HUNTERS OF THE GOLDEN AGE
THE MID UPPER PALAEOLITHIC OF EURASIA 30.000 - 20,000 BP
EDITED BY WIL ROEBROEKS. MARGHERITA MUSSI. JIRI SVOBODA & KELLY FENNEMA
UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN 2000 Wil Roebroeks Periodisations and double standards in the study Raymond Corbey of the Palaeolithic
Periodisations a/'the Palaeolithic, while in fail mere have noted, archaeologists' preference to think in threes working h\potheses. lend to he taken Ion se/ ion\l\ h\ main (ages ol stone, bron/e and iron: ( iordon (Inkle's three researchers. Using various archacolttgical ease studies we revolutions: Neolithic, urban, and industrial, etc.) has led to show how tlifjerentiiillv phenomena are treated depending a type of reasoning in which the period in the Middle is upon their position in relation to the 'Art hait-Modern' compared favourably with the Lower and unfavourably with boundary. The hat k ground to these scientifically unhealthy the I 'ppcr. with Upper Palaeolithic humans often treated as />;/ e\olutionar\ trends ('onkey (19S5) has given a clear example of how such rather than in l\pological modes. expectations steer our activities to what she calls "spatio- temporal collapse" approaches. This term indicates the 1. Introduction lumping of sociocultural phenomena which are distributed The terms Lower. Middle, and Upper Palaeolithic are more both in space and time into sels ot attributes considered than just neutral and straightforward divisions of 2.5 million characteristic tor one specific period. For instance, the whole years of human cultural development. They are essential Middle Palaeolithic, roughly 250.000 years, is thus building blocks loi our understanding of the prehistoric past contrasted with "the" Upper Palaeolithic for its absence of id. (iambic and Roebroeks 1999). Periodisations are. in fact. art. despite the fact that there were many regions and periods never neutral or 'objective'. In historical disciplines they are. within the latter that had no archaeologically visible an in the first instance, working hypotheses that order the production at all (C"onke\ 1985: 301). In the same vein, the confusingly large amount of historical data and developments Lower and Middle Palaeolithic are often portrayed as periods into more or less digestable time slices, while at the same ol stable, unchanging and monotonous adaptations, in time expressing specific views on how best to segment time contrast to 'the' Upper Palaeolithic cultural bonan/a. In such sequences, preferring specific characteristics to delineate .1 scientific climate, the position on either suie of the periods rather than alternative ones As such, they express a Middle/Upper Palaeolithic boundary greatly determines the certain viewpoint on how best to approach a study of the past scientific treatment that finds receive: the inferred level ol and on the chronology of key events and transitional periods 'humanity' of the hominid involved forms the basis of As working hypotheses, periodisations should ideally be behavioural reconstruction. Similar finds are interpreted subjected to continuous testing and reassessment. This is differently. The fact that many researchers tend to focus on rarely done in archaeology, and when it is. it is mostly done specific time periods also triggers a social and institutional in an implicit and unsystematic way. It is striking to see that clustering ot researchers around the time blocks and hence a our divisions of the prehistoric past have survived all kinds continuous reinforcement of such periodisations. of major changes on both theoretical and empirical levels ( )ne of the explicit aims of the European \< tem e since the emergence of the basic framework in the second l-oiindation Network on the Palaeolithic - which organised halt'of the 19th century. Periodisations can become the meeting from which this volume resulted - was to break dangerous instruments when long periods ol uncritical usage through this state ol altairs and to treat the three periods have incised them too deeply in the sedimentary bedrock of under discussion during the meetings as periods an su h scientific practice, when their longevity seduces scholars to according to their own. however heterogeneous structure, not treat these working hypotheses, these abstractions, as realities as a part of the ascendence of modem humans. This, and to take them too seriously. In the case of palaeolithic however, proved to he difficult at the Pavlov workshop that archaeology, there is the extra danger of thinking in dealt with the period from .W,(XX) to 2().