between components of complex technology cal instruments, and other forms of technology and both social organiza- such as bows and dogsleds.30,31 Al- symbolism. Additional elements of tion and world-view.19–24 Such con- though a comparable ethnographic the package include long-distance nections are apparent in tribal societ- context is lacking, careful analysis of movement of raw materials, increased ies and prehistoric contexts.15,25–27 To similar items in Upper Paleolithic of artifacts, and more what extent did innovations during sites may also reveal traces of such structured use of domestic space, all the Upper Paleolithic build on existing technology. of which may be indirectly linked to technologies and produce cumulative This is intended to provide a symbolism. The whole complex is pri- growth of technological knowledge? concise overview of innovation and marily associated with the evolution And did these innovations occur in the accumulation of technological of modern humans (Homo sapiens)in conjunction with major changes in knowledge in the Upper Paleolithic of prior to 100 ka (100,000 years art, ritual, and other expressions of northern Eurasia. While important in- ago) and sometimes labeled “behav- world-view? novations occurred in the lower lati- ioral modernity.”3,4,33–34 Archeologists have been slow to ap- tudes, Upper Paleolithic sites above Whether preciate the scope and significance of 40° North, which offer a more man- evolved gradually in Africa during 300 technological innovation in the Upper ageable subset of the global , to 100 ka or rather suddenly at the end Paleolithic for several . There are the primary focus. The overview is of this interval remains a matter of de- has been a longstanding focus on designed to explore briefly the broad bate among paleoanthropologists.3,35 widely recovered items, primarily stone patterns of innovation and their so- Regardless of the process by which it artifacts, that serve as diagnostic mark- cial, economic, and environmental became established among Homo sapi- ers of classificatory units such as Aurig- context. Finally, it touches on a ques- ens, behavioral modernity appears, af- nacian, but that comprise a very limited tion raised recently outside northern ter 100 ka, to have reached a threshold spectrum of Upper Paleolithic technol- Eurasia: To what extent did the accu- that permitted modern humans to ex- ogy. Many of the more novel imple- mulating technological knowledge of pand out of Africa and the ments and devices were almost cer- the Upper Paleolithic provide the nec- into a wide range of habitats across tainly constructed from wood, fiber, essary for , agri- Eurasia and beyond.36–38 The organiza- , , and other materials that , and urban in the postgla- tional flexibility that and 32 do not preserve as or only in excep- cial epoch? other forms of symbolism help to effect tional circumstances. may have played a significant role in the Most major Upper Paleolithic inno- TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION dispersal, especially in arid environ- vations possess low visibility in the IN THE EARLY UPPER ments where resources are scat- archeological record and some, such tered,39,40 but the ability of behaviorally as domesticated and ov- PALEOLITHIC modern humans to create new and ens, have come to light only in recent The pattern of complexity and cre- complex technologies was almost cer- years.28,29 Late prehistoric of ativity in Upper Paleolithic technol- tainly of primary importance. the arctic coastal zone often contain ogy is part a larger package of behav- assemblages that may be small fragments of modified bone, ior that is represented in the assigned to the Upper Paleolithic are ivory, wood, or other material; these archeological record by traces of or- dated to as early as roughly 45 to 40 ka fragments are isolated but identifiable nament, engraving, , musi- in parts of eastern and south- 188 Hoffecker

ing to these was exacerbated for modern humans dispersing out of Africa by the retention, until late Upper Paleolithic , of body dimensions better suited for the tropical zone,54 while the pace of development in cloth- ing and shelter technology may have been influenced by the succession of warmer and cooler oscillations that took place during the later phases of MIS 3 and the subsequent onset of the .55 Current archeological data suggest that tailored fur clothing was devel- oped gradually in the north Eurasian Upper Paleolithic. Although carved figurines from the south Siberian site of Buret’ to ca. 25 ka depict humans dressed in complete fur with snug-fitting hoods (Fig. 2),56 oc- cupation levels dating to more than 35 Figure 2. Figurine from Buret’ (southern ) confirming the existence of complete ka contain only bone awls (presum- tailored fur suits with hoods by 24 ka. Eyed needles in older sites suggest that this technology ably derived from the African MSA). may have been developed as early as 35 ka. (Redrawn from Medvedev 1998:225, Fig. 114). Indirect evidence of sewn clothing in the form of eyed needles is reported from Kostenki 15 on the East Euro- ern Siberia (Fig. 1).41,42 Human skel- Paleolithic are lacking before 30 ka. pean Plain at ca. 35 to 30 ka.57 Needles etal remains in northern Eurasia that The small size of many EUP sites, are also reported from Tolbaga can be firmly attributed to modern hu- sometimes deeply buried, constrains (southeast of Baikal) in deposits mans are several thousand years the analysis of technological change dated to 35 to 28 ka.58 An eyed needle younger, and some of these have re- during this interval. was recovered from Layer 11 of Den- cently been redated to later periods.43 The EUP yields evidence of many isova (Altai region), which However, it is widely assumed that technological innovations that are ab- yielded a date of Ͼ40 ka, but it may be modern humans produced at least sent in local Middle Paleolithic indus- intrusive from a younger level.59 Inde- some of the earlier assemblages.44,45 tries. Some of this technology seems to pendent dating of tailored clothing The oldest Upper Paleolithic occupa- have been developed during the late may be provided by analysis of DNA tions in western Europe ( Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa and sequences from a global sample of ) are younger (Յ40 ka), and presumably was imported to Eurasia by body lice, which inhabit modern hu- apparently represent delayed settle- modern humans. At a minimum, this man clothing, indicating an African ment of a region still heavily popu- seems to include polished bone points origin at ca. 72 ka (Ϯ40 k).60 lated by (who seem to and bone awls, as well as perforated Tailored clothing is one of the most have been scarce or absent in many shells, which are dated to 76 Ϯ 5kain complex forms of technology among parts of eastern Europe and Sibe- MSA levels at (South Af- recent peoples of the Arctic,61 and it is ria).46,47 rica).50,51 On the other , barbed unfortunate that the EUP record does Upper Paleolithic sites in northern of bone (Katanda, Zaire), not yield more details about its de- Eurasia that antedate the demise of which may date to 90 ka and are there- sign. If equipped with drawstrings, for the last Neanderthals (ca. 30 ka) may fore tentatively assigned to the MSA,52 example, it might have been the first be considered early Upper Paleolithic are absent in the EUP. This technology mechanical technology. The presence (EUP). These sites were occupied dur- does not appear in northern Eurasia of some form of line in the EUP is ing later phases of the interstadial that until the later Upper Paleolithic. indicated by microwear on perforated correlates with Marine Isotope Stage Other innovations appear for the first ornaments.62 Subsequent im- 3. The EUP represents a protracted time in EUP sites, and at least some of provements might have had a major interval during which modern hu- them are plausibly tied to the coloniza- impact on Upper Paleolithic settle- mans dispersed across northern Eur- tion of higher latitudes. Clothing and ment,63 but they are invisible in the and established themselves as far shelter technology were probably - archeological record. as 55° to 56° North (and above the tial for Homo sapiens settlement of Traces of artificial shelters are also at least on a seasonal ba- northern Eurasia, especially eastern found in east European and south Si- sis).48,49 The large and complex settle- Europe and Siberia, where winter tem- berian sites that probably were occu- ments that appear in some areas at peratures 45 to 30 ka were lower than pied by at least 30 ka. As in the case of the time of the middle and late Upper those of today.53 The problem of adjust- tailored clothing, there is no convinc- Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 189

