DOCSLIB.ORG

PDF (Volume 2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Durham E-Theses Population movements into Europe during the Pleistocene: a comparative approach Grimshaw, Lucinda Celia How to cite: Grimshaw, Lucinda Celia (2004) Population movements into Europe during the Pleistocene: a comparative approach, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3045/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Population movements into Europe during the Pleistocene: a comparative approach. Lucinda Celia Grimshaw Ph.D. Thesis University of Durham Department of Archaeology • 2004 Volume Two of Two Volumes The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which It was submitted. No quotation from It, or Information derived from It may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from It should be acknowledged . • I 0 Table of Contents CHAPTER 8: TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PATTERNS IN THE AURIGNACIAN DATA ........................................................... , ........................... 389 THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC DATA AND ANALYSIS .................................................. 389 WHEN DID THE AURIGNACIAN APPEAR IN EUROPE? .............................................. 390 The Aurignacian temporal data ...................................................................... 390 Dating Aurignacian presence . ........................................................................ 392 WHERE WAS THE AURIGNACIAN PRESENT IN EUROPE? ......................................... 394 The Aurignacian spatial data .......................................................................... 394 Spatial patterning in Aurignacian presence. .................................................. .406 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 41 0 CHAPTER 9: PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF MOVEMENT OF THE AURIGNACIAN ................................ 411 WHAT LANDSCAPES WERE OCCUPIED BY AURIGNACIAN GROUPS? ........................ .411 The Aurignacian landscape data ..................................................................... 411 Landscapes occupied by Aurignacian groups .................................................. 414 WHAT ENVIRONMENTS WERE OCCUPIED BY AURIGNACIAN GROUPS? ................... .417 The Aurignacian environmental data . ............................................................ .417 Environments occupied by the Aurignacian. ................................................... 420 • Sequence of occupation of the environmental types ................................... .420 Habitat preferences ..................................................................................... 421 OIS 3 FAUNAL DATA ........................................................................................... 425 The first appearance dates and last appearance dates of Europeanfauna...... .426 The types of species present in Aurignacian sites ........................................... .426 The genera present in Aurignacian and faunal sites ........................................ 427 THE ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF AURIGNACIAN MOVEMENT ................................... 429 Faunal turnover. ............................................................................................. 429 Aurignacian interactions with the faunal community...................................... .430 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 434 CHAPTER 10 : BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED WITH MOVEMENT DURING THE AURIGNACIAN ......................................................................................... 435 DID AURIGNACIAN GROUPS EXPLORE EUROPE BEFORE SETTLEMENT? .................. .435 What size population was involved in the Aurignacian movement into Europe? ....................................................................................................................... 436 The relationship between assemblage size and exploration in the Aurignacian . ....................................................................................................................... 437 How were the Aurignacian groups distributed across Europe? ...................... .438 • The relationship between the spatial patterning of the assemblage sizes and exploration in the Aurignacian. ...................................................................... 447 How far were Aurignacian groups transporting raw materials? .................... .449 The relationship between raw material transfers and exploration in the Aurignacian.................................................................................................... 450 How many faunal species did Aurignacian groups utilise ?.............................. 450 The relationship between faunal utilisation level and exploration during the Aurignacian.................................................................................................... 451 a How many hearths were present in Aurignacian sites? .................................. .452 The relationship between the numbers of hearths at Aurignacian sites and exploration . .................................................................................................... 453 How many Aurignacian sites contained structures? ........................................ 454 The relationship between the presence of structures and exploration in the Aurignacian.................................................................................................... 455 Did exploration precede settlement? ............................................................... 455 AURIGNACIAN ARTEFACTS ................................................................................... 457 Is there evidence of patterning in Aurignacian artefacts over time? ............... .457 The relationship between the temporal patterns of Aurignacian artefacts and movement. ...................................................................................................... 470 Are there spatial patterns in the distribution of Aurignacian artefacts? ......... .473 The relationship between the spatial patterning of Aurignacian artefacts and movement. ...................................................................................................... 476 What factors may have influenced the nature of Aurignacian assemblages? .. .479 The impact of the environment and assemblage size on the artefacts represented in Aurignacian assemblages . .......................................................................... 481 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 482 CHAPTER U. : CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC AND AURIGNACIAN DATA AND THE MODELS OF MOVEMENT........... 484 THE SIMILARITIES AND DlFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MOVEMENTS DURING THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC AND THE AURIGNACIAN ............................................................... .484 • THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODELS ......................................................................... .486 Gamble's lnodel.............................................................................................. 486 The regional environment model. ............................................................... .486 Local hominid networks and social landscapes .......................................... .488 Foley's model. ................................................................................................ 489 Ecological predictions ................................................................................. 489 Archaeological predictions ......................................................................... .489 Rolland's model.............................................................................................. 491 Ecological predictions ................................................................................ .491 Archaeological predictions ......................................................................... .492 Carbonell's model. ......................................................................................... 493 The Lower Palaeolithic .............................................................................. .493 The Aurignacian ......................................................................................... 495 THE APPLICABILITY OF THE INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK ...................................... .495 The biological models ..................................................................................... 496 Biological invasions .................................................................................... 496 Jump dispersal. ..........................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Hidden Images in Atxurra Cave (Northern Spain) a New Proposal for Visibility Analyses of Palaeolithic Rock Art in Subterranean