(XX) years bp. Ideological sequences. As (iambic and Roebroeks (1999) Despite these explicit goals and an awareness of the 78 HUNTERS OF THE GOLDEN AOE problems just mentioned, various participants commented Belter-Cohen and Hovers (1992) compared interpretations of upon the striking differences in the approach to the Natufian burials with interpretations of the controversial archaeology of that period as compared with the workshops Levantine mousterian interments. The description of the on earlier periods. In dealing with the Lower and Middle common Natufian burial is identical to that of many of the Palaeolithic, a highly critical approach prevailed in which, mousterian inhumations, but nevertheless Nalufian burials for instance, hearths and dwelling structures were concepts to are generally seen as intentional, while Middle Palaeolithic be applied only after a careful scrutiny of the data. Similarly, burials are given differential treatment and are hotly debated. there was also a kind of 'double standard' with regard to the Within the group of Levantine Middle Palaeolithic burials, association of taunal remains and stone artefacts: at earlier the anatomically modern Qal'/eh/Skhul hominids have been sites, the actual degree and type of interaction between credited with some symbolic behaviour, e.g., intentional humans and animals had to be convincingly demonstrated burial, whereas Neanderthal skeletons in comparable settings time and time again, whereas in the context of modern are not seen as reflecting mortuary practices. Belfer-Cohen humans, such critical examinations seemed less important and Hovers conclude that there is a clear bias against Middle- and interpretations of stones and bones flowed more freely in Palaeolithic hominids other than //. ,«//>/V/i\ W//WH.V. They terms of hunters and their prey (Mussi and Roebroeks 1996). are treated as poor relations who did not survive and "must We will now give a few more examples of double- therefore have been inferior to their // \/r//.\ w//«V/j.v standard operations, then move to a general discussion and a contemporaries" (1992: 470). tentative explanation of what may be at stake here. We will end with some suggestions on how to deal with such double- 2.2 REPI IIIIYI BI.HAVIOUR standard approaches. In the discussion on behavioural differences between 'ancients' and •moderns', a part of the debate has focused on 2. Double standards at work differences in the way both 'groups' operated in their Most readers are aware of examples of double standards in their respective landscapes, among other things, the distances over own field of expertise. We shall present four cases here: four which raw materials were transported (Roebroeks et al. very specific ones, and a more general one. which perhaps 1988; Stringer and Gamble 1993), the spatial organisation on touches most clearly on what might be the core issue here. the site-level (Gamble 1986; Pettitt 1997; Kolen 1999). and differences in the geographical expansion of ancients and 2.1 GRAVI: SHORTCOMINGS moderns. In general, these inferred differences have been In a paper entitled "Grave Shortcomings", Robert Gargett summarised and explained in terms of Binford's ( 1987) ( 19X9) gave a critical review of the evidence for intentional distinction between a niche and a cultural geography: "We burial by Neanderthals. The criteria he developed to recognise can imagine two very different types of organi/ed land use. purposeful interment - a new stratum, i.e., a well-defined One articulates a cultural geography with an environmental grave fill and grave walls with visible contact between the fill geography; the other simply creates an archaeological and the overlying sediments - removed intentional burying landscape in direct response to the structure of the natural entirely from the Neanderthal behavioural repertoire. But as geography as it differentially offers "need servicing" and Paola Villa (1989) pointed out, if this criterion was applied as conditions the behavior of an animal species" (1987: 18). strictly to the Upper Palaeolithic evidence, 22 out of 28 Whereas modern human populations construct environments Upper Palaeolithic burials in France and Italy would not (residences, settlements, etc.) and operate out of "camps" classify as burials, including the double burial at the Grölte into an environment, pre-modern archaeological landscapes des Enfants and the Grotte Paglicci burial of a boy covered were probably generated episodically, in the same way many with ochre. That did not bother Gargett too much ("so be animals "move within their natural environments among the it"); from the beginning he argued that in contrast to the places where they