water aquatic (waterfowl and/or fish).72 The expansion of resources was almost certainly achieved with the de- sign of new technologies for catching or killing animals that were too elusive or inaccessible for Middle Paleolithic peo- ple.73 The new technologies could have included traps, snares, nets, and throw- ing darts, although no direct evidence of any of them has been identified yet in the EUP. Traps and snares are “un- tended facilities” and reduce human la- bor costs. A survey of such devices among recent hunter-gatherers indi- cates a wide range of design complexi- ty.74 Presumably the earliest forms were of comparatively simple design (for example, the two-to-three-compo- Figure 3. Excavations at Kostenki 14, one of a group of sites on the Don River in Russia that nent snare). have contributed much information to the study of technology and innovation during the One of the most interesting areas of early and middle Upper Paleolithic. Early Upper Paleolithic occupation levels are often innovation in the Upper Paleolithic is deeply buried and exposed over relatively small areas. (Photo by author). information technology. Some evi- dence of notation emerges from Au- rignacian sites (for example, Abri ing evidence of artificial shelters in the earliest EUP people in northern Eur- Blanchard, ) as early as 35 to Middle Paleolithic of northern Eur- asia had already developed the req- 30 ka in the form of bone and ivory asia. They appear to have been an- uisite technology in the form of a fragments with rows of engraved other major innovation of the EUP. hand-operated rotary , deduced marks. Marshack75 interpreted some Traces of shelters with interior from microwear patterns on drilled of these as lunar similar to lined with rocks are reported stone from Kostenki 17.62 Applied to the sticks found among var- from Tolbaga, and also from a level at a piece of dry wood with tinder (for ious recent hunter-gatherers. Al- Kulichivka (western ) dating example, wood meal), this is a sim- though this interpretation has been to ca. 30 ka.58,64 They were oval in ple and effective method of generat- disputed,76 scanning micro- and surprisingly large (at least 5 ing a flame.68,69 scopic analysis of engraved pieces to 6 meters in diameter). Although Much of the food consumed by EUP from various Upper Paleolithic time post-molds have not been detected, people in northern Eurasia was ob- periods indicates that simple notation these hearths probably possessed a tained from the same large (or “artificial memory”) systems are 77,78 framework of wooden poles covered as were hunted by the Neanderthals, present in the EUP. with hides. Former structures also although the EUP people invented a More impressive are the technolo- may be present at several central Eu- gies devised to create structures of new technique of for spear ropean sites of comparable age, in- light (visible colors) and sound in points with a wedging in cluding Barca II, which exhibits post- the form of paint and musical instru- the form of a split-based antler point, molds ().65 The absence of ments. Direct accelerator mass spec- found in sites of western and central evidence of artificial shelters in sites trometry dating of the Europe.70 However, a large concen- older than 30 ka may simply reflect paintings, which represent two-di- tration of hare in the lowest their low archeological visibility due mensional images rendered with to the small sample of excavated floor levels of the open-air site at Kostenki and , indicates area and the ephemeral character of 14 also indicates a significant expan- that they are EUP (ca. 35 ka).79 Mu- 71 the structures. sion of food resources (Fig. 3). In sical instruments have been recov- There is no evidence, direct or in- addition to hare, there is evidence that ered from EUP levels at two sites in direct, of the use of fire-making de- foxes and wolves were being har- western Europe, Geissenklosterle vices, but their existence is plausible vested at Kostenki during this period, (Germany) and Isturitz (France).80,81 for several reasons. A few recent and procurement of these fur- Recently described as “pipes” (not hunter-gatherers were found to lack mammals is plausibly linked to the “flutes”), these oldest known instru- fire-making technology,66,67 but innovations in tailored clothing pro- ments of bone exhibit a remarkably none of them inhabited places where duction. Equally significant is the sta- sophisticated design.78 mean winter temperatures fell below ble-isotope analysis of human bone A major issue in Upper Paleolithic the freezing point. Moreover, other from Layer III at Kostenki 1 (Ͼ30 ka), technology is the time and place of lines of evidence indicate that the indicating high consumption of fresh- the first mechanical innovations. 190 Hoffecker

YEARS BEFORE WESTERN CENTRAL EASTERN SOUTHERN PRESENT EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE SIBERIA

10,000 HOOKS 12,000 LEISTERS

14,000 BOW & HARPOONS

16.000 DOMESTICATED DARTS PAVED FLOORS FISH HOOKS TRAPS 18,000 HARPOONS DOMESTICATED DOGS 20,000 BONE SPEARTHROWER 22,000 BARBED POINTS HANDLED LAMPS 24,000 EYED NEEDLES [HOODED SUITS] CORDAGE 26,000 LIGNITE FUEL FAT LAMPS LIGNITE FUEL CORDAGE COLD STORAGE 28,000 FIRED CERAMICS WINTER STORAGE PITS MATTOCKS 30,000 EYED NEEDLES

32,000 LUNAR CALENDARS? HEATED SHELTERS HEATED SHELTERS 34,000 WIND INSTRUMENTS SHOVELS NEEDLES PAINT COMPOUNDS EYED NEEDLES 36,000

38,000 SPLIT-BASE POINTS SPLIT-BASE POINTS

40,000 BONE AWLS BONE POINTS BONE AWLS SNARES? BONE POINTS 42,000 ROTARY DRILL -MAKING DRILL? 44,000 BONE AWLS

Figure 4. Major innovations of the Upper Paleolithic, showing their approximate spatial and temporal position on the basis of current archeological data.