    Hidden Images in Atxurra Cave (Northern Spain) a New Proposal for Visibility Analyses of Palaeolithic Rock Art in Subterranean

    Quaternary International 566-567 (2020) 163–170 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint Hidden images in Atxurra Cave (Northern Spain): A new proposal for visibility analyses of Palaeolithic rock art in subterranean environments T Iñaki Intxaurbea,d, Olivia Riverob,Ma Ángeles Medina-Alcaidec, Martín Arriolabengoad, Joseba Ríos-Garaizare, Sergio Salazarb, Juan Francisco Ruiz-Lópezf, Paula Ortega-Martínezg, ∗ Diego Garatea, a Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria (IIIPC, Gobierno de Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander). Edificio Interfacultativo, Avda. Los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain b Dpto. Prehistoria, Historia Antigua y Arqueología, Universidad de Salamanca, 37008, Salamanca, Spain c Dpto. Historia, Facultad de Letras, Universidad de Córdoba, 14071, Córdoba, Spain d Dpto. Mineralogía y Petrología. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea/Universidad del País Vasco, 48940, Leioa, Spain e Archaeology Program, Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH), Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca 3, 09002, Burgos, Spain f Dpto. de Historia. Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha, 16001, Cuenca, Spain g Independent Researcher ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Visibility has been the subject of study in Palaeolithic rock art research ever since the discovery of Altamira Cave Cave art in 1879. Nevertheless, until now, the different approaches have been based on subjective assessments, due to Viewshed computational limitations for a more objective methodology. Nowadays, cutting-edge technologies such as GIS Archaeological context allow us to address spatial studies in caves and overcome their geomorphologically complex and closed char- Cave geomorphology acteristics. Here we describe an innovative methodology that uses computing tools available to any researcher to GIS study the viewsheds of the graphic units in decorated caves.
  • An Early Modern Human from the Pes¸Tera Cu Oase, Romania

    An Early Modern Human from the Pes¸Tera Cu Oase, Romania

    An early modern human from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, Romania Erik Trinkaus*†, Oana Moldovan‡,S¸ tefan Milota§, Adrian Bıˆlga˘r¶, Laurent¸iu Sarcina§, Sheela Athreyaʈ, Shara E. Bailey**, Ricardo Rodrigo††, Gherase Mircea§, Thomas Higham‡‡, Christopher Bronk Ramsey‡‡, and Johannes van der Plicht§§ *Department of Anthropology, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130; ‡Institutul de Speologie ‘‘Emil Racovit¸a˘ ,’’ Clinicilor 5, P.O. Box 58, 3400 Cluj, Romania; §Pro Acva Grup, Strada˘Surduc 1, 1900 Timis¸oara, Romania; ¶Strada˘Decebal 1, 1500 Drobeta Turnu Severin, Romania; ʈDepartment of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843; **Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, 2110 G Street, Washington, DC 20052; ††Centro Nacional da Arqueologia Na´utica e Subaqua´tica, Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Avenida da India 136, 1300 Lisboa, Portugal; ‡‡Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, United Kingdom; and §§Centrum voor Isotopen Onderzoek, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, August 8, 2003 The 2002 discovery of a robust modern human mandible in the Pes¸tera cu Oase, southwestern Romania, provides evidence of early modern humans in the lower Danubian Corridor. Directly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (14C)-dated to 34,000– 36,000 14C years B.P., the Oase 1 mandible is the oldest definite early modern human specimen in Europe and provides perspec- tives on the emergence and evolution of early modern humans in the northwestern Old World. The moderately long Oase 1 mandi- ble exhibits a prominent tuber symphyseos and overall proportions that place it close to earlier Upper Paleolithic European specimens.
  • Bibliography