may obtain the resources essential to their Middle Palaeolithic evidence, in the majority of Upper Palae- biological success. We commonly say that, although animal olithic cases the inference of deliberate mortuary interment is behavior is not organized culturally, nevertheless it is not probably well founded. In the same vein, Antonio Gilman random in an environment. It produces a pattern of pointed out in his comments on the paper that it is apparent differential placement, differentiation of behavior, and that the critical procedures Gargett used to rightly cast doubt intensity of use within a habitat, resulting in a "niche on textbook burials such as Shanidar and La Chapelle-aux- geography"" (1987: 18). While this is certainly a valuable Saints would sweep away the evidence from virtually all pre- distinction, its application to concrete archaeological material 1960 excavations tor periods prior to the Neolithic. is not unprohlematic and, in some cases, very obviously In an examination of the attitudes to the problem of steered by expectations. A good example is furnished by two Middle Palaeolithic burials found in current research, recent papers, one on intrasite spatial data from Middle 79 Wil KOI MKOI'KS AND RAYMOND CORBliY PLRIODISATIONS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS
Palaeolithic silos (Pettitt 1997) and the other on the Paviland was simply a locii.\ conxi't nitus whose mythical archaeology of Paviland Cave. Wales, and, more specifically. significance did not depend upon its topographical situation on the 'Red Lady' burial there (Aldhouse-Green and Petlitt or features. In either case, this model may explain the 1998). evidence for repeated visits, perhaps episodes of pilgrimage, In his review of Middle Palaeolithic intra-siie spatial data, to the site which seem to have continued until .1 time when which includes the Kehara (Israel) Middle Palaeolithic burial. the British isles were otherwise virtually depopulated..." Pettitt stresses that most Middle Palaeolithic occupation (Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt 1998: 768). hon/ons are palimpsests and that repetition is a striking Who would seriously think ol invoking folk memory and character ol the pre-moilern archaeological record: "...it ceremonial pilgrimage in interpreting multi-level Middle would seem that the repetition observable in other areas of Palaeolithic sites, oxen such spectacular 'landmark' sites as Neanderthal behaviour, e.g. lithic technology, which has La Cotte de St. Brélade (Jersey) or Kehara (Israel) \\ith its been described as archaic and repetitive... is equally well-documented burial? Poorly documented modern human observable in their use of space. Where such repetition is remains can become the relics of gravettian pilgrimages to a observable within the discrete geological hon/on. I interpret nioin \tirru. while repetition in a Middle Palaeolithic context this as reflecting behaviour that was both limited in is interpreted as habitual, and animal-like in nature. variability and liahitual in nature... The Neanderthal organization of space, where observable, seems to have been 23 PALAEOLITHIC 'DWELLING STRUCTURES' along very simple lines, which cannot be distinguished from Despite the large number of fanciful reconstruction drawings that of non-human carnivores" (Pettitt 1997: 219). of palaeolithic huts we encounter in archaeology textbooks In 1823, Paviland Cave (Wales) yielded lossil human e.g.. the ones on the southern French beach of Terra Amata remains stained in red ochre, which became known as the most scholars would argue that structural features such as 'Red Lady of Paviland'. Nowadays we know th.it the bones constructed hearths or the remains of 'dwellings' are very belonged to a young adult male, who has a radiocarbon age rare or even completely absent in the Lower and Middle ofc. 26,(MX) bp (Aldhotise-Cireen and Pettitt 1998). The new Palaeolithic record. Well-known exceptions such as the AMS dates for Paviland Cave also show that after the burial mammoth bone piles uncovered at Molodova are all of the 'Red Lady', bnel visits to the cave occurred between relatively late, dating from the last glacial, and even these 25,(XK)-2I,(XH> bp. Apart from the gravettian presence, there later ones are in no way convincing as remains of former is evidence of an aurignacian phase of settlement c. 29.500- dwellings (cf. Stringer and Gamble 1993; Kolen 1999). 