The ability to design mechanical ern Eurasia represents modern hu- tools, , and devices, specifi- man responses to higher latitudes UPPER PALEOLITHIC cally ones composed of moving (that is, to lower winter tempera- TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAST parts, seems to be a defining differ- tures and reduced biotic productivi- GLACIAL MAXIMUM ence between the technology of ty),38 only some of this innovation modern humans and all other ani- can be documented in the earliest The Upper Paleolithic of northern mals.38,82 Some EUP technologies, occupations (Ն40 ka). Many early Eurasia can be subdivided into three including tailored clothing, fire- inventions, such as notation and mu- phases broadly corresponding to making equipment, and possibly sical instruments, probably were not major climate intervals. The early traps may have been at least partly critical to modern human survival in phase (45 to 30 ka) took place during mechanical. On the other hand, non- these latitudes. Other innovations, the later part of the lengthy intersta- mechanical forms of these technolo- including some that would seem to dial that is often referred to as the gies or, indeed, alternative technolo- have been essential at least during Middle Pleniglacial. The second gies, may have been used during this periods of cooler climate, such as phase (30 to 20 ka) spans the interval period. The oldest known mechani- artificial shelters and tailored cloth- between the final millennia of the cal technology is currently confined ing, apparently were developed sev- Middle Pleniglacial and the peak to the later Upper Paleolithic. eral millennia after modern humans cold of the Last Glacial Maximum. Although it is logical to assume had arrived in Europe and Siberia The third phase (20 to 12 ka) began that much EUP innovation in north- (Fig. 4). in the aftermath of the cold peak and Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 191

Figure 5. Map of Europe, illustrating the location of middle and late Upper Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text.

lasted until the end of the Late Gla- that a subsequent series of innova- sites such as Avdeevo, in cial Interstadial.44,83,84 tions, including some of the most im- Russia, have yielded isolated exam- The second phase, or middle Upper pressive technical achievements of the ples of needle cases similar to those of Paleolithic (MUP), witnessed a new Upper Paleolithic, took place after cli- the Inuit.85,90 burst of innovation, much of which mates in northern Eurasia began to Many Gravettian sites contain large took place with the appearance and warm (that is, following the coldest pits filled with bone and other debris. spread of the Gravettian technocom- phase of the Last Glacial Maximum). These represent the earliest known plex in Europe (Fig. 5). In contrast to Improvements in artificial shelter storage devices. They may have been the EUP, most of the innovations design are evident at Gagarino on the used primarily during warmer seem to have occurred within a com- Don River (Russia), which yielded months for cold storage of food or paratively brief span of time, and are traces of what appears to be a semi- bone fuel, which must be kept fresh to linked to a characteristic array of art subterranean winter house dating to retain flammability. The pits seem to and ritual forms. Many of the sites are 25 ka (Fig. 6).85 The apparent scarcity have been dug to the base of the active larger and more complex than EUP of wood in the area at this time en- thaw layer to create a naturally refrig- sites, probably indicating an increase couraged use of alternative fuels, and erated chamber similar to the “ice cel- in population and resource consump- the interior was filled with lars” of recent Arctic peoples. The dig- tion. Although the Gravettian industry burned bone, which requires some ging implements, according to is not found outside Europe, at least brushwood to generate sufficiently microwear analysis, included large some of the new technology is found high ignition temperatures.86 Portable mattocks of ivory, which in the MUP of Siberia. lamps fashioned from the femoral have been recovered from Zaraisk The technological innovations of heads of , presumably fu- (Russia)91 and other Eastern Gravet- the Gravettian are sometimes attrib- eled with fat, were found in tian sites. These implements also ex- uted to the onset of cold climates at the Gravettian level at Kostenki 1,87 hibit parallels with Inuit technology.90 the end of the Middle Pleniglacial.83 while the use of was reported The improved on early Because a significant correlation has some years ago at Petrkovice (Mora- Upper Paleolithic technology been found between technological via).88 Stone lamps are found in con- by designing beveled spear points complexity and latitude among recent temporaneous sites in western Eu- that, in contrast to earlier hafted hunter-gatherers,74 it is logical to as- .89 Although it is not known if points, lacked a bulge at the base.70 An sume that declining temperatures further improvements were made in ivory was found at Obla- would have acted as a stimulus to tailored clothing design, the clothed zowa (Poland).92 Indeed, there may technological change. At least some of figurines from Siberia mentioned ear- have been significant new develop- the new Gravettian technology is lier date to this interval, during which ments in the technology of small- clearly tied to periglacial environ- eyed needles also appeared in central procurement. Large quantities ments. It should be noted, however, Europe for the first time.84,88 Eastern of small mammal remains and stable- 192 Hoffecker

objects recovered from their sites for many decades were not always haphazard creations, but at times were produced in specially designed kilns heated to 500 to 800°C (identi- fied at I, ) (Fig. 7).95 As is often the case with major innovations in modern human technology (for example, weight- driven clocks, originally designed for the timing of prayers19), its can be defined only within the context of myth and ritual. The fired clay objects, chiefly figurines, had no identifiable utilitarian function.96 Some Gravettian sites in central and eastern Europe contain occupa- tion floors of unprecedented size and complexity (for example, Kostenki 1) that apparently reflect at least tempo- rary aggregations of large of people.90 These gatherings were pre- sumably used to reinforce social ties, but they might have had some eco- nomic significance as well (for exam- ple, communal hunts).88 It is the large sites that suggest that a major in- crease in population density and re- source consumption had taken place during the MUP. This may have been primarily a consequence of the rich loess-steppe habitat that emerged in these regions after 28 ka,84 which the Gravettians effectively exploited with technology inherited from the EUP as well as their own innovations. Last Glacial Maximum climates reached their coldest phase at ca. 24 to 21 ka with severe effects on Upper Paleolithic settlement. Portions of , the central East Eu- ropean Plain, and much of Siberia seem to have been abandoned at this time.1,44,45 This may reflect the limita- tions of MUP technology for cold pro- tection, but it might also be at least partly a function of the inherited Figure 6. Plan of a semi-subterranean house, possibly occupied during winter months, warm-climate morphology still re- excavated at Gagarino on the Don River in Russia. (Modified after Tarasov 1979:54, Fig. 27). tained by the Gravettians.38 People continued to occupy southwest Eu- rope, although there is evidence of isotope data from human bone indi- along with the major new technology population stress and the appearance cate that the Gravettians and their of cordage.88,93 and net-mak- of a new local industry (the So- counterparts in southern Siberia con- ing implements of bone and ivory lutrean).97 sumed a broad array of terrestrial and have been tentatively identified at sev- Several technological developments freshwater foods.72 Although nets eral localities, including Pavlov I of the are worth noting. For were postulated as one possible (Moravia) and Kostenki 4 (Russia).94 the first time, eyed needles and, by means of obtaining small game dur- The most impressive Gravettian in- implication, sewn tailored clothing, ing the EUP, they are documented in novation was in the field of pyrotech- were produced in western Europe.83 It Gravettian sites for the first time, nology. It is now clear that the fired is not known whether this technology Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 193