    Bibliography

    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
  • Favorite Caching

    Favorite Caching

    24 Old Nessebar Tour GC2D1MG by kreo_74 16 Bulgaria Gold TB Hotel GC1GCED by IceFireForce 10 The Abandoned Sea Train Tunnel GC1JDRJ by Nord Wolf / Maintained by IceFireForce 9 Orthodox Mesembria GCXTJD by Islandia Geomatics 8 Top of the Balkans GCQXY4 by freddy 6 Bobby's cache GC1RH4D by bibobg 5 Emona GC1N8P7 by tsetsoradev, Mimi, Kami 5 Cherven Fortress GCZRJW by DarinD and Marcus in Kerry 4 Krushuna Waterfalls GC30R0K by anticuss 4 Krushuna Waterfalls #3 GC30P50 by anticuss & dkgsoft 4 The Balkan Mountains - Cape Emine GC2H2DW by ArnorsErbe 4 Ivanovo Rock Churches GC1YKTB by dkgsoft 4 One afternoon with science GC1QN8C by ludd42 4 Kaliakra Cape GC1MY36 by Tsetsoradev, Mimi, Kami 4 Pirin - Koncheto (The Horse) GC1G3K6 by Veni & Emil 4 Night in the Woods GC1CA2A by Stanislav 3 Creative #1 GC30JWH by anticuss 3 Suhi pech GC2TWH1 by bobi_4 3 The oldest tree in Bulgaria GC2EPGD by jen0andy 3 The Tramways of Sofia GC1FJYJ by IceFireForce 3 Yaila_artcache GC1F2M5 by xoxama 3 The Devetashka Cave GC1C0PY by IceFireForce & Alma 3 Bansko Cache GC17PNC by UMa & Umi 3 Cherni Vrah GCW17J by stm 2 Sveti Vlas - Stara Planina GC31J2T by Hedia 2 Krushuna Waterfalls #2 GC30P4H by anticuss & dkgsoft 2 Sunny beach sand dunes GC304KE by MatoBo 2 Ruse Mystery #5 - Mega Mall Ruse GC2ZAX by anticuss 2 Sv. Konstantin i Elena GC2MYPD by v44 2 Starosel Tracian Cult Complex GC2JDBG by mollov 2 Regina Maria GC2B1VA by amretired 2 Stoilovo waterfall GC28A66 by didorama , tedirama 2 Kukerite GC27GAZ by uzo with kamen_benz and sas 2 Reserve Ropotamo GC264HD by didorama
  • Tinamiformes – Falconiformes

    Tinamiformes – Falconiformes

    LIST OF THE 2,008 BIRD SPECIES (WITH SCIENTIFIC AND ENGLISH NAMES) KNOWN FROM THE A.O.U. CHECK-LIST AREA. Notes: "(A)" = accidental/casualin A.O.U. area; "(H)" -- recordedin A.O.U. area only from Hawaii; "(I)" = introducedinto A.O.U. area; "(N)" = has not bred in A.O.U. area but occursregularly as nonbreedingvisitor; "?" precedingname = extinct. TINAMIFORMES TINAMIDAE Tinamus major Great Tinamou. Nothocercusbonapartei Highland Tinamou. Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou. Crypturelluscinnamomeus Thicket Tinamou. Crypturellusboucardi Slaty-breastedTinamou. Crypturellus kerriae Choco Tinamou. GAVIIFORMES GAVIIDAE Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon. Gavia arctica Arctic Loon. Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon. Gavia immer Common Loon. Gavia adamsii Yellow-billed Loon. PODICIPEDIFORMES PODICIPEDIDAE Tachybaptusdominicus Least Grebe. Podilymbuspodiceps Pied-billed Grebe. ?Podilymbusgigas Atitlan Grebe. Podicepsauritus Horned Grebe. Podicepsgrisegena Red-neckedGrebe. Podicepsnigricollis Eared Grebe. Aechmophorusoccidentalis Western Grebe. Aechmophorusclarkii Clark's Grebe. PROCELLARIIFORMES DIOMEDEIDAE Thalassarchechlororhynchos Yellow-nosed Albatross. (A) Thalassarchecauta Shy Albatross.(A) Thalassarchemelanophris Black-browed Albatross. (A) Phoebetriapalpebrata Light-mantled Albatross. (A) Diomedea exulans WanderingAlbatross. (A) Phoebastriaimmutabilis Laysan Albatross. Phoebastrianigripes Black-lootedAlbatross. Phoebastriaalbatrus Short-tailedAlbatross. (N) PROCELLARIIDAE Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar. Pterodroma neglecta KermadecPetrel. (A) Pterodroma
  • A CRITICAL EVALUATION of the LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD of the CHALK UPLANDS of NORTHWEST EUROPE Lesley

    A CRITICAL EVALUATION of the LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD of the CHALK UPLANDS of NORTHWEST EUROPE Lesley

    A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD OF THE CHALK UPLANDS OF NORTHWEST EUROPE The Chilterns, Pegsdon, Bedfordshire (photograph L. Blundell) Lesley Blundell UCL Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD September 2019 2 I, Lesley Blundell, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: 3 4 Abstract Our understanding of early human behaviour has always been and continues to be predicated on an archaeological record unevenly distributed in space and time. More than 80% of British Lower-Middle Palaeolithic findspots were discovered during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the majority from lowland fluvial contexts. Within the British planning process and some academic research, the resultant findspot distributions are taken at face value, with insufficient consideration of possible bias resulting from variables operating on their creation. This leads to areas of landscape outside the river valleys being considered to have only limited archaeological potential. This thesis was conceived as an attempt to analyse the findspot data of the Lower-Middle Palaeolithic record of the Chalk uplands of southeast Britain and northern France within a framework complex enough to allow bias in the formation of findspot distribution patterns and artefact preservation/discovery opportunities to be identified and scrutinised more closely. Taking a dynamic, landscape = record approach, this research explores the potential influence of geomorphology, 19th/early 20th century industrialisation and antiquarian collecting on the creation of the Lower- Middle Palaeolithic record through the opportunities created for artefact preservation and release.
  • Abstracts of Reports and Posters

    Abstracts of Reports and Posters

    Abstracts of Reports and Posters Amira Adaileh The Magdalenian site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld The open air site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in Sachsen-Anhalt, Eastern Germany. It was discov- ered in the mid 1950´s in the immediate vicinity of the famous Magdalenian site of Saaleck. Since that time, archaeologists collected over 2000 lithic artifacts during systematical surveys. The technological and typological analyses of the lithic artifacts confirmed the assignment of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld to a late Magdalenian. Furthermore, the investigation of the surface collections brought forward information about the character of this camp site, the duration of its occupation and the pattern of raw material procure- ment. The fact that Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in a region with more than 100 Magdalenian sites fostered a comparison of the lithic inventory with other Magdalenian assemblages. Thus, allowing to spec- ify the position of the Lengefeld collection within the chorological context of the Magdalenian in Eastern Germany. Jehanne Affolter, Ludovic Mevel Raw material circulation in northern french alps and Jura during lateglacial interstadial : method, new data and paleohistoric implication Since fifteen years the study of the characterization and origin of flint resources used by Magdalenian and Azilian groups in northern French Alps and Jura have received significant research work. Diverse and well distributed spatially, some of these resources were used and disseminated throughout the late Upper Paleolithic. Which changes do we observe during the Magdalenian then for the Azilian? The results of petrographic analysis and techno-economic analysis to several archaeological sites allow us to assess dia- chronic changes in economic behavior of these people and discuss the significance of these results.
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa

    The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa

    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
  • 65 X 54 154 X 109 400 X

    65 X 54 154 X 109 400 X

    65 x 54 154 x 109 400 x 163 Para intercambio o suscripción: CENTRO DE DOCUMENTACIÓN “JORDI LLORET” Y MUSEO DE LA ESPELEOLOGÍA Correspondencia: Apartado de correos 1.251 - 18080 GRANADA (España) Domicilio: Carretera Granada Dílar, 20 - 18150 GÓJAR (Granada) Correo electrónico: [email protected] http://espeleologiabibliograia.blogspot.com I.S.S.N.: 1132-1725 Depósito Legal: GR-1412-1991 Edita: Centro de Documentación “Jordi Lloret” y Museo de la Espeleología PORTADA: Banderín, chapa y folleto, de las 5as Jornadas Espeleológicas Vasco-Navarras, celebradas en Larra (Navarra) en 1906. Organizadas por el Gripo Principe de Viana. 1 OIER GOROSABEL LARRAÑAGA. Atxurra: tres siglos de descubrimientos ......... 3 GENER AYMAMI DOMINGO. Los talleres falsarios de moneda en algunas cuevas de Cataluña ................................................................................................. 21 MANUEL J. GONZÁLEZ RÍOS. Billetes de la Lotería Nacional de España, relacio- nados con las cavidades naturales y su entorno .................................................. 27 ANTONIO MORENO ROSA. Juan Alcalá-Zamora Yébenes. Priego de Córdoba (7-9-1938/29-11-2019). .................................................................................... 31 JOSÉ ENRIQUE SÁNCHEZ. José Antonio Berrocal Pérez (2-8-1950 - 22-2-2020) ..... 34 MONTSERRAT UBACH. Juan A. Bonilla Serrano. Haro (La Rioja), 12-6-1931- Burgos 12-10-2020 ........................................................................................... 36 DONACIONES .............................................................................................
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution

    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution

    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
  • Paleoanthropology Society Meeting Abstracts, Memphis, Tn, 17-18 April 2012

    Paleoanthropology Society Meeting Abstracts, Memphis, Tn, 17-18 April 2012

    PALEOANTHROPOLOGY SOCIETY MEETING ABSTRACTS, MEMPHIS, TN, 17-18 APRIL 2012 Paleolithic Foragers of the Hrazdan Gorge, Armenia Daniel Adler, Anthropology, University of Connecticut, USA B. Yeritsyan, Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography, ARMENIA K. Wilkinson, Archaeology, Winchester University, UNITED KINGDOM R. Pinhasi, Archaeology, UC Cork, IRELAND B. Gasparyan, Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography, ARMENIA For more than a century numerous archaeological sites attributed to the Middle Paleolithic have been investigated in the Southern Caucasus, but to date few have been excavated, analyzed, or dated using modern techniques. Thus only a handful of sites provide the contextual data necessary to address evolutionary questions regarding regional hominin adaptations and life-ways. This talk will consider current archaeological research in the Southern Caucasus, specifically that being conducted in the Republic of Armenia. While the relative frequency of well-studied Middle Paleolithic sites in the Southern Caucasus is low, those considered in this talk, Nor Geghi 1 (late Middle Pleistocene) and Lusakert Cave 1 (Upper Pleistocene), span a variety of environmental, temporal, and cultural contexts that provide fragmentary glimpses into what were complex and evolving patterns of subsistence, settlement, and mobility over the last ~200,000 years. While a sample of two sites is too small to attempt a serious reconstruction of Middle Paleolithic life-ways across such a vast and environmentally diverse region, the sites
  • Assessing Relationships Between Human Adaptive Responses and Ecology Via Eco-Cultural Niche Modeling William E

    Assessing Relationships Between Human Adaptive Responses and Ecology Via Eco-Cultural Niche Modeling William E

    Assessing relationships between human adaptive responses and ecology via eco-cultural niche modeling William E. Banks To cite this version: William E. Banks. Assessing relationships between human adaptive responses and ecology via eco- cultural niche modeling. Archaeology and Prehistory. Universite Bordeaux 1, 2013. hal-01840898 HAL Id: hal-01840898 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01840898 Submitted on 11 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Thèse d'Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches Université de Bordeaux 1 William E. BANKS UMR 5199 PACEA – De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie Assessing Relationships between Human Adaptive Responses and Ecology via Eco-Cultural Niche Modeling Soutenue le 14 novembre 2013 devant un jury composé de: Michel CRUCIFIX, Chargé de Cours à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Belgique Francesco D'ERRICO, Directeur de Recherche au CRNS, Talence Jacques JAUBERT, Professeur à l'Université de Bordeaux 1, Talence Rémy PETIT, Directeur de Recherche à l'INRA, Cestas Pierre SEPULCHRE, Chargé de Recherche au CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette Jean-Denis VIGNE, Directeur de Recherche au CNRS, Paris Table of Contents Summary of Past Research Introduction ..................................................................................................................