28,000 bp. Before these dates became available, typology Many archaeologists hold that, in contrast to the Lower and was the only tool to interpret the Paviland sequence, as the Middle Palaeolithic, the situation in 'the' Upper Palaeolithic 19th and early 20th century excavations yielded only poor was significantly different, as exemplified by Paul Mellars' documentation. Yet. despite the absence of solid (1996) treatment of the subject: "There can be no doubt that stratigraphical and spatial data on the skeleton, the many Upper Palaeolithic sites show far clearer and more ceremonial burial character of the human remains is simply sharply defined evidence for deliberate living structures than taken for granted. It is from that point of departure that a anything so tar documented from Middle Palaeolithic sites". 'cultural geography' speculation starts which is strongly at Furthermore, there is "evidence for some kind of clearly otlds with the critical treatment of the Middle Palaeolithic structured, preconceived form in the design and construction record by Pettitt, one of the authors of the Paviland Ca\c of many Upper Palaeolithic living structures" and "one of article. Now the numinosity of the site "- a sensation the most striking features of many documented Upper experienced by many at the present day who are able - at Palaeolithic settlements is the way in which the principal low tide - to view the cave as its prehistorie occupants did, areas of occupation can usualls be seen to he centred around
from below on the plain" (1998: 767) is brought into the one major and centrally located hearth" (Mellars I W(,: 3|3). debate. Next the observation that natural landmarks, Richard Klein (1989: 31?) is even more pertinent: "Well- including mountains or hills, were often perceived as sacred excavated Upper Palaeolithic sites almost always contain or imbued with mythical importance in the ancient and pre- unambiguous and often spectacular évidence ol structures, in industrial world (1998: 767) takes us to the coincidence of the form of artificially excavated depressions and pits, lull and cave at Paviland and to the idea ol the inoiif ,w/<;<; patterned arrangements of large bones or stones, postholes, (sic) as a ladder between l-arth and Heaven in Asiatic or some combination of these." shamanism: "The concept of the site as a sacred hill and/or These quotes give, we believe, a fair representation of the cave implies that it was a well-established landmark, perhaps common view of Upper Palaeolithic on-site patterns as reflecting folk memory of an earlier phase of ancestral, compared to earlier ones. It is significant that various probably aurignacian settlement. It may be. indeed, that authors, including Mellars. have suggested that even the HUNTERS 01 Till' (.01.1)1 N A(,l, appearance of châtelperronian structures in the Grotte du matched only by its vagueness: the anatomically modern Renne at Arcy, occurring "long after the Moderns arrived in human. As various scholars have argued, the phrase central Europe and the Iberian peninsula", was an "archaic" 'anatomically modern' has no clear or established meaning, behavioural novelty "influenced by the Moderns... not and is basically "a scientific sounding way of evading the developed independently by the Neanderthals" (Stringer and fact that there is no agreement on the list and distribution of Gamble 1993: 200-201 ; for a discussion of other inferred the defining autapomorphies of the human species" copying of 'modern' material culture by the Châtelperroni- (Cartmill 1999). Anatomically modern humans, 'people like atis. see D'Errico et al. 1998). However, in an important us', are supposed to possess all the characteristics essential reappraisal of Middle Palaeolithic 'dwelling structures' and to our species, with the capacity for a complex symbolic other features, Jan Kolen ( 1999) has recently shown that language being a major attribute. What makes the those who adhere to such an imitation scenario tend to forget Gravettians different from westerners at the end of the 2()th that there are no known contemporary prototypes whatsoever century is not a matter of innate capacities, that is. biological from which the Neanderthals could have copied. In fact, with endowment, but simply some 25,000 years of history and regard to the spatio-temporal collapse image of Upper cultural development. The differences between Australop- Palaeolithic use of space formulated by Mellars. Kolen ithecus. Homo erectus. and the Neanderthals, however, argues that the European Aurignacian is remarkably devoid concern manipulative abilities, structure of the brain, etc. In of on-site structures, all the more so if we evaluate the few short, they fall in the domain of biological evolution. In Tim claims according to the same critical standards he applied to Ingold's view, "from