storage pits and enormous quantities of occupation debris. Assuming that they were occupied simultaneously, which can be demonstrated in at least one case, the Epi-Gravettian “” probably represent encampments of 25 to 50 people for periods of several weeks and perhaps even several months (Fig. 9).102 Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) sites in western Europe (), such as those at Pincevent (France) and Gonnersdorf (Germany) also con- tain traces of multiple structures.103,104 These include sites with the remains of rectangular structures up to 4 ϫ 6 meters in area marked by pave- ment floors as at, for example, Plateau Parrain and Le Cerisier (France).105 At Solvieux (France), the structures con- Figure 7. Reconstructed kiln at Dolni Vestonice I (Moravia). (Redrawn from Soffer et al. tain handled lamps and are associated 1993:271, Fig. 4B). with possible stone boiling pits.106 By contrast, the Siberian sites appear to represent small short-term occupa- was invented locally or adopted from cluding Mezhirich (Ukraine) and tions, probably reflecting a signifi- peoples in central and eastern Europe. Yudinovo (Russia).100,101 The houses cantly less productive habitat.38,44 Self-barbed points of antler, appar- are circular or oval, at least 3.5 meters The innovative use of bone and rock ently designed for spearing fish, were in diameter, and associated with deep for constructing the walls and floors used in some coastal sites, among them La Riera (Spain).98 During the late Solutrean (ca. 21 ka), the first spear-throwers, which represent the first confirmed mechanical technol- ogy, appeared in the archeological record at, for example, Combe-Sauni- ere I (France) (Fig. 8).99

LATE UPPER PALEOLITHIC INNOVATION In the wake of the Last Glacial Max- imum cold peak (24 to 21 ka), peoples in many regions of northern Eurasia established long-term settlements supported by highly efficient technol- ogies for harvesting and sometimes storing a wide array of food sources. The same pattern is evident even ear- lier in some lower latitude regions.29 The technologies may have reached a critical threshold for the establish- ment of sedentary farming villages in the postglacial epoch. Above latitude 40° North, eastern Europe contains the most impressive evidence of long-term settlements in the 18 to 14 ka interval (Epi-Gravet- tian): groups of up to four houses Figure 8. Reassembled fragments of worked antler recovered from Combe-Sauniere I in composed of mammoth bone and southwest France. These apparently represent the earliest known spear-thrower. (Redrawn tusk. These occur at several sites, in- from Cattelain 1989:214, Fig. 2). 194 Hoffecker

points are reported from Mezhir- ich.100 The production of bows and arrows is firmly documented only by 14 ka, by, for example, wooden arrow shafts and foreshafts from Stellmoor (Ger- many),110 but is often inferred from the profusion of backed — possible arrow tips—in earlier Mag- dalenian and Epi-Gravettian sites.35 As in the case of artificial shelters of the earliest Upper Paleolithic, it is un- clear if the lack of firmly documented examples simply reflects reduced visi- bility in the older archeological record. (Microblades are also com- mon in Siberian sites after 21 ka, but they were almost certainly inserted into large bone and antler spear points.44) The design and production of bows is especially complicated, and this technology was still undergoing progressive improvement during the and Age.111 Information technology seems to have been improved by LUP times, especially in western Europe. Bone fragments engraved with marks for probable use as artificial memory sys- tems have been recovered from sev- eral Magdalenian sites, including Figure 9. A group of mammoth-bone houses with associated pits, hearths, and debris scatters (activity areas) mapped at Dobranichevka (Ukraine). (Modified after Shovkoplyas Laugerie Basse (France) and Tossal de 1972:178, Fig. 1). la Roca (Spain).112 These fragments exhibit more organized storage of larger bodies of information than do of dwellings is less important than the dalenian sites and present in some similar artifacts found in MUP and, broader implications of long-term set- younger sites of eastern Europe and particularly, EUP contexts.77 It re- tlements like Mezhirich and Plateau southern Siberia. The earliest known mains unclear, however, what sorts of Parrain for the increased efficiency of fish hooks and pronged leisters appear information were recorded by these food-getting technology. The variety in very late occupations such as that systems. and complexity of the latter can be at Courbet (France).107 Thousands of Perhaps the most formidable inferred from the large quantities of fox bones were recovered at Eliseevi- achievement of the LUP lies in the small-mammal, , and freshwater- chi (Russia),71 suggesting expanded realm of . Although the fish remains recovered from many of use or improved design of traps and identification of the remains of do- these sites. In maritime areas of west- snares, and Mezhirich contains some mesticated dogs in Epi-Gravettian ern Europe, some sites contain the re- possible trap components (Fig. 10).100 sites has been considered problem- mains of marine resources, including As noted, the earliest mechanical atic, such remains now have been doc- shellfish, fish, and sometimes hunting technology is documented in umented at Eliseevichi28 and in the mammals.83,97 The gradual increase the late Solutrean, but spear-throwers somewhat younger occupation at in the numbers of smaller vertebrates became more common in Magdalen- Bonn-Oberkassel (Germany).113 Vari- and marine taxa suggests that the in- ian sites, while remaining unknown in ation in mtDNA sequences among ventions and improvements in tech- east European and Siberian sites.108 modern dogs also suggests an LUP or- nology that facilitated their harvesting LUP spear-throwers may reflect an in- igin, possibly in East Asia.114 The took place over an extended time. creasing command of design mechan- presence of dogs further reinforces At least some of this food-getting ics in terms of length and weight- the perceived pattern of semi-seden- technology is represented directly in ing.109 Ptarmigan, grouse, and other tary settlements, which would seem to the archeological record. im- may have been hunted with be a prerequisite for the domestica- plements in the form of barbed har- small darts propelled with the use of tion process. The combination of poon heads are common in later Mag- throwing boards, and some bow-and-arrow technology and hunt- Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 195

man technology reflected a cumula- tive growth of knowledge inherited from the EUP and MUP (for example, notation, lamps, and storage pits). This growth of knowledge also in- cluded radical innovations such as bows-and-arrows and domesticated dogs, as well as improvements such as spear-throwers, fishing harpoons, and paint compounds.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The Upper Paleolithic record of Homo sapiens in northern Eurasia ex- hibits a pattern of technological change that is fundamentally different from those of earlier periods. Both the rapid pace of innovation and the com- plexity of artifact design are unprece- dented, and traces of mechanical technology appear in the archeologi- cal record for the first time. A similar pattern is evident in other parts of the world and both have deeper roots in the African MSA. Modern human technological abil- ity seems to be an integral part of a wider package of behavior (“behav- ioral modernity”) that developed in the context of the African MSA before 50 ka.3,35 Modern human technology exhibits many of the characteristics, most notably the creativity and struc- Figure 10. Possible trap components recovered from a mammoth-bone house at Mezhirich tural complexity, of art, music, orna- (Ukraine). (Drawn from a photograph in Pidoplichko 1976:164, Fig. 61). ment, and other forms of symbolism (including, by implication, syntactical language) that are elements of behav- ing dogs may have been especially ef- settlements of the European LUP sug- ioral modernity. Modern humans, as fective.97 gest, as compared to the EUP, a sig- they dispersed out of Africa after 100 Cave art reached its highest level in nificant increase in population den- ka, adapted quickly to a wide range of terms of both quantity and diversity sity. Several variables might have habitats in Eurasia with the help of during the LUP of western Europe, influenced population growth during novel technologies designed during and there is technology associated the Upper Paleolithic. The absence of the late African MSA or created in re- with it. At (France), there is the Neanderthals after 30 ka would sponse to local conditions.36–38 evidence of comprising a have reduced competition for re- The EUP of northern Eurasia, wooden platform supported by hori- sources in regions they had continued which spans the interval ca. 45 to 30 zontal poles inserted with clay adhe- to inhabit during EUP times. Biotic ka, represents the most unusual and sive into holes in the cave wall and in northern Eurasia must interesting of the three major periods. bound with . Carved-handle have varied between the later Middle It is also the least known of the three stone lamps, probably with lichen Pleniglacial and Late Glacial, al- periods with respect to technological wicks, provided artificial light.89 The though it is not clear that there was a innovation, probably owing to greater analysis of paint compounds reveals a major increase in available resources time depth and smaller sample size. sophisticated chemical technology during the latter period. The in- The most striking of the EUP that may represent a significant im- creased variety and efficiency of LUP is the technical sophistication of the provement over the EUP. Paints of technology, by expanding the range of , cave paintings, and musi- various colors were mixed with plant available resources and improving cal instruments, which many to materials and mineral , and per-capita intake, probably suspect a substantial prior history of 47,78 applied with a hard water CaCO3-rich had raised human carrying capacity development. Technology related binding agent.115,116 relative to the EUP. By the final mil- to symbolism appears comparable to The large and apparently long-term lennia of the , modern hu- that of recent foraging peoples, and 196 Hoffecker much of it probably was created in the If the EUP represents a uniquely Upper Paleolithic innovation and ac- African MSA. primitive stage of technological devel- cumulated technological knowledge By contrast, at least some EUP tech- opment relative to the later Upper Pa- create the essential foundation for vil- nology related to clothing, shelter, and leolithic—and to recent foraging peo- lage and, within a few food-getting activities may be ples who used technologies not found thousand years, urban ? uniquely primitive in comparison to in the EUP—it raises the interesting Would we still be living in the late that of recent foraging peoples and possibility that EUP people also cre- Upper Paleolithic today? later periods of the Upper Paleolithic. ated a world-view that was unique. During the LUP (20 to 12 ka), more Traces of artificial shelters and EUP people would have interpreted radical innovations and improve- needles have not been found in the their world, or “constructed” it sym- ments in technology took place in oldest north Eurasian EUP sites, bolically, on the basis of a particularly northern Eurasia. The former in- which may reflect belated develop- limited technological knowledge of cluded the first confirmed examples of ment of these technologies some mil- that world in comparison to later Up- mechanical technology and domesti- lennia after modern humans first col- per Paleolithic and post-Paleolithic cation of other living organisms onized higher latitudes. Alternatively, peoples. Such a world-view, presum- (canids). The major innovations of the their absence could be a function of ably reflected in art and traces of rit- LUP, unlike those of the preceding pe- low archeological visibility. Evidence ual recovered from the archeological riods, seem to have been spaced out of the harvesting of small mammals, record, might have slowed the pace of over an extended period. LUP sites in presumably through the use of novel innovation during the EUP relative to northern Eurasia appear to reflect devices such as snares, is documented later periods. long-term occupations by relatively in the earliest EUP occupations.38 But The middle Upper Paleolithic or large groups, and the pattern is likely evidence of exploitation of freshwater MUP (ca. 30 to 20 ka) is characterized tied to the expanded complexity and aquatic foods, which would have re- by a major wave of innovation that improved efficiency of technology re- quired another set of innovations, is