the moment when "modern human" Lower and Middle Palaeolithic 'habitation structures'. Not capacities were established, technology "took off", only are supposed dwellings from early 'modern' sites as following a historical trajectory of its own, thenceforth ambiguous as the ones from the Middle Palaeolithic, even effectively decoupled from the process of evolution" (Ingold constructed hearths are quite rare until later in the Upper 1995: 243). But in what sense, Ingold asks, did the Palaeolithic, and in fact, while unquestionable Upper (presumed) failure of Neanderthals or earlier hominids to Palaeolithic dwellings and hut constructions are known from speak differ from the Upper Palacolithics' failure lo read and gravettian contexts, as shown in this volume, most date from write as we do? Why is biology invoked in the first case and after the Last Glacial Maximum (Kolen 1999). unfulfilled historical conditions in the second'? "If Cro- Magnon Man, had he been brought up in the twentieth 2.4 ANCIKNÏ century, could have mastered the skills of literacy, why Another clear example of a double standard can be found in should not lloina erectus, had he been brought up in the the way lithic assemblages from the Lower and Middle Palae- Upper Palaeolithic, have mastered language.'" (Ingold 1995: olithic are often treated as opposed to those from the Upper 245-246). Palaeolithic. While the uniformity of pre-modern assemblages with little variation is usually treated as a reflection of a 'tool- 3. What's at stake? assisted' rather primitive behaviour (cf. Binford 1989; Mithen The latter case, that of the anatomically modern humans, 1996), comparable patterns in the Upper Palaeolithic can be gives an indication of why such double standards are applied. interpreted in a diametrically opposed way. "Despite its The implicit starting assumption often seems to be that there remoteness and ecological difference with other Aurignacian is a kind of 'in-group' of 'anatomically modern' actors, who sites," Chilardi et al. (1996: 562) write on the aurignacian site possess all ihe 'essentially human' capacities considered of Fontana Nuova in Sicily, "the lithic assemblage shows no characteristic of 'people like us', even when the archaeologi- fundamental variance from sites many kilometres away. This cal record shows no traces of these competences, i.e., when suggests that Aurignacian assemblages reflect the ability of these interred competences are not manifested. The older human groups to adapt to a variety of ecological situations, 'out-group' is defined in a negative way, as not yet being without substantially altering the technological, typological capable of doing what the 'in-group' is supposed to be and, probably, functional characteristics of stone tools". In the capable of. To paraphrase in juridical terms, one could say case of earlier hominids, uniformity through various ecological that the 'moderns' are capable until proven incapable, zones is usually seen as a manifestation of a lack of flexibility, whereas the attitude of many scholars towards the 'ancients' as an expression of "cognitive constraints" (Mithen 1996: 131- can be summarised as incapable, until proven capable. These 132), and in terms of an almost biological role of stone tools. implicit but germane assumptions keep the building blocks of our interpretive frameworks and our archaeological scenarios 2.5 'ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS' nice and tidy, and fit very well in a discipline which has The last two decades have witnessed the rise of a concept always predominantly been focused on the emergence of (and a key actor) in palaeoanthropology whose impact is modern humans. 81 WIL ROEBROEKS AND RAYMOND CORBEY - PERIODISAT1ONS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS
Matt Cartmill (1990; in press) has dealt extensively with The case is the following. In the second half of the 19th the focus on (modem) human uniqueness in the field of century, art mobilier was seen as an expression of an palaeoanthropology. His basic thesis in the 1990 article is 'archaic', 'primitive' style of cognitive functioning (Richard that palaeoanthropology (and one has to include palaeolithic- 1993). Early interpreters of small figurative objects from the archaeology here) has suffered from its persistent Upper Palaeolithic like Edouard Piette (1874. 1875) and anthropocentric approach and its constant efforts to police Gabriel De Mortillet (1879. 1883) postulated that these the human-animal boundary. For this policing, human artefacts mechanically reproduced nature as perceived with essentials are defined - such as upright posture, large brains, the senses - a naive realism, without composition, technology, and language - which are thought to be perspective, or indeed any traces of symbolism or abstract characteristic of humans and which separate them trom thought. A few typical quotes from that period illustrate the animals. The history of palaeoanthropology shows that these basic attitude: the Upper Palaeolithics were supposed to have characteristics are redefined every time they do not manage an "esprit leger", an "absence de symbolisme", they lacked to keep animals out. to such a degree that, for example in the "reflexion et prévoyance", were only capable of imitation, case of the 'uniquely human' capacity for language, "...what and their art was one "ne île l'instant, non d'une réflexion we mean by "language" is whatever substantiates the esthétique". This kind of thinking initially stood in the way judgment that nonhuman animals are unable to talk" ( 1990: of the acceptance of the 'high art' from the caves, e.g., 184). Altamira. In fact, Upper Palaeolithic foragers were Following Cartmill (in press), one could say that interpreted in very much the same way as Middle palaeolithic archaeologists tend to approach the past in terms Palaeolithic Neanderthal foragers are now interpreted by of a mixture of descriptive (focused on essentials, as many, mostly Anglo-Saxon, authors. They were assumed, to mentioned above) and historical (genealogy, evolutionary put it in modern scientific idiom, not to have entered the descent) classification, where from a certain point in time domain of 'cognitive and behavioural modernity', and to be onwards, all historical descendants are supposed to possess unable to perform the complex actions we see later on. all the autapomorphies (descriptive essentials) characteristic which presuppose the ability to abstract and organise ol 'people like us'. The (Irave Shortcomings case mentioned mentally. above again illustrates this nicely, when Gargett (1989: 188) We have, of course, to situate this attitude within what states that burial, "clearly, is a derived characteristic and one Herbert Kühn (1976) has called the dominant framework of which, on the evidence, is manifested only by Upper materialistic philosophy and the concomitant complete Palaeolithic, morphologically modern // \ Gustave Chauvet (1903) and Salomon Reinach (1903) now However, on another level, double standards are quite started to stress the considerable complexity of newly revealing with respect to the character of our discipline, with discovered Upper Palaeolithic graves and cave paintings, ils lendency towards dichotomies, essentials, boundaries, and which they compared to similar practices among discontinuities. The way out of a double-standard contemporary 'primitives'. Verneau ( 1906) has given a good archaeology might be to get rid of the top-down approach review of the history of the interpretation of the Grimaldi with modern humans as a starting point for analysis and to burials (intentional burials or not. Palaeolithic or Neolithic, opt for a continuity approach which works from the bottom etc.). and reading his Resume hi references Aldhouse-Green, S. I99X Paviland cave: contexluali/.mg the 'Red Lady', Antiquity 72, 756-772. P. Pettilt Belter-Cohen, A., 1992 In the Rye of the Beholder: MouMcrian and Natufian Burials in the Levant, ('iim'iil E. Hovers Anthropoid^ 33. 463-471. Binford, L.R. 1987 Searching for Camps and Missing the Evidence? Another Look ,il the Lower Paleolithic. In: O. Softer (ed.), lite I'leistoi cue Old World. Regional Perspectives, 17-31, New York/ London: Plenum Press 1989 Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: an organizational approach. In: E. Trinkaus (ed.). The Hmergeni e of Modern llii»iiui\ liioiiiltiiru/ Adaptation} in lite I.diet I'leisloi ene. 18-41, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hordes, F., 1967 I .a stratigraphie du gisement du Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et ses implications. Hulletni île lu J. Labrot Soi télé Préhistorique I IH/K une I.Indes et Travaux 64, 15-28. ('artailhac, E IH96 Lu i'Kin: e préhistorique. 2me Edition, Paris. 1902 Les cavernes ornées de dessins. La droite d'Altamira, Espagne, Mea culpa d'un sceptique. L'Anthropolof-ie 13, 348-354. Cartmill, M. 1990 Human uniqueness and theoretical content in paleoanthropology. Inlei minimal .