entailed both radical inventions and lated to the getting, storing, and pre- so far confined to the end of the improvements on EUP technology. paring of food. EUP.72,73 Striking changes in organization, art, In the Near East, where sedentism Some view the EUP as a “transi- and ritual are evident as well. Al- and agriculture developed quickly tional” phase between the Middle Pa- though some technological innova- during the postglacial epoch, Upper leolithic and the later Upper Paleo- tions probably were responses to Paleolithic innovations almost cer- lithic.83,117 Implicit in this view is a colder climates and their effects on tainly laid the technological founda- significant degree of local continuity biota in northern Eurasia, other ma- tions of settlement. At the re- and at least some noncompetitive in- jor innovations such as fired ceramics markable site of Ohalo II (), teraction between Neanderthals and seem to have little or no relation to long-term occupations dating from 23.5 to 22.5 ka are linked to novel modern humans. Recent research on climate change. A significant expan- technologies for preparing plant foods early EUP cave paintings, sculptures, sion in occupation area and the diver- (for example, possible baking ov- and music has underscored their com- sity and quantity of food debris is ap- ens).29 By LUP times, people in parts plexity78,79 and the discontinuity in parent in many MUP sites in of northern Eurasia and also at lower symbolism with the Middle Paleo- comparison to the preceding . As latitudes had acquired considerable lithic of northern Eurasia.35 It is in the noted, the expanding and knowledge about their environment realm of technology and population may be largely due to the through a rapidly expanding and in- that the EUP seems to occupy an in- improved technology of the MUP, creasingly complex body of technol- termediate position between the Mid- which facilitated efficient harvesting ogy. The accumulation of technologi- dle Paleolithic and the later Upper Pa- of a variety of terrestrial and freshwa- cal knowledge must have had a leolithic. ter aquatic vertebrates. A contributing significant influence on how LUP peo- The pattern is plausibly ascribed to factor could have been an increased ple interpreted their world. This, in the less developed technology and level of consumable foods in regions turn, probably affected further devel- comparatively limited technological where climates of the Last Glacial opments in technology. The evolving knowledge of EUP people. As inven- Maximum favored loess-steppe flora LUP worldview may have been as crit- tions and improvements accumulate and high mammalian biomass. ical to the origins of sedentism and during the later EUP and early MUP, One of the more intriguing hypo- agriculture as its technological legacy. corresponding increases in occupa- thetical questions of prehistory is: tion area, site features, quantity and What if the Upper Paleolithic had be- variety of food debris, and other mea- gun at the end of the Pleistocene ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sures of economic success provide a rather than 40,000 to 30,000 years ear- I thank John G. Fleagle for inviting sharp contrast with the Middle Paleo- lier? Would EUP peoples such as the to contribute this paper to Evolu- lithic. Like the art and music, the doc- Ahmarians and have de- tionary Anthropology, and several umented capacity for technological veloped sedentary villages and agri- anonymous reviewers for their com- innovation in the EUP represents a culture under the same conditions ments on two drafts. I am also grate- significant discontinuity with the Mid- that confronted the Natufians at 15 ful to Steve Holen, Art Joyce, Michael dle Paleolithic. ka?118 Or did the many millennia of Lightner, Steve Lekson, Bob Levin, Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 197 and Paola Villa for their comments 19 Mumford L. 1934. Technics and civilization. Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains and suggestions. Research at Kostenki New York: Harcourt Brace. from Vogelherd. 430:198–201. 20 White L. 1978. Medieval and tech- 44 Goebel T. 1999. Pleistocene human coloniza- has contributed significantly to the nology: collected essays. Berkeley: University of tion of Siberia and peopling of the : an study of Upper Paleolithic technolog- California Press. ecological approach. Evol Anthropol 8:208–227. ical innovation, and I am grateful to 21 Mitcham C, Mackay R, editors. 1983. Philos- 45 Hoffecker JF. 2002. Desolate landscapes: Ice- my colleagues M. V. Anikovich, A. A. ophy and technology: readings in the philosoph- Age settlement in Eastern Europe. New Bruns- ical problems of technology. New York: Free wick: Rutgers University Press. Sinitsyn, V. V. Popov, V. T. Holliday, Press. 46 Bocquet-Appel JP, Demars PY. 2000. Nean- G. M. Levkovskaya, and others with 22 Lemonnier P. 1986. The study of material derthal contraction and modern human coloni- whom I worked at these sites from culture: towards an anthropology of technical zation of Europe. Antiquity 74:544–552. 2001 to 2004, with support from the systems. J Anthropol Archaeol 5:147–186. 47 Mellars P. 2004. Neanderthals and the mod- 23 Pfaffenberger B. 1988. Fetished objects and ern human of Europe. Nature 432: National Foundation (BCS- humanized nature: towards an anthropology of 461–465. 0132553) and the Leakey Foundation. technology. Man 23:236–252. 48 Pavlov P, Svendsen JI, Indrelid S. 2001. Hu- Figures 2, 7, 8, and 10 were prepared 24 Mitcham C. 1994. Thinking through technol- man presence in the European Arctic nearly by Ian Torao Hoffecker. ogy: the path between engineering and philoso- 40,000 years ago. Nature 413:64–67. phy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 49 Pitulko VV, Nikolsky PA, Girya EY, Basilyan 25 McGhee R. 1977. Ivory for the sea woman: AE, Tumskoy VE, Koulakov SA, Astakhov SN, the symbolic attributes of a prehistoric technol- Pavlova EY, Anisimov MA. 2004. The Yana RHS REFERENCES ogy. Can J Archaeol 1:141–149. site: humans in the Arctic before the Last Glacial 26 Dobres MA, Hoffman CR, editors. 1999. The Maximum. Science 303:52–56. social dynamics of technology: practice, politics, 50 Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Marean C, Milo 1 Gamble C. 1986. The Palaeolithic settlement and world views. Washington: Smithsonian In- R, Yates R. 2002. An early bone industry of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University stitution Press. from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, Press. 27 Schiffer MB, editor. 2001. Anthropological : implications for the origins of mod- 2 Mellars P. 1989. Major issues in the emer- perspectives on technology. Dragoon: Amerind ern human behaviour, symbolism, and language. gence of modern humans. Curr Anthropol 30: Foundation. J Hum Evol 41:631–678. 349–385. 28 Sablin MV, Khlopachev GA. 2002. The earli- 51 Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Vanhaeren M, 3 McBrearty S, Brooks AS. 2000. The revolu- est dogs: evidence from Eliseevichi I. van Niekerk K, Jacobs Z. 2004. Middle Stone Age tion that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the ori- Curr Anthropol 43:795–799. shell from South Africa. Science 304:404. gin of modern . J Hum Evol 39: 29 Piperno DR, Weiss E, Holst I, Nadel D. 2004. 52 Yellen JE, Brooks AS, Cornelissen E, Mehl- 453–563. Processing of wild grains in the Upper man MJ, Stewart K. 1995. A Middle Stone Age 4 d’Errico F. 2003. The invisible frontier: a Paleolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Na- worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper multiple species model for the origin of behav- ture 430:670–673. Semliki , Zaire. Science 268:553–556. ioral modernity. Evol Anthropol 12:188–202. 30 Ford JA. 1959. prehistory in the vi- 53 Velichko AA, Bogucki AB, Morozova TD, 5 Bar-Yosef O. 2003. The Upper Paleolithic cinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Anthropol Pap Udartsev VP, Khalcheva TA, Tsatkin AI. 1984. revolution. Ann Rev Anthropol 31:363–393. Am Nat Hist 47, Pt. 1. Periglacial landscapes of the East European Plain. In: Velichko AA, editor. Late Quaternary 6 Foley R, Lahr MM. 2003. On stony ground: 31 Giddings JL. 1964. The archeology of Cape environments of the Soviet Union. Minneapolis: , , and the Denbigh. Providence: Brown University Press. emergence of culture. Evol Anthropol 12:109– University of Minnesota Press. p 94–118. 32 Weiss E, Wetterstrom W, Nadel D, Bar-Yosef 122. 54 Trinkaus E. 1981. limb propor- O. 2004. The broad spectrum revisited: evidence 7 Herbig PA. 1994. The innovation matrix: cul- tions and cold adaptation. In: Stringer C, editor. from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 101: ture and structure prerequisites to innovation. Aspects of human evolution. London: Taylor and 9551–9555. Westport: Quorum . Francis. p 187–224. 33 Stringer C, Gamble C. 1993. In search of the 8 Buchanan RA. 1992. The power of the ma- 55 Grootes PM, Stuiver M, White JWC, Johnsen Neanderthals: solving the puzzle of human ori- chine: the impact of technology from 1700 to the S, Jouzel J. 1993. Comparison of isotope gins. New York: Thames and Hudson. present. London: . records from the GISP2 and GRIP ice 34 Klein RG. 2000. Archeology and the evolu- 9 Cardwell D. 1995. The Norton history of cores. Nature 366:552–554. tion of human behavior. Evol Anthropol 9:17–36. technology. New York: Norton. 56 Medvedev G. 1998. Upper Paleolithic sites in 35 Klein RG. 1999. The human career: human south-central Siberia. In: Derevianko AP, editor. 10 Trigger BG. 1989. A history of archaeological nd thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University biological and cultural origins, 2 ed. Chicago: The Palaeolithic of Siberia: new discoveries and Press. University of Chicago Press. interpretations. Urbana: University of Illinois 11 Mumford L. 1970. The myth of the : 36 Fagan BM. 1990. The journey from Eden: the Press. p 122–132. the pentagon of power. New York: Harcourt, peopling of our world. London: Thames & Hud- 57 Rogachev AN, Sinitsyn AA. 1982. Kostenki Brace, Jovanovich. son. 15 (Gorodtsovkaya stoyanka). In: Praslov ND, 12 Mokyr J. 1990. The of riches: techno- 37 Stringer C, McKie R. 1996. African exodus: Rogachev AN, editors. Paleolit Kostenkovsko- logical creativity and economic . New the origins of modern humanity. New York: Borshchevskogo raiona na Donu 1879–1979. York: . Henry Holt. Leningrad: Nauka. p 162–171. 13 Landes D. 2003. The unbound Prometheus: 38 Hoffecker JF. 2005. A prehistory of the 58 Vasil’ev SA, Kuznetsov OV, Meshcherin MN. technological change and industrial development North: human settlement of the higher latitudes. 1987. Poselenie Tolbaga (novyi etap issledova- in Western Europe from 1750 to the present, 2nd New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. nii). In: Prirodnaya sreda i drevnii chelovek v ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 39 Whallon R. 1989. Elements of cultural pozdnem antropogene. Ulan-Ude: Nauka. p 109– 121. 14 Heidegger M. 1977. The question concerning change in the later Paleolithic. In: Mellars P, technology and other essays. New York: Harper Stringer C, editors. The human revolution. 59 Derevianko AP. 1998. Arkheologiya, ge- & Row. p 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p ologiya i paleogeografiya pleistotsena i golotsena 15 Dobres MA. 2000. Technology and social 433–454. Gornogo Altaya. Novosibirsk: Russian Academy agency: outlining a practice framework for ar- 40 Gamble C. 1994. Timewalkers: the prehis- of . chaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. tory of global colonization. Cambridge: Harvard 60 Kittler R, Kayser M, Stoneking M. 2003. Mo- 16 Henrich J. 2004. Demography and cultural University Press. lecular evolution of Pediculus humanus and the evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can 41 Anikovich MV. 2003. The early Upper Paleo- origin of clothing. Curr Biol 13:1414–1417. produce maladaptive losses—the Tasmanian lithic in Eastern Europe. Archaeol Ethnol An- 61 Oswalt WH. 1987. Technological complexity: case. Am Antiquity 69:197–214. thropol Eurasia 2:15–29. the Polar and the Tareumiut. Arctic An- 17 Childe VG. 1956. and knowledge. 42 Goebel T, Derevianko AP, Petrin VT. 1993. thropol 24:82–98. New York: Harper & Brothers. Dating the Middle-to-Upper-Paleolithic transi- 62 Semenov SA. 1964. . 18 Pacey A. 1990. Technology in world civiliza- tion at Kara-Bom. Curr Anthropol 34:452–458. New York: Barnes & Noble. tion. Cambridge: MIT Press. 43 Conard NJ, Grootes PM, Smith FH. 2004. 63 Hoffecker JF, Elias SA. 2003. Environment 198 Hoffecker

and archeology in . Evol Anthropol 12: d’Isturitz (Pyrenees Atlantiques). Soc Prehist (Dordogne). Bull Soc Prehist Francaise 86:213– 34–49. Francaise 87:420–433. 216. 64 Savich VP. 1975. Pozdnepaleoliticheskaya 81 Hahn J, Munzel S. 1995. Knochenfloten aus 100 Pidoplichko IG. 1976. Mezhirichskie zhilish- poseleniya na gore Kulichivka v g. Krements dem Aurignacien des Geissenklosterle bei cha iz kostei mamonta. Kiev: Naukova dumka. (Ternopol’skaya oblast’ USSR). Byulleten’ komis- Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundberichte aus 101 Abramova Z. 1993. Two examples of termi- sii po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda 47:121– Baden-Wurttemberg 20:1–12. nal Paleolithic adaptations. In: Soffer O, Praslov 127. 82 Childe VG. 1936. Man makes himself. Lon- ND, editors. From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Pa- 65 Banesz L. 1976. Les structures d’habitat au don: Watts. leolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations. New York: paleolithique superieur en Europe centrale. In: 83 Straus LG. 1995. The Upper Paleolithic of Plenum Press. p 85–100. Leroi-Gourhan A, editor. Les structures d’habitat Europe: an overview. Evol Anthropol 4:4–16. 102 Soffer O. 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the au paleolithique superieur. Nice: CNRS. p 8–53. 84 Svoboda J, Lozek V, Vlcek E. 1996. Hunters central Russian Plain. San Diego: Academic 66 Radcliffe-Brown AR. 1964. The Andaman is- between east and west: the Paleolithic of Mora- Press. landers. Glencoe: Free Press. p 472. via. New York: Plenum Press. 103 Leroi-Gourhan A, Brezillon M. 1972. 67 Turnbull CM. 1962. The forest people: a 85 Tarasov LM. 1979. Gagarinskaya stoyanka i Fouilles de Pincevent: essai d’analyse eth- study of the Pygmies of the Congo. p 58. ee mesto v paleolite Evropy. Leningrad: Nauka. nographique d’un habitat Magdalenien (la sec- tion 36). Gallia Prehistoire suppl 7. Paris: CNRS. 68 Mason OT. 1895. The origins of invention: a 86 Thery-Parisot I. 2001. Economie des com- study of industry among primitive peoples. Lon- bustibles au Paleolithique. Paris: CNRS. 104 Bosinski G. 1979. Die Ausgrabungen in Gon- nersdorf 1968–1976 und die siedlungsbefunde don: Walter Scott. 87 Rogachev AN, Praslov ND, Anikovich MV, der grabung 1968. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Belyaeva VI, Dmitrieva TN. 1982. Kostenki 1. In: 69 Wescott D, editor. 1999. Primitive technol- GMBH. ogy: a of earth skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Praslov ND, Rogachev AN, editors. Paleolit Ko- 105 Gaussen J. 1980. Le paleolithique superieur Smith. stenkovsko-Borshchevskogo raiona na Donu 1879–1979. Leningrad: Nauka. p 42–66. de plein air en Perigord. Gallia Prehist suppl 14. 70 Knecht H. 1993. Splits and : the tech- Paris: CNRS. niques and technology of early Aurignacian ant- 88 Soffer O. 2000. Gravettian technologies in 106 Sackett JR. 1988. The Neuvic group: Upper ler working. In: Knecht H, Pike-Tay A, White R, social contexts. In: Roebroeks W, Mussi M, Svo- Paleolithic open-air sites in the Perigord. In: Dib- editors. Before Lascaux: the complex record of boda J, Fennema K, editors. Hunters of the : the mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia ble HL, Montet-White A, editors. Upper Pleisto- the early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton: CRC cene prehistory of western Eurasia. Philadelphia: Press. p 137–162. 30,000–20,000 BP. Leiden: University of Leiden. p 59–75. University Museum. p 61–84. 71 Vereshchagin NK, Kuz’mina IE. 1977. Os- 89 de Beaune S, White R. 1993. Ice age lamps. 107 Julien M. 1982. Les harpons magdaleniens. tatki mlekopitayushchikh iz paleoliticheskikh Paris: CNRS. stoyanok na Donu i Verkhnei Desne. Trudy ZIN Sci Am 268:108–113. 108 Cattelain P. 1997. Hunting during the Upper 72:77–110. 90 Hoffecker JF. 2002. The Eastern Gravettian “Kostenki Culture” as an arctic adaptation. An- Paleolithic: bow, spearthrower, or both? In: 72 Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Stiner MC, thropol Pap University of Alaska, NS 2:115–136. Knecht H, editor. technology. New Trinkaus E. 2001. Stable isotope evidence for York: Plenum Press. p 213–240. increasing dietary breadth in the European mid- 91 Amirkhanov KA. 2000. Zaraiskaya stoyanka. 109 Guthrie RD. 2002. Paleolithic atlatl weights Upper Paleolithic. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 98:6528– : Nauchnyi Mir. and their decoration: how function affects fancy. 92 Valde-Nowak P, Nadachowski A, Wolsan M. 6532. Anthropol Pap University Alaska, NS 2:137–154. 1987. Upper Paleolithic boomerang made of a 73 Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA, Tcher- 110 Rust A. 1943. Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitli- nov E, Bar-Yosef O. Paleolithic population mammoth tusk in south Poland. Nature 329:436– 438. chen funde von Stellmoor. Neumunster: Karl growth pulses evidenced by small animal exploi- Wachholtz. tation. Science 283:190–194. 93 Soffer O, Adovasio JM, Hyland DC. 2000. 111 Clark JGD. 1963. Neolithic bows from Som- 74 Oswalt WH. 1976. An anthropological anal- The “Venus” figurines: , basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Curr An- erset, and the prehistory of in ysis of food-getting technology. New York: John thropol 41:511–537. north-west Europe. Proc Prehist Soc 29:50–98. Wiley. 94 Soffer O. 2004. Recovering perishable tech- 112 d’Errico F, Cacho C. 1994. Notation versus 75 Marshack A. 1972. Upper Paleolithic nota- nologies through use wear on tools: preliminary decoration in the Upper Paleolithic: a case-study tion and symbol. Science 178:817–828. evidence for Upper Paleolithic weaving and net from Tossal de la Roca, Alicante, Spain. J Ar- 76 d’Errico F. 1989. Palaeolithic lunar calen- making. Curr Anthropol 45:407–413. chaeol Sci 21:185–200. dars: a case of wishful thinking? Curr Anthropol 95 Vandiver P, Soffer O, Klima B, Svoboda J. 113 Benecke N. 1987. Studies on early dog re- 30:117–118. 1989. The origins of technology at Dolni mains from northern Europe. J Archaeol Sci 14: 77 d’Errico F. 1998. Palaeolithic origins of arti- Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Science 246:1002– 31–49. ficial memory systems: an evolutionary perspec- 1008. 114 Savolainen P, Zhang Y, Luo J, Lundeberg J, tive. In: Renfrew C, Scarre C, editors. 96 Soffer O, Vandiver P, Klima B, Svoboda J. Leitner T. 2002. Genetic evidence for an East and material culture: the archaeology of sym- 1993. The pyrotechnology of performance art: Asian origin for domesticated dogs. Science 298: bolic storage. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute. Moravian Venuses and wolverines. In: Knecht H, 1610–1613. p 19–50. Pike-Tay A, White R, editors. Before Lascaux: the 115 Leroi-Gourhan A, Allain J, editors. 1979. 78 d’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G, Van- complex record of the early Upper Paleolithic. Lascaux inconnu. XIIth Supplement Gallia Pre- haeren M, Tillier A-M, Soressi M, Bresson F, Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 259–275. hist. Paris: CNRS. Maureille B, Nowell A, Lakarra J, Backwell L, 97 Jochim M. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic. In: 116 Couraud C. 1988. Pigments utilizes en pre- Julien M. 2003. Archaeological evidence for the Milisauskas S, editor. European prehistory: a histoire, provenance, preparation, mode emergence of language, symbolism, and music: survey. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. p 55–113. d’utilisation. L’Anthropologie 92:17–28. an alternative multidisciplinary perspective. J 98 Pokines J, Krupa M. 1997. Self-barbed antler 117 Lindly JM, Clark GA. 1990. Symbolism and World Prehist 17:1–70. spearpoints and evidence of fishing in the late modern human origins. Curr Anthropol 31:233– 79 Chauvet JM, Deschamps EB, Hillaire C. Upper Paleolithic of Cantabrian Spain. In: 261. 1996. Dawn of art: the Chauvet Cave: the oldest Knecht H, editor. Projectile technology. New 118 Bar-Yosef O. 1998. The Natufian culture in known paintings in the world. New York: Harry York: Plenum Press. p 241–262. the , threshold to the origins of agricul- N. Abrams. 99 Cattelain P. 1989. Un crochet de propulseur ture. Evol Anthropol 6:159–177. 80 Buisson D. 1991. Les flutes paleolithiques Solutreen de la Grotte de Combe-Sauniere I © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.