//HI/nul of Pnmalology 11, 173-192. in press Taxonomie revolutions and the animal-human boundary. In: R. Corbey and W. Rocbroeks (eds). \nid\inv Human Origins l)i\i iplinar\ Ilistoi \ und l-.pistemoloxy. Amsterdam: AUP. Chauvet, G. 1901 Note sur l'art primitif. Exlr. de bulletin de lu Soi iele un heologique i'! historique de lu Charente. Angoulême. Chilardi, S., 1996 Fontana Nuova dl Ragusa (Sicily, Italy): southernmost Aurignacian site in Europe. Annquit\ D.W. Frayer, 70, 553-563 P. Gioia, R. Matxhiarelli. M. Mussi ('onkey, M.W. 1985 Ritual communication, social elaboration and the variable trajectories of Paleolithic material culture. In: T. Price and J.A. Brown (eds). The Emerveille oj'Cii/iiirul ('oniple\itv, 299-323, Orlando: Academic Press. D'Errico, F., 1998 Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its l /ilhüo, Interpretation, Current Anthropology 39, 1-44. M. Julien, D. Baffler, J. Pelegrin De Mortillet, G. 1879 Sur l'origine des animaux domestiques. Matériaux 2me série 10, 227-234. 1883 Le Préhistorique, Antiquité de l'homme. Paris: C. Reinwald. 1900 Le Préhistorique. Antiquité de l'homme, 3me Édition. Paris: C. Reinwald. WH. ROHHROLKs AND RAYMOND CORBHY - PI-RIODISATIONS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS (iambic. C.S. I9S(> T/H' l'aliieolitliic Settlement of i'.urope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gamble. C.S., 1999 The Middle Palaeolithic: a poinl of inflection. In: W. Rocbroeks and C. Gamble (edM. The W. Roebrocks Middle 1'alaeoliiliic Occupation oj l.nrope. 3-21. Leiden: Leiden University. Gargelt, R. 1989 Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neanderthal burial. Current Anthropology- 30. 157-1 90. Hahn..!.. 1985 Blade Technology in the Anrignacian and Gravettian of Geisscnklosterle Cave. South« est L.R. Owen Germany. World Archaeology 17. (SI -75. Ingold, T. 1995 'People like us': The Concept of the Anatomically Modern Human. In: R. Corbey and B. Theunissen (eds). Ape. M King. M.J. 1994 Evolutionism, essenlialism. and an evolutionary perspective on language: nun ing beyond a human standard. Language Hint Communication 14. 1-13. Klein, R. 1989 I he Human Career. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kolen. J. 1999 Hominids without homes. On the nature of Middle Palaeolithic settlement in Europe. In: W. Roehroeks and C. Gamble (eds), I'lie Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe. I eiden: Leiden University Kühn. H. 1976 GtxhiclUe der VorgescMichttforschu/lg, Berlin and Neu York: Walter de Gruyter. Leo, R.B. 1992 Art. Science or Politics? The Crisis in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. American 94. 31-54. Lindly. J.M., 1990 Symbolism and modem human origins. Current Anlliropolog\ 31. 233-261. O.A. Clark Mellars. P. 190(1 The Neanderthal l.egac\. An Archaeological I'erxpective /rain \Vcxtcrn l-'tirope. Princeton: Princeton I niversily Press. 1999 The Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40. 341-350. Mithen, S. 1996 The l'rehi\lor\ of the Mind: A Scan li for the Orii>in.\ »I Art. Kelitiion and Science. London: Thames and Hudson Mussi. M.. 1996 The Big Mosaic. Current .\nthropolog\- 37. 697-699. W. Roehroeks Myers. F. 1988 Critical trends in the study of hunter-gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology 17. 261-282. Pettitt. P.B. 1997 High resolution Neanderthals? Interpreting Middle Palaeolithic intrasile spatial data. Woild Archaeology 29. 208-224. Piette. E. 1874 La droite de Gourdan petulant Page du renne. Matériau \ 2me serie 5. 53-79. 1875 Sur de nouvelles touilles dans la grotte de Gourdan. Kiillelin de lu Société d'Anthropologie de l'aris 2me série 10. 279-296. Reinach, S. 1903 L'art et la magie à propos des peintures et des gravures de l'âge du renne. /.'Anthropologie 14, 257-266. Richard. N. 1993 De l'art ludique à l'art magique. Interprétations de l'art pariétal au XIXe siècle. Bulletin de la Société /'ic/iiMoiK/nc I rancaixc 90. 60-68. 86 HUNTERS ()!• TUI«. CiOI.DliN AGE Roehroeks. W.. 1988 Planning deplh. anticipation and the organi/ation of Middle Palaeolithic technology: the J. Kolen, 'archaic natives' meet 'Eve's descendants', ficlinium 28, 17- 34. E. Rensink Soffer, O.. 1990 The World at 18 000 BP. Vol. I: Hif>h Latitudes. London: Unwin Hyman. C. Gamble (eds) Stiles. M. 1992 The hunter-gatherer 'revisionist' debate, An/iini/>olo^\' Today H(2), 13-17. Stringer, C., 1993 In Search of the Ncamlerthiilx. London: Thames and Hudson. C. Gamble Verneau, R. 1906 /.o (irotte^ ill' (inniiildi (Boouué-Roiiué) Tonic //-/''«vnrif/r / Anthropologtt. Monaco: Imprimerie de Monaco. Villa, F. I9H9 On the evidence for Neanderthal burial, Curn'nl Anihiopolo^v 30, 324-326. Wolf. E.R. 1982 Europe und the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wil Roebroeks and Raymond Corbey Faculty of Archaeology Leiden University P.O. Box 9515 2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands