The Upper Paleolithic Revolution Author(s): Ofer Bar-Yosef Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31 (2002), pp. 363-393 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132885 Accessed: 10/04/2009 01:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2002. 31:363-93 doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085416 CopyrightQ 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved Firstpublishedonline as a Review in Advance on June 14, 2002

THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION Ofer Bar-Yosef Harvard University,Departmentof Anthropology,PeabodyMuseum,Cambridge, Massachusetts,02138; email: [email protected]

Key Words MiddlePaleolithic,modemhumans 0 Abstract The transitionfrom the Middle Paleolithicto the UpperPaleolithic is consideredone of the majorrevolutionsin the prehistoryof humankind.Explanationsof the observablearchaeologicalphenomenain Eurasia,or the lack of such evidencein otherregions,includebiologicalarguments(therole of Cro-Magnonsand the demiseof the Neanderthals),as well as cultural-technological, andenvironmental arguments.The paperdiscussesissues of terminologicalambiguities,chronological andgeographicalaspectsof change,theemergenceof whatis viewedas the arch-types of modemforagersocieties,andthehotlydebatedandloadedissueof modembehavior. Finally,the variouscausesfor the UpperPaleolithicrevolutionareenumerated,from the biologicalthroughthe technocultural thatrelieson the analogywiththe Neolithic revolution.

OPENINGREMARKS Paleolithic archaeology primarilyaddresses issues of stratigraphy,chronology, object assemblage analysis for defining culturalentities and adaptivestrategies, examinationof faunalandvegetalcomponents,andsite formationprocesses.Investigationsoften culminatein a coarse-grainedreconstructionof prehistoriclifeways withinanevolutionarycontext.Modemresearchstressesthenecessity of establishing regional sequences and theirPleistocene and Holocene paleo-ecological conditions. Radiometricdates facilitatechronologicalcorrelationsandthe integration of the findingsinto a continent-widerecord.For the UpperPaleolithic,the period underdiscussion,the combinationof radiocarbon,thermoluminescence,and electronspin resonancedatingtechniques(Wagner1998) assistedinvestigatorsduring the past decade in constructinga reasonablycoherent global chronology.Large standarddeviationsin thermoluminescenceand electronspin resonancereadings, as well as ambiguities concerning the calibrationof 14C dates at the range of 40-30 thousandyears ago (Ka) (Beck et al. 2001), make it difficult to establish the precise onset of the Upper Paleolithic revolution.However, with the current rapidprogressin the use of these techniquesone expects much betterresolutions in the next decade. The dates in this paperare quoted as B.P. uncalibratedunless otherwise specified. 0084-6570/02/1021-0363$ 14.00

363

364

BAR-YOSEF The term Upper Paleolithicperiod was coined in WesternEurope,the homelandof the disciplineof prehistoricarchaeology.Historicallyit designatedthe time when Homo sapiens sapiens, referredto as Cro-Magnons,replacedthe European Neanderthals(Bocquet-Appel & Demars 2000). The culturalmanifestationsof blade-dominatedlithic assemblagesalong with mobile and cave artwere seen as the hallmarksof the achievementsof the new people. However,even the pioneers of prehistoricresearch,when the geographicscope of their knowledge expanded beyond Europe,were in doubt,and theirqueries(Bricker1976) continueto linger with us today.These are questionsregarding(a) how long Neanderthalssurvived in the variousregions of Eurasia;(b) the identityof the bearersof the prehistoric cultures such as the Chatelperronian,Aurignacian,Gravettianand others and; (c) whetherprehistoricmigrationsor climatic changes were the main causes for the culturalchanges. These and additionaltopics are at the forefrontof current debates, such as (a) whetherthe transitionto the Upper Paleolithic was a major evolutionaryevent of global dimensions or a gradualtransition;(b) whetherthe impetus for the change was biological, cultural,or both; (c) whetherUpper Paleolithic archaeologicalmanifestationsare the markersfor the capacityfor modern culture;and (d) the point in time at which one can interpretthe archaeological documentsto indicatethe emergenceof modernbehavior. There is no way to satisfy the entire community of investigatorswhile respondingto these queries,because interpretationsof the same evidence vary.The following pages provide a survey of the particulartraitsof the Upper Paleolithic while at the same time examining possibilities for their earlieremergence. Subsequently I present an overview of the terminologicaljumble, comments on the geographic distributionof Upper Paleolithic entities, the argumentsconcerning the indicationsfor the capacity for modernbehavior,and the potentialcauses for the UpperPaleolithicrevolution.

THE NATUREAND CHARACTERISTICS REVOLUTION OF THE UPPERPALEOLITHIC The natureof the Upper Paleolithic revolutionis at the center of currentdebates (e.g., White 1982, 1997; Mellars 1989, 1996a, 2000; Straus 1996; Gibson 1996; Bar-Yosef 1998; Zilhao & D'Errico 1999; Wadley 2001; Clark 1997a,b; Klein 1995, 1999; McBrearty& Brooks 2000; Churchill& Smith 2000; Hublin 2000). The variable mosaic of archaeologicaland human fossil data sets are open to differentinterpretations.It is generallyagreedthatthe way to identify a revolution andeconomic systembeforeandafter is to comparethe overallcultural-behavioral a given point in time. This means we need to comparethe Middle Paleolithic (or MiddleStoneAge as it is knownin Africa)andthe UpperPaleolithic(orLateStone Age). These two archaeologicallydeterminedperiods are not of equal duration. Whereasthe latteris of -30 Ka duration(-40,000-10,000 years ago), the former lastedfrom ~250,000 to 40,000 or 30,000 yearsago. Hence,the comparisonshould

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

365

be limitedto the same length of time. To facilitatethe identificationof the possible roots of Upper Paleolithic behavioraland materialmanifestations,only the last 30 Ka of the late Middle Paleolithic are taken into account. It is assumed that the period prior to the revolutionmay disclose silent indicationsthat herald the ensuing changes. Several scholars view the accumulationof markersfor modem behavior as gradual during at least the Upper Pleistocene, if not since earlier times, and thereforeconclude thattherewas no revolution(e.g., McBrearty& Brooks 2000; Clark 1997a,b;Straus 1996). Othersview the new innovationsand shifts in social structureas appearingfirst within the late Middle Paleolithic (e.g., Deacon & Deacon 1999; Straus 1996, 2001). However, most researchersagree that the observed cultural and technological traits, as well as the population increase during the Upper Paleolithic, were more rapid and had distinct global effects across Eurasiaand Africa when comparedwith the slow pace of culturalchanges during the Middle Paleolithic. Not the least of the human achievements of the Upper Paleolithic were the long-distance exchanges of raw materials and precious items, the occupationof the northernlatitudesunderperiglacialconditions, the colonization of the Americas, and the first steps in coastal navigation and seafaring. To test the hypothesisthatrecordedchanges duringthe late Middle Paleolithic foretoldthe UpperPaleolithic,I proceedby presentingthe attributesof the Upper Paleolithicrevolution,as enumeratedby archaeologists,with commentsconcerning their uniqueness or their earlier appearanceduring the Middle Paleolithic. However,most of the documentedmaterialcomponents,as well as the inter-and intrasettlementpatterns,are derivedfrom Europeand western and northernAsia, whereasfewer cases areknown from the sparselyexploredeast and southAsia or sub-SaharanAfrica. Hence, the currentpicturecontains inherentbias. In spite of this, one may notice within the vast continentalarea of the northernhemisphere thatthereis a mosaic of culturalexpressions(mentionedbelow), and thatthe suite of elements often considered typical Upper Paleolithic markersas derivedfrom WesternEuropewere not sharedby all populations. The list of UpperPaleolithicmaterialcomponentsis briefly summarizedhere: 1. UpperPaleolithicassemblagesare consideredto presentsystematicproduction of prismaticblades, and only rarelyis flake productiondominant(e.g., Mellars 1989, 1996a; Kozlowski 2000; Kuhn & Bietti 2000; Rigaud 1997). An exceptionis southeastAsia, where the commonlate Pleistocene industry is the flake-dominatedHoabinian,and Tasmania,where humanoccupation began during the Upper Paleolithic. Earlierproductionof blades, mostly around250-150 Ka andduringthe lastInterglacial,was reportedfromAfrica, Europe, and Asia (Conard1990, Revillion & Tuffreau1994, Bar-Yosef& Kuhn 1999). However, blade productionin the Upper Paleolithic evolved into manufacturingbladelets and their shaping into microlithic stone tools of variousforms.

366

BAR-YOSEF 2. It was assumed that a high degree of standardizationand morphological variabilityprevailsamongtool types anddifferentiatesthe UpperPaleolithic fromthe MiddlePaleolithic(e.g., Mellars 1989). This observationwas often based on the numberof types shown on the type lists of Bordes (1961) for the Middle Paleolithiccomparedwith the one composed by de SonnevilleBordes & Perrot(1953) for the Upper Paleolithic. It should be noted that the two lists were composed on the basis of traditionalmorphologicalobservations,developedmainly duringthe firsthalf of the twentiethcenturyin Europefor reportinglocal assemblages.Numeroustypes of the Bordesian type list were later shown to be the results of resharpeningor consecutive reduction(Dibble 1995, Bisson 2000). In addition,the contentionthatMousterianassemblagesare poorerin tool types than the Aurignacianin France was recentlytestedby Grayson& Cole (1998). These authorsconcludedthat the Aurignacianindustriesaresomewhatricherthanthe Mousterian,butthis statementcould be due to the differencesin the classificationsystems. Even if this is not the case, thereis still no theoreticalframeworkthatwould enable us to evaluateand explore the meaningof such differences. Marksand associates (2001) tackledthe issue of standardizationamong the lithic tool groups,often seen to a higherdegreein the UpperthanMiddle Paleolithic industries.Their analysis, although limited to burins, demonstratedthatthereis a common level of standardizationbetweenboth Middle and UpperPaleolithicsamples. However,in spite of these observations,there is no doubt thatrelatively rapid shifts (within several centuries or a few thousandyears) in core reductionstrategiesas well as bone and antlertool design occurredduringthe UpperPaleolithicin variousregions. These shifts are interpretedas reflecting changes in style (i.e., transmittingculturalinformation)and rarely are related to functionalneeds (e.g., Barton 1997; Close 1989; Sackett 1983, 1991; Conkey& Hastorf1990; Wobst 1999; Wiessner1989; Goring-Morris et al. 1998; Jensen 1988; Geneste & Plisson 1993; Guilbaud1996). 3. The exploitationof bone and antleras raw materialsfor the productionof daily or ritual tools and objects became a common practice in the Upper Paleolithic (Mellars 1989). Whereasthese raw materialswere common in Middle Paleolithic sites they were generallynot exploited. Some proposals to view pre-UpperPaleolithicbone objects as well-made artifactswere dismissed (Villa & D'Errico 2001). The exception is the assemblages of the Howiesons Poort in Klasies River Mouth cave and in particularin Bloombos cave (Singer& Wymer1982, Henshilwood& Sealy 1997, Henshilwood et al. 2001). The Howiesons Poortentity is generallydatedto 80-60 Ka and is undoubtedlya uniqueandisolatedculturalphenomenon,stratigraphically and chronologicallyintercalatedbetween two Middle Stone Age industries withoutbone tools. Anothercase, with a differentevolutionaryimplication,is the Chatelperronianbone and antlerassemblagefrom Arcy sur Cure(Farizy 1990, 1994;

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

367

Mellars et al. 1999; Mellars 2000). Humanrelics indicate that this assemblage was originally designed by Neanderthals.However,the dates around 38-36 Ka correlatewith the earlyentryof Cro-Magnonsinto Europe.Hence, this surprisingChatelperronianassemblage may have been the result of transmittedideas, not necessarily face-to-face acculturationas sometimes proposed. 4. Systematicuse of grindingandpoundingstone tools beganduringthe Upper Paleolithic. This is best documentedwhere plant food played a majorrole in the diet such as in the Mediterraneanregion and Africa (Wright 1992). None of these tools were found in MiddlePaleolithiccontexts, althoughthe consumptionof vegetal substancesduringthe Middle Paleolithicis known, for example, from Levantinesites (Bar-Yosef2000). 5. Systematicuse of body decorations-beads and pendants-made from marine shells, teeth,ivory,andostrichegg shells arerecordedfrombothEurope and the Levant (e.g., Taborin1993; White 1993, 1997; Kuhn et al. 2001). These are consideredto communicatethe self-awarenessand identityof the individualas well as the social group.No similarobjects, and thereforeno clear signs for the identity of the social units, were recordedin Middle Paleolithic contexts. The sole element, which may reflect sharedtransmission among individuals, was in lithic manufacturingindicated by the chatnes operatoires.Similar operationalsequences may have delineatedhumaninteractionover relativelylarge geographicterritories.These could have been the markersof matingsystems, but such a determinationrequiressupportive evidence. 6. Long-distanceexchangenetworksin lithics,rawmaterials,andmarineshells duringthe Upper Paleolithicreach the orderof several hundredkilometers (Gamble 1993, Taborin1993, Smith 1999, Johnson & Earle 2000). They consistentlydifferfromthe muchshorterrangesof rawmaterialprocurement duringthe MiddlePaleolithic(Conard2001, Hovers2001, Marks& Chabai 2001, Richter2001, Geneste 1988, F6blot-Augustins1993). Perhapsone of the exceptionsis againthe HowiesonsPoortin SouthAfrica(Deacon & Wurz 1996) because raw materialwas transportedto the site from a long distance. 7. The Upper Paleolithic witnessed the invention of improved hunting tools such as spear throwers, and later bows and arrows and boomerangs (Mulvaney & Kaminga 1999). These devices facilitated targetinganimals from longer distances and could have broughthigher rates of hunting success. However,haftedspearswith Levalloisor otherMousterianpoints were recordedin more than a few instances(Shea 1988; Boada et al. 1999). 8. Humanand animal figurines,decoratedand carved bone, antler,ivory and stone objects, andrepresentationalabstractandrealisticimages, eitherpainted or engraved,began to appearin caves, rockshelters,and exposed rocky surfacesby 36 Ka (e.g., Marshack1972, 1997; Clottes 1997; Conkey et al. 1997;Lewis-Williams1997;Bahn 1997;Zilhlo 1995; Sofferet al. 2000). We

368

BAR-YOSEF must wonderwhy westernEuropeand, in particular,the Franco-Cantabrian region is so different from the rest of the Upper Paleolithic world. It is not the lack of limestone caves or suitable rock surfaces that prevented other social groups or their shamansfrom leaving behind similarpaintings and engravings.Possibly this local flourishhad to do with the vagariesand pressuresfaced by foragersin two majorrefugia regions at the ends of the inhabitedworld-Western Europe and Australia-where there are claims for rock artof the same generalage. If this explanationhas any foundation, we shouldlook for the detailsof the commonbehavioraldenominators(e.g., Davidson 1997, Lewis-Williams1991). Beyond mobile and stationarymaterialelements there are additionalcomponents, such as intrasitefeaturesincludingburials,and subsistence strategies,and the extent to which they reflectmodernbehavioris often debated.These include " Storage facilities, generally known from northernlatitudes where undergroundfreezingkept food edible (Soffer 1985, 1989; Grigor'ev 1993). Storage occurs in Upper Paleolithic sites after the initial phase. None of these structureswas recordedin Middle Paleolithiccontexts. " Structuredhearthswith or withoutthe use of rocks for warmthbankingand parchingactivitieswere recordedin UpperPaleolithicsites. Variabletypes of hearthsareknownfrombothMiddleandUpperPaleolithiccontexts,although the use of rocks is almostexclusively documentedfrom contextsof the latter period (Bar-Yosefet al. 1992, Meignen et al. 1989, Rigaudet al. 1999, Past6 et al. 2000). " Distinct functional spatial organizationwithin habitationsand hunting stations suchas kitchenareas,butcheringspace,sleepinggrounds,discardzones, and the like are relativelycommon in UpperPaleolithic sites. Such features are betterpreservedin the laterphases (after20 Ka), but even the very early UpperPaleolithicsites producedgood examples.Among othersareAurignacian contexts in Westernand CentralEurope(e.g., Svoboda & Siman 1989, Oliva 1993, Harrold1989, Kuhn 1998, Kozlowski 1999, Otte & Derevianko 2001). These featuresmay reflect the social structureor a particularcombination of members of the band, such as a male task group (Binford 1983; Deacon 1992, 1995). This kindof informationis rarelyavailablefromMiddle Paleolithic sites. Among the known examples are Klasies River Mouth and Rose Cottage (South Africa), Kebara,Tor Faraj(Levant), Gibraltar,Abric Romani (Spain), Grotte XVI (France), and others (e.g., Deacon & Wurz 1996, Bar-Yosefet al. 1992, Meignenet al. 1998, Rigaudet al. 1999, Wadely 2001, Barton2000, Past6 et al. 2000). " Burials are alreadyknown from Middle Paleolithiccontexts, and theirpresence has led to debates concerningtwo issues. The first was a proposal to view all Middle Paleolithicburialsas the result of variousnaturalprocesses and not as intentionalmortuarypractices (Gargett 1999). This was shown

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

U

369

not to be the case, especially if data from the Upper Paleolithic (including the laterphaseknownas Epi-Paleolithic)is takeninto account(Belfer-Cohen & Hovers 1992, Hovers et al. 2000). The second issue, raised by Chase & Dibble (1987), concernsthe symbolic behaviorone may expect as partof the funeraryacts. The evidence for some grave goods incorporatedinto Middle Paleolithicburialssuch as Skhul V, where a wild boarjaw was placed under the armof the dead,hintsat numerousdetailsthatwe still lack. In additionthis and otherburialsin this site and Qafzeh are all relatedto the archaicmodem humansand thus cannotbe takenas the rule for all theircontemporaries. Potential differences in subsistence activities were also taken into account as differentiatingthe Middle from the UpperPaleolithic (e.g., Marean1998, Marean& Assefa 1999). As our knowledge concerningthe exploitationof plants is poor, most of the discussions center on the issue of hunting versus scavenging.Briefly, the currentevidence clearly demonstratesthat both Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic humans were hunters.There are regional differencesbetween South Africa, the Levant,and WesternEurope in the selection of game animals,as well as the techniquesemployedto hunt, transportwhole or partialcarcasses, and the like (Klein 1998). In addition, alterationsto diet breadthdoes not necessarily requirea change in hunting techniques, as shown by the analysis of late Mousteriancontexts in Italy and Israel (Speth in Bar-Yosefet al. 1992, Meignen et al. 1998, Stineret al. 1999) or in EarlyUpperPaleolithiccontextsin southwestFrance(Grayson& Delpech 1998). In certaincases it reflectspopulationincreases,andin othersa changein the environmentalconditionsthatfavoredone species over another.

In sum, most of the componentsdiscussed above are seen as evidence for rapid technologicalchanges, emergenceof self-awarenessand groupidentity,increased social diversification,formationof long-distancealliances, the ability to symbolically record informationand that these are being the most typical expressions for the capacity of Upper Paleolithichumansfor modem culture.The latterterm means thatthe creatorsand bearersof these culturaltraitswere most probablythe forerunnersof historicallyrecordedsocieties of hunter-gatherers. This also implies thatthey had modem cognitive capacities,althoughscholarswho study cognitive evolution warnagainst such a simple conclusion.

THE TERMINOLOGICAL AMBIGUITIES The history of researchprovides insight into the currentterminologicalambiguities. In 1913 Breuil formulatedthe first synthesis of the WesternEuropeanUpper Paleolithic. Breuil's scheme, which left an indelible terminologicalimpact, was basedon the differencesin tool types amongstratifiedassemblagesof the rockshelters of southwestFrance(Breuil 1912, Bricker 1976, Harrold1991). The earliest entity,overlyingthe Mousterian,was namedthe LowerAurignacianandcontained

370

BAR-YOSEF the Chatelperronian-backed curvedknives or points. Next was the Middle Aurignacian with carinatedand nosed scrapersand rich bone and antlerindustries,as well as beads andpendants.The last in this sequencewas labeledthe UpperAurignacian and containedGravettepoints, straight-backedelements made on blades. Youngerentities were the Solutreanand the Magdalenian. In the 1930s Peyronysuggested renamingthe Lower Aurignacianthroughthe UpperAurignacianas PerigordianI-V, becausethey were all blade-dominatedassemblages with backedpoints. In Peyrony'sview one could demonstrateregional for the Lower continuity.The English literaturereservedthe termChatelperronian Aurignacian,known today also as Castelperronian(Bordes 1968, Mellars 1989, Djindjianet al. 1999, Gamble 1999). The Middle Aurignacianretainedthe appellation of Aurignacianculture,andthe Late Aurignacian(called PerigordianIV by Peyrony) is betterknown today as the Gravettian,with its extension into Eastern Europe(e.g., Gamble 1986, Collins 1986, Djindjianet al. 1999). The focus here is that the Chatelperronian--withinwhich blade production is a distinct phenomenon-was viewed as markingthe onset of the Upper Paleolithic. Recognizingthe evolutionarymeaningof this designationcame later.First, the detailed lithic analysis demonstratedits origin in the Late Mousterianof the Acheulian Traditionindustry.Second, the discovery of Neanderthalremains in a Chatelperronianlayer at St. Cesaire providedthe hard evidence for biological continuityconcurrentwith culturalchange within a single population(L6veque& Vandermeersch1981). Indeed,the UpperPaleolithictraitsof the Chatelperronian, such as the productionof curved-backedblades documentedin the study of the operationalsequence(Pelegrin1990a,b;L6vequeet al. 1993), the presenceof body decorations,and a bone tool assemblagein Arcy sur Cure,are instructive(Farizy 1994). This raises two importantissues. First,thatthe term"transitionalindustry" can have both biological and culturalimplications.Second, when otherentities in Europeand Africa are takeninto account,UpperPaleolithicindustries,identified on the basis of culturalattributes,could have been producedby differentpopulations. Therefore,identifyingbiologically the people who manufacturedthe lithic assemblagesthatformthe basis for the culturaldefinitiondependson the discovery of humanrelics. Withouthumanfossils the correlationbetween the industriesand a particularbiological populationis tenuous.The case of the Chatelperronianindicates a potentialarchaeologicalresolutionfor otherEuropeanentities. Owing to the biological andculturalcontinuityrepresentedby the Chatelperronian, one may that a similar a between Mousterian suggest techno-typologicalcontinuity given industry-which on that continentwas producedeverywhereby Neanderthalsandan industrycontemporarywith otherUpperPaleolithicentities,may be viewed as indicatingbiological continuity. This proposalis exemplifiedby the case of centralEurope,where the Szeletian emerges from the Mousterianindustrieswith foliates, while the Bohunicianlacks a relationshipwith all earlierMousterianindustriesin the region (e.g., Svoboda & Skrdla 1995, Tostevin2000). The origins of the Szeletian are not agreedupon by all (Kozlowski 2000), but the possibility that it representsa later adaptation

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

A

Fin

Bhunicia

43 6

a%

6c

aAurign

420

urign

o

4

II

00

0\

371

3

a

2 na

na

rian

ary

43-

3

yU

Ahmarian SDabban

43/42

'

0 -s

-

(

/

-

47/46 Levantin

2d' 0

0So

1,0 0

Lower

K 0

4o04

Nile

Val ey 0

of modemhumansintoEuropeandNorthAfrica. Figure 1 Suggesteddiffusion/migration The dates(uncalibrated) indicatethe earlymanifestationsof UpperPaleolithicindustries.

of the Mousterian-at the time when Cro-Magnonswere present at the gates of Europe-is probable (Figure 1). The documented penetrationof the Szeletian into the extreme north of Europe (Pavlov et al. 2001) may support this view by suggesting that certain innovations,such as improvedclothing and means of communicationthatallowed this incursioninto a new environment,were adopted owing to cultural contacts. Similar interpretationsmay apply to the entities of Jermanowician,Bryndzenian,and Streletskian,all of which are dated to after the first colonization by Initial Upper Paleolithic entities from the east such as the Bachokirian(Kozlowski 2000, Allsworth-Jones2000). It is thereforebest to abandonthe term transitionalindustry,which was extensively employed over the past five decades, and refer to the Early or InitialUpperPaleolithic(Marks 1990) datedentities by local names. A major ambiguityresults from the mixture of lithic assemblage-based definitions and chronological determinationwith what was probably a new social structureor a new social landscape as representedby certain Upper Paleolithic entities (Gamble 1999). As is shown below, the Upper Paleolithic revolutionis a

372

BAR-YOSEF process that most likely began in a core area and expandedby demic-diffusion, migrationoverlong distances,andthe transmissionof technologies.Hence, in certain regions the InitialUpperPaleolithic assemblageswere earlierthan in others, and how the people or the technology spreadacross Africa and Eurasia(except for southeastAsia), is debatable.As mentionedabove, gradualistsview regional continuitiesand environmentaladaptationsas the forces behindthe changes, and others employ the molecular,nuclear genetic evidence as well as the currently available radiometricchronology to suggest that migration,contact, and acculturationdeterminedthe course of history around45,000-30,000 years ago (e.g., Cavalli-Sforzaet al. 1993, Hublin 2000). The use and the definitionof the term Aurignacian(Kozlowski & Otte 2000, Otte & Kozlowski2001) is ambiguous.Hereagain,the impactof the historyof the prehistoricresearchplays a majorrole. WesternEuropeanscholarsgenerallyagree that the Aurignacianwas the first culture of the Cro-Magnons(Gambier 1989, Churchill& Smith 2000). Although the interpretationsof the radiometricdates vary (Zilhao & D'Errico 1999), a date of 38 or 36 Ka for the earliestAurignacian in temperateEurope would mean that the first cultural manifestationof local H. sapiens sapiens was a few thousandyears later than the onset of the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant(Figure 1). By 36 Ka the Levanthad alreadywitnessed the shift fromthe Emiran(transitionalindustry)to the EarlyAhmarian(Bar-Yosef 2000). This meansthe UpperPaleolithicbeganearlierin the easternMediterranean and later in WesternEurope.A somewhatsimilartime and geographictrajectory can be drawneastwardacross the region of centralAsia beyond the CaspianSea and into northernAsia. If the dates of KaraBom, a site in the Altai mountains,are acceptedat face value, althoughthereareunresolvedissues concerningthe effects of site-formationprocesses in this locale, then the shift to Upper Paleolithic was fasterin this partof Asia thanin Europe(Derevianko1998, Dereviankoet al. 2000, Vasil'ev 1993). In conclusion,the notion thatthe Aurignacianwas the firstculture of the Cro-Magnonsis thereforefalse. The second ambiguityconcerningthe term Aurignacianrelates to the naming of assemblagesas Aurignacianon the basis of an insufficientnumberof attributes. As the definitionof this entity was based on a particularsuite of stone tools in France,it is expected that not all types will be availablewhereverthe bearersof this industrywent. The questionis, whatarethe minimalnumberof types required to label an assemblage as Aurignacian?The currentliteraturedoes not provide a detailed definition.The use of one morpho-type,such as the carinated,narrow cores from which bladelets were removed (also known as rabot in the French Aurignacian),hardlyjustifies calling assemblagesAurignacian.This kind of core reductionstrategyis known from variousgeographicallyand temporallyisolated sites such as the 20 Ka Upper Paleolithic layers in the Caucasusand 17-15 Ka Kebaranassemblagesin the Levant.However,the presenceof the LevantineAurignacianalong the easternMediterraneancoastalrangesis basedon the assemblages that contain carinatednosed scrapers,Dufour bladelets, bone and antlerobjects (with split based points), and deer-teethpendants.

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

373

In conclusion, whereas the use of traditionalclassification systems, together with attributeanalysis and in particularthe study of chaz^nes operatoires,are essential for documentingand reportingthe results of excavationsand surveys, the namingof the industriesshouldbe done carefully.We mustavoidhasty,unfounded long-distancecorrelationsthatwithoutjustificationsuggest expansionsof prehistoric culturesor migrations.Even the alternativeview, which advocatesthat the assemblages are solely expressions of adaptive strategies within a given environment,does not forego the naming of the industries.Once named, we tend to combinethose industriesthatbearthe same label in orderto createa morecomplete regionalpictureof prehistoriclifeways.

A BRIEFSURVEYOF THE GEOGRAPHY OF UPPER PALEOLITHICENTITIES Even a cursorysurveyof UpperPaleolithicentitiesin the Old Worldwould reveal theirparticularcharacteristics.I do not reiteratethe list of early UpperPaleolithic Europeancultures,which arewell describedin a richbody of literature(see Gamble 1999 andreferencesthereinfor an updatedsurveyin English;Djinjianet al. 1999, Straus 1996). Only a few points shouldbe made. Inthe intervalof 40,000-30,000 radiocarbonyearsEuropeunderwentnumerous changes. It is still possible that the earliest Aurignaciancan be dated to -4239 Ka in the sites of El Castillo and Abrerdain northernSpain (Cabreraet al. 1997, Carbonellet al. 2000) and perhapseven in northernItaly (Kuhn & Bietti 2000). Whetheror not the earliestdates of the WesternEuropeanAurignacianare --40 Ka or only 38-36 Ka, it seems that this culturewas createdlocally by the Cro-Magnonsandlaterexpandedinto neighboringregions includingthe northeast comer of the Mediterraneancoastal ranges. Evidence of the Uluzzian,a derivativeof the local Mousterianin southernItaly, andthusa phenomenonsimilarto theChatelperronian, was recentlyfoundin southern Greece. The latest dates for this entity are around30 Ka (Kuhn& Bietti 2000, Koumouzeliset al. 2001), indicatingcontemporaneitywith the Aurignacian.However,the MediterraneanLevant(Goring-Morris& Belfer-Cohen2002) presentsan older,complex UpperPaleolithicsequence, which may bearupon the questionof where the Upper Paleolithic revolutionbegan. The earliest entity, often referred to as a transitionalindustryis known from two sites-Ksar 'Akil (Lebanon)and Boker Tachtit(Israel)-and its brief descriptionfollows. The lower levels at Ksar 'Akil (XXIV throughXXI/XX) containeda variety of flakes and blades, including a numberof elongated Levallois points, obtained by knappingfrom convergentunidirectionalcores. From the early to later levels these graduallyshift to a design with parallel edges. Most of the productswere obtained by soft ratherthan by hard hammer(Ohnuma 1988). The typical tool forms were scrapers,chamferedpieces, and burins.The upper levels (XX/XIX throughXVI) were characterizedby the appearanceof blades and bladelets that

374

BAR-YOSEF had been removedfrom crestedbipolarcores with linearand punctiformstriking platforms.The tool categoriesshow high frequenciesof end scrapersfollowed by backed pieces. Although not dated directly,by comparingthe assemblageswith those dated in Kebara(Bar-Yosefet al. 1996), the early phase at Ksar 'Akil is probablyaround45-43 Ka. In the second site, Boker Tachtit(Marks1993), the refittednodules uncovered in the lower layers (dated to 47-46 Ka) demonstratehow Levallois points were obtained from bidirectionalblade cores. Among the tools, Emireh points (with the bifacial trimmingof the butt) suggest that earlierobservationsby Garrodand Neuville (Garrod& Bate 1937,Neuville 1951) concerningthe chrono-stratigraphic position of this point as demarcatingthe InitialUpperPaleolithic,was correct.In the uppermostlayer at BokerTachtitthe core reductionstrategyproducedregular blades. The next phase in the Levant,sometimescalled EarlyAhmarian,datesto --4338 Ka (Henry 1995, Bar-Yosef 2000, Bar-Yosef et al. 1996, Goring-Morris& Belfer-Cohen 2002 and references therein). Blank reductionwas performedby manipulatingcores with one or two platforms,and the majortool groups consist of retouchedand backedblades andbladeletsthatincludethe El-Wadpoints. End scrapersare quite common, but burinsare rare.Body decorationsfrom that time were discoveredin both Ksar 'Akil and Uqagizli (Kuhnet al. 2000). The early radiometricdates in the Levant and the possible autochtonicshift in the core reductionstrategiesfrom the latest Mousterian(such as in Ksar 'Akil) to the Emiran(or the transitionalindustry)shows thatthis may have been the first phase of the UpperPaleolithicrevolution(Copeland1975). Althoughthe genetic evidence indicates that the origin of modem humanswas in sub-SaharanAfrica, it does not tell us where the techno-culturalrevolutiontook place. It could have been in South Africa, East Africa (Ambrose 1998a,b), the Nile Valley (van Peer 1998), or the Levant. In South Africa, accordingto currentchronologies, the capacity for modern cultureappearsand disappearsin the Howiesons Poort(Deacon & Deacon 1999). Rarely do archaeologistsconsiderpopulationextinctions,but they may have occurred.The next phase, when the combinationof traitsamongthe stone tools and the site spatialarrangementindicatemodernizationis in the late MiddleStone Age ~-30Ka (Wadley2001). In addition,the shift to the Late Stone Age occurredonly around20 Ka. In the case of the Kenyan site (Ambrose 1998a,b), whereas the evidence may show early manifestationsof body decorationsaround40 Ka, the availabledatado not indicate a primacyover the earliersites in Eurasia.This could have been the result of ambiguitiesin dating and the calibrationof the dates earlierthan 30 Ka (Klein 2001a,b). In the Levanthumanfossils from this period are lacking, but it is assumedthat the two earlyentitieswere the creationof modemrn humans,as theircontextscontain decorativeelements craftedfrom sea shells (Kuhnet al. 2001). The near-modemrn human skeleton was discovered in Egypt. The quarrysite of Taramsa1, in the

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

375

mid-Nile Valley, produceda skeleton buriedin a sandy deposit, and Middle Paleolithic industrydated it to --80-50 Ka (Vermeerschet al. 1998). However,the lithics of a later exploitation of the site, dated to 38-37 Ka, demonstratedtransitional characteristicssimilar to the LevantineInitial Upper Paleolithic. These finds may indicate that the shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in this region-as expected from the genetic evidence and the entiresuite of Africanfossils (Deacon & Deacon 1999; McBrearty& Brooks 2000; Stringer 1998, 2001; Howell 1998)-was producedby modem humans,who originallyemerged some 300-100,000 years ago (Harpendinget al. 1998). In most of central and northernAsia, from the Ural Mountainsto Mongolia, Upper Paleolithic sites occur (Vasil'ev 1993, Derev'anko 1998). Analysis of the availableradiocarbondates (Kuzmin& Orlova 1998) indicatesthatthe same time trajectoryof the expansion of the Upper Paleolithic is recognizable. It first appeared in the western part (Altai mountains)and later in the eastern sector.The typical blade industryhad seen a shift towardthe productionof bladeletsfrom microbladecores around20-18 Ka. The bearersof this type of industryalso exploited the environmentsof Mongolia and northernChina and moved across Beringiato colonize NorthAmerica (West 1996 and referencestherein;Goebel et al. 2000). Informationon UpperPaleolithiccontextsin southernAsia is relativelyflimsy. There are blade-dominatedUpper Paleolithic assemblages and they stratigraphically follow the Middle Paleolithic(Murty 1979, Ghosh 1993). The vast region of SoutheastAsia did not witness the shift in knappingtechniques. The Hoabinian is generally a flake dominated industry (Allchin 1966; Anderson 1990, 1997). Similar flake industry was uncovered in most sites in southernChina that are dated to the time of the Upper Paleolithic. With current knowledge, one can separatethe Middle from the Upper Paleolithic only when bone tools are present.The productionof blades, and later of microliths,characterizes the very late Pleistocene priorto the emergenceof agriculture.

WHATCONSTITUTESMODERNBEHAVIOR? The debate concerning the nature of the Upper Paleolithic revolution, which changed the evolutionarycourse of prehistoricforagers forever, centers on the issue of modernbehavior.This is a fuzzy definition,and almost every researcher who has writtenaboutthe subjectarrivesat a slightly differentlist or combination of behavioralattributes.The question is also phrasedas, can we see UpperPaleolithic huntingand gatheringsocieties as the ancestorsof those knownto us from ethno-history? The list of culturalattributes,featuresin sites, and intersiterelationseither as part of one social system or as part of an interactionsphere are all taken into account.However,if one introducesthe genetic evidence as Renfrew (1996) did, then from at least 60,000 to 30,000 B.P.our species expandedacrossthe entireOld Worldandwas on its way to the Americas.Thereareno othersubspeciesinvolved,

376

BAR-YOSEF

andeven if the issue of hybridizationwith the Neanderthalsor any otherunnamed groupsis not fully resolved,the conclusionis thatthe UpperPaleolithicrevolution reducedthe numberof humanspecies to one. By comparisonto 2.5 million years of evolution, the changes duringthe Upper Paleolithic had ensuing dramaticeffects on world prehistory.All scholarsagree thatlanguageplays a majorrole and that it probablyevolved in time (Wynn 1991, Trasket al. 1998). Communication facilitated everything from transferof technologies to long-distance exchange. This in turnhad effects on subsistenceeconomy and thereforeled to population growth. Indeed, most researchersagree that the larger the numberof archaeological attributesthat can be assembled to designate an Upper Paleolithic context, the clearerwill be the markersof this humanrevolution.If we reexaminethe list above, we may end up with only a few traitssuch as distinctintrasitespatialorganization, the presence of beads and pendants,and the productionof bone and antlertools and objects. Others would only reflect regional variability,importantby itself, such as grindingstones and mobile androck art,but can hardlybe employed on a global scale. We should also be ready to accept that the capacity for the modern culture of H. sapiens sapiens could have been adopted,even if not for long, by otherssuch as certaingroupsof Neanderthalsin Arcy surCure.In the same flexible interpretationof culturalevolution and populationdemise, we may view the case of the Howeisons Poort as a historically accidental appearanceof a somewhat similarcombinationof materialelements to those of the UpperPaleolithic,but it ultimatelyhad no impact on the general trendof humanevolution. Only around 50,000-45,000 years ago did the Upper Paleolithic revolutionbegin. The cause remainsa highly debatablesubject.

REVOLUTION CAUSESOF THE UPPERPALEOLITHIC Thereareprimarilythreeapproachesto the studyof the causes andthe earlycourse of the transitionfrom the Middle to the UpperPaleolithic.There is a wide range of variabilityamongresearchers,and this summaryis ratherschematic. The firstapproachsuggeststhatthereweregradualculturalchangesfromthe late Middle and the Upper Pleistocene-an accumulationof materialand behavioral traits finally leading to the formation of Upper Paleolithic social and cultural constructs.In short,these scholarssee no revolutionin eitherEurasiaor in Africa (e.g., Lindly & Clark 1990; Clark 1997a,b;McBrearty& Brooks 2000). The second approachconsiders the shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic as taking place more or less contemporaneouslyin most of the regions of North Asia, the Near East, and Europe. Supportersof this approachare split between those who see the change as accomplishedby local populations(i.e., in Europeby the Neanderthals)(Straus 1996, Derev'anko 1998, Otte & Kozlowski 2001) and others who view the final establishmentof the Upper Paleolithic as solely an H. sapiens sapiens achievement.

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

377

The thirdview stressesthe originof thisrevolutionin a core areaandits dispersal by humangroupswho sharethe same social system and means of communication andwho carrythe essentialcomponentsof the new technologyinto new territories. Proponentsof this model view the culturalrevolution as triggeredeither by a biological change or by techno-typologicaland socio-economic circumstances. As this approachis currentlyat the center of heated debates, I begin with the review of the biological aspects. The main proponentof the need for an additional mutation, a neurological change in the humanbrainto explain the capacity for modem behavior,is Klein (1995, 1999, 2001a,b). In his view only this change brought about the socioeconomic restructuringthat is documentedin the archaeologicalrecords across the continents.His explanationtakes into accountwhat was earliercalled "Outof Africa 2" (Stringer& Gamble 1993), which posits thatmodem humansdispersed from Africa some 60,000-50,000 years ago. Hence, according to Klein it was only after 50,000 years ago that humanspossessed and expressedthe markersof modem behavior. While colonizing EurasiaandAustralia,modem humansmost likely gradually replaced the local nonmodernpopulationssuch as the Neanderthals.The latter, based on only three ancient DNA samples (Feldhofercave in Germany,Vindja in Croatia,and Mezmaskayain the Caucasus,Russia), are known to differ from modem humans(Kringset al. 1997, 2000; Ovchininkovet al. 2000). In addition, currentgenetic evidence for the modem-day Europeanpopulationindicates that theremay not have been mixing between the enteringCro-Magnonsand the local population(Semino at al. 2000). Therefore,althoughbrainvolume of 1200-1700 cc was measuredamong Neanderthalskulls, which is within the range of H. sapiens sapiens, it seems that neitherthe volume nor the calculationof the neocorticalratio (Aiello & Dunbar 1993, Dunbar 1993) disclose the natureof the differences between both human morpho-types.Nor could the limited evolution of the frontal lobe or the role of the location of the sphenoid (D.E. Lieberman 1998). In addition, the definition of Neanderthalfossils outside the classical region of westernEurope,such as the Levant,is open to disagreement(Arensburg& Belfer-Cohen1998, Trinkauset al. 1998, Rak 1998, Stefan & Trinkaus1998, Akazawaet al. 1999). Earlier views on the importanceof the position of the larynx in relation to the base of the skull were modifiedfollowing the realizationthat archaicmodem humans such as those found in the Qafzeh and Skhul caves in Israel could have had the ability to speak like modems (P. Lieberman1998). By referenceto contemporarystudies of generaltrendsin humanbrainevolution it was proposedthata complex internalcircuitryevolved betweenthe separate sectionsof the brain,mainlyin orderto increaseefficiencyin the social information processingthatwas essential for survivalin variableenvironmentsunderfluctuating climatic conditions.Among the most effective means would be language,and not surprisinglythe emergenceof languageis seen as a determinantfactor.Whether following Chomskyor Pinkerin theirviews of geneticallyprogrammed"universal

378

BAR-YOSEF grammar"or "languageinstinct,"the questionthatremainsopen is whetherit was a one-time biological change or a long buildingprocess (Pinker2000). This bringsus to the issue of the creationof the storageof symbols as suggested by Donald (1991) that leads to the emergence of modernity.In this proposal, as in others, the imagery from the west EuropeanUpper Paleolithic arenaand the body decorationsplay a major role. However, as mentioned above, this region differs considerablyin its artisticexpressions from most other provinces of the Upper Paleolithicworld. A similarview is held by Deacon (1997), who sees the appearanceof such symbolsas occurringwithina social system,butnot necessarily as the crucialevidence for claiming its correlationswith the suddenemergenceof language.Along a somewhatsimilarline of thought,Gibson(1996) suggestedthat the UpperPaleolithicwas a culturalrevolutiontriggeredby technologicalchanges among people who long possessed modernneurologicaland cognitive capacities. However,for Mellars(1989, 1996b),judgingfromthe shiftin materialcomponents as describedabove and the appearanceof imageryas well as beads and pendants, fully modernlanguage and symbolic expressions emerged at or slightly prior to the UpperPaleolithic. The effortsto explainthe differencesbetweenthe MiddleandUpperPaleolithic manifestationsas biologically determinedcontinuewith proposalsconcerningthe brain'smodularitystructure.Mithen(1994, 1996) suggestedthatNeanderthalshad domain-specificintelligence.Accordingto this model, the Neanderthals'domains of intelligence-in which informationconcerningnature,social interaction,and technology were processed-shared little between them, as opposed to modern human brains, in which all fields of informationare coordinated.This modern domain-sharingintelligencecould have happenedonly if the additionalneurological change in the braintook place as suggestedby Klein (1995, 2001a,b). Both the second and thirdapproachesabove addressissues of behavior.Most scholarsagreethatthe materialelements(stone,bone, antlertechnology,exchange, site structure,etc.) and symbolic components(redochre,mobile imagery,burials) reflect a change in behavior.Some of these tools, techniques,and inferredbehaviors, which characterizeH. sapiens sapiens, are also known from various sites of Middle Paleolithic age, as mentionedabove. For example, bone tools are known from the Middle Stone Age Bloombos cave in South Africa and the Chatelperronian contexts of Arcy sur Cure, and intentionalburialswere practicedboth in Europeand the Levantin Mousteriancontexts. However,the point to be stressed is thatthese and othertraitssuch as blade productionand the collection of marine shells appearas sporadicphenomenaduringthe late LowerandMiddlePaleolithic but become regularculturalcomponentsafter the Initial Upper Paleolithic from about45 Ka and duringthe course of the ensuing millennia. Using a Marxistapproach,Gilman (1984), following a summaryof the available evidence at the time of writing,proposedthis view: Startingwith the stylistic manifestationsin the Upper Paleolithic contexts, he stressed that such innovations could only reflectsocial changes.Gilmanacceptedthe earliersuggestionsby Wobst(1976), Conkey(1978), andWhite (1982) thatchangesincreasedcorporate

REVOLUTION UPPERPALEOLITHIC

379

solidarity,the developmentof closed mating systems, and the overall appearance of prehistoricethnicity (i.e., culturesin the traditionalsense). Incorporatingthese aspectswithinalliancetheory,he proposedthatthe changesresultedfromthe developing forces of production.The environmentalconditions and culturalprocesses duringthe UpperPleistocene led to a populationincreaseand,hence, furthercompetitionbetweensocial groups.Restrictingthe scope of the alliancesandincreasing groupcohesion throughceremoniesresultedin more sharing,storage,andtechnological innovations,and thereforea decreasein subsistencefailures.This process would resultin furtherpopulationincrease.The pace of the change would be slow, and therefore the Upper Paleolithic revolution occurred over a relatively long period but ended with "significantlyqualitativechanges"(Gilman 1984, p. 235). Egalitarianforagers,in the courseof the changesin the social forces of production, in this model, develop complex social systems. The merit of Gilman's approach is the importancehe places on social organizationas a demographicpressurethat leads to revolution. The demographicaspects are currentlyfavoredby numerousresearcherswho see a populationincrease duringthe late Mousterian.For example, in Europethe impactof the harshglacial conditionsof Oxygen Isotope Stage 4 (OIS 4) on confinedterritorieswas probablythe cause for a populationbottle neck (Richter2000, Shennan2001). The amelioratedenvironmentalconditions duringOIS 3 (-,6524 Ka) indicatean alternationof warmerandcolderperiods(vanAndel & Tzedakis 1996). This climatic scenariomay explain the populationgrowthamongEurasian Mousteriangroups as evidence for greatertechno-typologicalvariabilityamong the lithic industriesas expressing the increase of social intensification(Shennan 2001) as well as the need for wideningthe diet breadth(e.g., Stiner& Kuhn 1992, Stineret al. 1999); hence, the authorsemphasize the role of climatic fluctuations in what has generally tended to be a socioeconomic model. However, whether the environmentalchanges in Eurasiacaused the onset of the Upper Paleolithic revolutiondependson what each investigatorviews as the course of the social and culturalchanges. In partialaccordancewith the approachthatmixes climatic conditionsand the history of social structures,I have suggested elsewhere (Bar-Yosef 1992, 1998) that the models available for explaining the Neolithic revolutioncould be used in constructinghypotheses for the Upper Paleolithicrevolution.One of the main advantagesin employing the agriculturalrevolutionis the direct relationshipbetween the Near East and Europe,resemblingthe geographicspreadof the Upper Paleolithic across Europe (Figure 1). In addition,the improveddata sets for the transitionto the Neolithic, collected from a well-definedregion, demonstratetemporal and spatial trajectories.The main points to be learned from the Neolithic revolutionare the following: 1. The Neolithic revolutionwas set in motion by H. sapiens sapiens, a single humanspecies, and does not coincide with any biological change. The major shifts in technology-tools (forms and function), tilling the land, food

380

BAR-YOSEF

2.

3.

4.

5.

preparationtechniques,domesticationof goat, sheep, cattle and pig-that led to majorchanges in diet as well as living conditionsresultedin impacts on humanbody size, health,and the ability to digest dairyproducts(Cohen 1989, Durham1991). Prior to the Neolithic revolution a major increase in population after the Last Glacial Maximum was recordedfrom numerousregions, as well as shifts in settlementpatternsincludingthe emergenceof sedentism[~ 14,500 cal. B.P., a cyclical phenomenonknownfrom earlierUpperPaleolithic sites (Bar-Yosef 2001)]. It seems that the climatic crisis of the YoungerDryas (12,900-11,600 cal. B.P.) affectedbasic subsistencestrategiesof the sedentary Natufianpopulationin the Levant(Belfer-Cohen& Bar-Yosef2000). Alternativefood acquisition strategies,such as increased mobility, forced a change in social structureamong the Late Natufianpeople. For example, in the marginalsemiaridSinai Late Natufiangroups improvedtheir hunting techniques throughthe invention of the Harif point, a more efficient arrowhead(Goring-Morris1991). Hunting,as well as gatheringplant food, is reflectedin the animal bone assemblages, grindingstones, mortars,and cup-holes.Largecollections of marineshells testify to long-rangeexchanges with boththe Red Sea andMediterraneanshores(Bar-Yosef1991), probably in orderto supportgroupalliances. The main onset of agriculturalactivitiesoccurredin the northernLevant. There, people startedto cultivate the wild cereals and legumes (Hillman 2000), which were alreadytheir basic staple food, along with other seeds, fruits, roots, and game animals in the region since at least 21 Ka cal. B.P. (Kislev et al. 1992). Hence, early farming communities, labeled as PrePottery Neolithic A (PPNA) (~ 11,600-10,500 cal. B.P.) were established within the LevantineCorridor(Bar-Yosef& Meadow 1995; Cauvin2000). Populationgrowthis documentedin the size of the early (PPNA)villages. It was the consequenceof enhancedsedentism,predictablesupplies of weaning foodstuffsfrom cereals, and reliablefood resourcesensuredby storage. Therefore,a longer period of fertility for the better-fedwomen is expected (e.g., Bentley 1996). Large villages became viable biological units and reducedthe need to travelsubstantialdistancesto finda mate.The sense of territorialityandownershipgrew,sustainingthe morecomplex social alliances and leading to redesignedcosmologies as describedby Cauvin(2000). The ongoing process of changeonce intentionalcultivationbegancontinued with the domesticationof goat, sheep, cattle, and pig thattook place during the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B period (PPNB) in the context of sedentaryand semisedentaryfarmer-huntervillages. Corrallingand tending wild animals was initiatedin the hilly flanksof theTaurus/Zagros (e.g., Legge 1996, Martin 1999, Hole 1996, Zeder& Hesse 2000), wherethese animalshadbeen hunted for many millennia by local foragers.It was before the completion of the biological changes, expressedin morphologicaltraits,thatgoats, cattle, and

REVOLUTION UPPERPALEOLITHIC

381

otheranimalswere transportedby seacraftsto islands such as Cyprus(Vigne et al. 1999 ). 6. Populationincreaseresultedin activeemigrationintocentralAnatolia(90008000 cal. B.P.), Thessaly,and the islands of Cyprus(8,600 cal. B.P.), Crete, and others (Ammerman& Cavalli-Sforza1984, Cavalli-Sforzaet al. 1993, van Andel & Runnels 1995, Peltenberget al. 2001). It is also conceivable thatthe Nile Delta was colonized by sea at a laterdate (-8000 cal. B.P.). 7. The dispersalof thenew economy,eitheras a partialorcomplete"agricultural package,"occurredin a few ways. The eastwardtransmissionto the Zagros foothills, from Kurdistanin the north to Khuzistanin the south, probably occurredwithout major displacementsof human communities, but rather by adoption. Evidently, in this area the same microlithic Late Paleolithic traditionlasted into Neolithic times, indicatingthat the flint knapperswere not replaced(Hole 1989, Kozlowski 1999). 8. The spreadof the Neolithic economy westwardtook two paths:one through the Balkans and the Danuberivervalley and the otherthroughcoastal navigation and colonization. It was a long and complicatedprocess, and there are various opinions concerning who were the Near Eastern farmersand where local Mesolithic foragers adoptedagriculturethroughacculturation and imitation (Cherry 1990, Ammerman& Cavalli-Sforza1984, Renfrew 1987, Zvelebil & Lillie 2000). The eastwardexpansion of the agricultural packagereachedthe IndusValley within 2000-1500 years. In conclusion, the currentarchaeological,archaeobotanical,and plant genetic evidenceconfirmsthatthe core areaof theNeolithicRevolutionlay in theLevantine Corridor-the westernwing of the Fertile Crescent.The advantageof this model of the UpperPaleolithicrevolutionis thatit removesthe biological factorfromthe debateand centers insteadon a populationin an unknowncore areathat for local reasons(eitherclimatic, social, economic, or all together)generatedthe initial step in the techno-typologicaland social revolution.Probably,in contrastto cases such as the Howeisons Poort, this social entity was large, viable, and successful and startedspreadingrelativelyfast as colonizers and distributorsof new techniques.

CONCLUSION To avoid misunderstandingI begin with the terminology.Upper Paleolithic, like Neolithic, is a term that designates a time period and not an economy or social structure.These terms were coined before radiometricchronology was available. The Chatelperronianis UpperPaleolithicin age, but it did not result, as we might expect from a so-called transitionalculture,in turninginto a new socio-economic structure.The origins of the Aurignacianarenot rootedin the Chatelperronianbut in a differententity that inhabiteda region outside western Europe. If we want

382

BAR-YOSEF to retain the term Upper Paleolithic as synonym for the new regime, we should reserveit solely for contextsin whichthe archaeologicalsequencedemonstratesthe transitionfromthe Mousterianor MiddleStoneAge to the new entities-those that laterevolved into the more recentculturalmanifestationsof the UpperPaleolithic period, includingmobile and rock art,body decorations,and laterthe microlithic industries.The acceptanceof such an approachwould sideline discussions about whetherNeanderthalshadthe capacityfor modembehavior.Even if theyhad,most or all of them did not survivebeyond 30-29 Ka. The same would be truefor North Africa. The Aterian,althoughproducedby some form of modem humans,did not survive,andthereis no evidence for a transitionalphasein this region.The bearers of the blade-dominatedand microlithicindustriesin this region could have been the descendentsof the local Aterianpopulation,but given the genetic evidence, they more likely originatedfrom the same sub-Saharanparentpopulationof all H. sapiens sapiens (Wengler1997). Figure 1 shows a selection of radiometricdates that indicate an east-west "wave of advance"of the Upper Paleolithic revolution, a term borrowedfrom Neolithic studies (Ammerman& Cavali-Sforza1984). As mentionedabove, with the progressin field researchin centraland northernAsia one may expect a similar trajectory.The same accountsfor improveddating.Once certainambiguities concerningthe calibrationof the dates in the range of 40,000-30,000 years ago are satisfactorilyresolved, bettermaps can be drawn. Most scholars accept that modem humans came out of Africa. Ideas diverge about the meaning of this movement or movements. Evidently, Australia was colonized some 60,000 years ago, prior to the onset of the Upper Paleolithic revolution.Therecould be a varietyof explanationsfor the early dispersals.One could suggest an expansionof modem humansfrom southernAsia into Australia, who were innovative-being on their way to a continentthat was still separated from southeast Asia by a 100-km waterway.Hence, the idea that water crafts were constructed,either boats or some sort of raft,has been proposed(Davidson & Noble 1992). Anotherpossible explanationis that modem humans who were alreadypresentin the Levantduringthe LastInterglacialmadetheirway into Asia, and like their contemporariesin Africa and easternAsia, initiatedtechnological and social changes that enabled them to get to Australia.The lack of evidence from the vast portionof southernAsia hampersbetterresolutionsto this issue. As mentionedabove, there are two views aboutwhat modem humanscarried with them as they left the African continent.According to those who believe the Upper Paleolithic revolutiontook place in Africa, modernhumanswere already equippedwith the essential techno-culturalelements that characterizethe Upper Paleolithic. These investigatorsbelieve the exit was earlier and the increasing populationin Eurasiawas caused by the incoming modems from Africa. Each of these hypotheses, whetherimplicit or explicit, points to a core area in Africa as the source and the cause of the change. Demographicfactorsareacceptedas the triggerfor the changeby scholarswho interprettheevidenceon thebasis of regionalsequences.Accordingto thisview, the

UPPERPALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

383

LateMiddlePaleolithicincubatedthe upcomingchanges.In Europethe increasing variabilityof the lithic industriesimmediatelyfollowing the harshconditions of OIS 4 (--75-65 Ka) considerablyreducedthehabitableareas,decreasingthe size of the populationand thereforetriggeringthe need for social intensification(Richter 2000). Indeed, duringOIS 3 (or the pleniglacial) Neanderthalpopulationsgrew. This processis representedby the increasingtechno-typologicalvariabilityamong late Mousterianindustries and expresses territorialcompetition that caused the need for change. The new socio-economic structurewas achieved by the Upper Paleolithicrevolution.This model is similarin its basic ingredientsto the Neolithic model presentedabove.As much as the Neolithic model is not fully adoptedby all researchers,neitheris the proposalthatthe populationincreasein Europewas an independentfactor.One thornyissue is why,with competingNeanderthalsocieties, is thereno evidence for the use of some sortof body decorationfor self-awareness and groupidentity? Ecology plays a minor role in most of the debates.The realizationthat Neanderthalssurvivedin Europeundervariousclimaticfluctuationsin boththe temperate and the Mediterraneanbelts limits the discussion to particularregions, availability of food resources, huntingtechniques,etc. In addition,numerousanimal bone analyses indicate thatthe bearersof the Mousterianindustrieswere reasonably successfulhunters.The differencecouldhavebeen betweenintercepthunting, which requiredgetting close to the target,and the use of spearthrowersor bows. It appearsthat time allocation among Upper Paleolithic hunterswas either short by comparisonto the Mousterianforagersor thatthe returnswere higherowing to bettercommunicationand informationstorage,as well as improvedhuntinggear. The issue of the capacity for modern behavior or modern culture, and the evolution of cognition, will continue to play a major role in the debates on the natureof the UpperPaleolithicrevolutionand the ensuing culturalchanges. From a list of independentattributesit seems that researcherswill be willing to settle for particularcombinations.Among these the aspects of communication,symbolic expressionsfor informationstorage,self awarenessand group identity,new hunting tools, and a clearer daily and seasonal spatial organizationof activities that reflects an accepted social organizationwould be the prime componentsor antecedentsto ethno-historicallyknown foraging societies. These were the elementary achievements of the Upper Paleolithic revolution gleaned through the archaeologicalperspective. The Annual Reviewof Anthropologyis online at http://anthro.annualreviews.org LITERATURE CITED AielloLC,DunbarRIM.1993.Neocortexsize, Neandertals and Modern Humans in Westand the evolution of language. ernAsia.NewYork:Plenum groupsize, 34:184-93 AkazawaT, MuhesenS, Ishida H, Kondo Curr.Anthropol. AkazawaT, Aoki K, Bar-Yosef0, eds. 1998. O, GriggoC. 1999. New discoveryof a

384

BAR-YOSEF

Neanderthalchild burialfrom the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria.Paleorient25:129-42 Allchin B. 1966. TheStone-TippedArrow:Late Stone-AgeHuntersof theTropicalOld World. New York:Barnes& Noble. 224 pp. Allsworth-JonesP. 2000. Dating the transition between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in EasternEurope. In Neanderthalsand Modern Humans-Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europefrom 50,00030,000 B.P., ed. J Orschiedt,G-C Weniger, pp. 20-29. Mettman,Germany:Neanderthal Mus. Ambrose SH. 1998a. Chronologyof the Later Stone Age and food production in East Africa. J. Archaeol.Sci. 25:377-92 Ambrose SH. 1998b. Late Pleistocene human populationbottlenecks,volcanic winter,and differentiationof modem humans.J. Hum. Evol. 34:623-51 AmmermanAJ, Cavalli-SforzaLL. 1984. The Neolithic Transitionand theGeneticsofPopulations in Europe.Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 176 pp. AndersonDD. 1990. Lang RongrienRockshelter: a Pleistocene-EarlyHolocene Archaeological Sitefrom Krabi, SouthwesternThailand. Univ. Mus. Monogr.71. Philadelphia: Univ. Mus. Anderson DD. 1997. Cave archaeology in southeastAsia. Geoarchaeol.:Int.J. 12:60738 ArensburgB, Belfer-CohenA. 1998. Sapiens and Neandertals:rethinking the Levantine Middle Paleolithic hominids. See Akazawa et al. 1998, pp. 311-22 Bahn PG. 1997. Journey through the Ice Age. London:Weidenfeld& Nicholson. 240

olithic Revolution. CambridgeArchaeol. J. 8:141-63 Bar-Yosef0. 2000. The Middle and EarlyUpper Paleolithicin SouthwestAsia andneighboring regions. See Bar-Yosef & Pilbeam 2000, pp. 107-56 Bar-Yosef0. 2001. Fromsedentaryforagersto village hierarchies:the emergence of social institutions.In The Origin of Human Social Institutions,ed. G Runciman,pp. 1-38. Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press Bar-Yosef0, ArnoldM, Belfer-CohenA, Goldberg P, Housley R, et al. 1996. The datingof the UpperPaleolithiclayers in KebaraCave, Mount Carmel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23:297306 Bar-YosefO, KuhnS. 1999. The big deal about blades:laminartechnologiesandhumanevolution.Am.Anthropol.101:1-17 Bar-YosefO, MeadowRH. 1995. The originsof agriculturein the NearEast. In LastHunters, First Farmers:New Perspectiveson the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, ed. TD Price,AB Gebauer,pp. 39-94. SantaFe, NM: School Am. Res. Bar-YosefO, PilbeamD, eds . 2000. TheGeography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Mus., Harvard Univ. Bar-Yosef O, Valla FR, eds. 1991. The Natufian Culturein the Levant. Ann Arbor, MI:

Int.Monogr.Prehistory

Bar-YosefO, VandermeerschB, ArensburgB, Belfer-CohenA, GoldbergP, et al. 1992. The excavationsin KebaraCave, MountCarmel. Curr.Anthropol.33:497-550 BartonCM. 1997. Stone tools, style, and social identity: an evolutionaryperspectiveon the PP. Bar-YosefDE. 1991. Changes in the selection archaeologicalrecord.InRediscoveringDarwin: EvolutionaryTheoryand Archaeologiof marineshells from the Natufianto the Necal Explanation,ed. CM Barton,GA Clark, olithic. See Bar-Yosef& Valla1991, pp. 62936 pp. 141-56. Washington,DC: Am. AnthroBar-Yosef 0. 1992. The role of WesternAsia pol. Assoc. in modern human origins. Philos. Trans.R. BartonN. 2000. Mousterianhearthsand shellfish: late Neanderthalactivitieson Gibraltar. Soc. LondonSer.B 337:193-200 See Stringeret al. 2000, pp. 211-19 Bar-YosefO. 1998. Onthe natureof transitions: the Middle to UpperPalaeolithicandthe Ne- Beck JW, Richards DA, Edwards RL,

UPPERPALEOLITHICREVOLUTION Silverman BW, Smart PL, et al. 2001. Extremely large variations of atmospheric C14 concentration during the last glacial period.Science 292:2453-58 Belfer-Cohen A, Bar-Yosef 0. 2000. Early sedentism in the Near East: a bumpy ride to village life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities:Social Organization,Identity, and Differentiation,ed. I Kuijt, pp. 19-37. New York:Plenum Belfer-CohenA, Hovers E. 1992. In the eye of the beholder:Mousterianand Natufianburials in theLevant.Curr.Anthropol.33:463-71 Bentley GR. 1996. How did prehistoricwomen bear "Manthe Hunter"?Reconstructingfertility fromthe archaeologicalrecord.In Gender andArchaeology,ed. RP Wright,pp. 2351. Philadelphia:Univ. Penn. Press Binford LR. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the ArchaeologicalRecord. London: Thames& Hudson Bisson MS. 2000. Nineteenth century tools for twenty-firstcentury archaeology?Why the Middle PaleolithicTypology of Frangois Bordes must be replaced. J. Archaeol. Methodand Theory7:1-48 Bocquet-Appel J-P, Demars PY. 2000. Neanderthalcontractionandmodem humancolonization of Europe.Antiquity74:544-52 Boeda E, Geneste JM, Griggo C, Mercier N, MuhesenS, et al. 1999. A Levalloispointembedded in the vertebraof a wild ass (Equus africanus):hafting, projectiles and Mousterianhuntingweapons.Antiquity73:394-402 BordesF. 1961. Typologiedu PalkolithiqueAncien et Moyen. Bordeaux,France:Delmas Bordes F. 1968. The Old StoneAge. New York: McGraw-Hill.255 pp. Breuil H. 1912. Les subdivisions de Pal6olithiqueSup6rieuret leursignification.Compte rendude Congres internationald'anthropologie et archeologie prehistorique,Geneva, pp. 165-238 BrickerHM. 1976. Upper Palaeolithicarchaeology. Annu.Rev.Anthropol.5:133-48 CabreraVald6sV, Hoyos G6mez M, Bernaldo de Quir6s GuidottoF. 1997. The Transition fromMiddleto UpperPaleolithicin the Cave

385

of El Castillo (Cantabria,Spain). See Clark & Willermet1997, pp. 177-88 CarbonellE, VaqueroM, eds . 1996. The Last Neandertals,the FirstAnatomicallyModern Humans. Tarragona,Spain: Univ. Rovira i Virgili CarbonellE, VaqueroM, MarotoJ, RandoJM, Mallol C. 2000. A geographicperspectiveon the Middle to UpperPaleolithictransitionin the IberianPeninsula. See Bar-Yosef& Pilbeam 2000, pp. 5-34 Cauvin J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the OriginsofAgriculture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press. 259 pp. Cavalli-SforzaLL, Menozzi P, Piazza A. 1993. Demic expansionsandhumanevolution.Science 259:639-46 ChasePG, Dibble HL. 1987. MiddlePaleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations.J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 6:263-96 CherryJF. 1990. The first colonization of the Mediterraneanislands:a review of recentresearch.J. Mediterr.Archaeol. 3:145-221 ChurchillSE, Smith FH. 2000. Makersof the Early Aurignacianof Europe.Yearbk.Phys. Anthropol.43:61-115 Clark GA, ed. 1991. Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press ClarkGA. 1997a. Througha glass darkly:conceptual issues in modem human origins research.See Clark& Willermet1997, pp. 6076 Clark GA. 1997b. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transitionin Europe:anAmericanperspective.Nor.Archaeol.Rev. 30:25-53 ClarkGA, WillermetCM, eds . 1997. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. New York:Aldine de Gruyter Close AE. 1989. Identifyingstyle in stone artefacts:a case studyfromthe Nile Valley.InAlternativeApproachesto Lithic Analysis, ed. DO Henry,GH Odell, pp. 3-26. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol.Assoc. Clottes J. 1997. Art of the light and art of the depths. See Conkey et al. 1997, pp. 203-16

386

BAR-YOSEF

Cohen MN. 1989. Health and the Rise of Civilization. New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Collins D. 1986. Palaeolithic Europe: a Theoretical and SystematicStudy. Devon, UK: Clayhanger.291 pp. Conard N. 1990. Laminarlithic assemblages from the last interglacialcomplex in northwestern Europe.J. Anthropol.Res. 46:24362 ConardNJ, ed. 2001. SettlementDynamics of theMiddlePaleolithicandMiddleStoneAge, IntroductoryVolume.Tiibingen,Ger.:Kerns. 611 pp. Conkey MW. 1978. Style and informationin culturalevolution:towarda predictivemodel for the Palaeolithic.In Social Archaeology: BeyondSubsistenceandDating, ed. CL Redman,MJBerman,EV Curtin,WTLanghorne Jr,NM Versaggi,JC Wanser,pp. 61-85. New York:Academic Conkey M, Hastorf C, ed. 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press. 124 pp. ConkeyMW, Soffer O, StratmannD, Jablonski NG, ed. 1997. Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol.San Francisco:Calif. Acad. Sci. Copeland L. 1975. The Middle and Upper Palaeolithicof LebanonandSyriain the light of recent research. In Problems in Prehistory:NorthAfricaand theLevant,ed. F Wendorf, AE Marks, pp. 317-50. Dallas: SMU Press Davidson I. 1997. The power of pictures. See Conkey et al. 1997, pp. 125-59 DavidsonI, Noble W. 1992. Why the firstcolonisation of the Australianregion is the earliest evidence of modem human behaviour. Prespect.Archaeol. Oceania 27:113-19 de Sonneville-Bordes D, Perrot J. 1953. Essai d'adaptationdes m6thodesstatistiquesau Pal6olithique sup6rieur:premiers r6sultats. Bull. Societg Prehistorique Fr. 50:32333 Deacon HJ. 1992. SouthernAfrica andmodern human origins. Philos. Trans.R. Soc. 337: 177-83 Deacon HJ. 1995 Two late Pleistocene-

Holocene archaeological depositories from the southernCape, South Africa. S. Afr.Archaeol. Bull. 50:121-31 Deacon HJ,DeaconJ. 1999.HumanBeginnings in SouthAfrica: UncoveringtheSecretsof the StoneAge. CapeTown,S. Afr./WalnutCreek, CA: Phillips & Altamira.214 pp. Deacon HJ, WurzS. 1996. Klasies River main site, cave 2: a Howiesons Poort occurrence. In Aspects of African Archaeology, ed. G Pwiti, R Soper, pp. 213-18. Harare:Univ. Zimbabwe Deacon T. 1997. TheSymbolicSpecies: the CoEvolution of Language and the Brain. New York:Norton Derev'anko AP. 1998. The Palaeolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations. Urbana:Univ. Illinois Press DereviankoAP,PetrinVT,RybinEP.2000. The Kara-BomSite and the characteristicsof the Middle-UpperPaleolithic Transitionin the Altai. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol.Eurasia 2:33-52 Dibble HL. 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction:background,clarification,and review of the evidence to date. J. Archaeol. MethodTheory2:299-368 DjindjianF, Kozlowski JK, Otte M. 1999. Le Paleolithique Superieur en Europe. Paris: Colin. 474 pp. Donald M. 1991. Origins of the ModernMind: ThreeStages in the Evolutionof Cultureand Cognition. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Dunbar R. 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, groupsize andlanguagein humans.Behav.Brain Sci. 16:681-735 DurhamWH. 1991. Coevolution:Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Palo Alto, CA: StanfordUniv. Press FarizyC. 1990. The Transitionfrom Middle to UpperPalaeolithicat Arcy-sur-Cure(Yonne, France):technological,economic and social aspects. In The Emergence of Modern Humans, ed. P Mellars,pp. 303-26. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniv. Press FarizyC. 1994. Behavioralandculturalchanges at the Middle to UpperPaleolithictransition

UPPERPALEOLITHICREVOLUTION in western Europe. In Origins of Anatomically ModernHumans,ed. MH Nitecki, DV Nitecki, pp. 93-100. New York:Plenum F6blot-AugustinsJ. 1993. Mobilitystrategiesin the late MiddlePalaeolithicof centralEurope andwesternEurope:elementsof stabilityand variability.J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 12:21165 Gambier D. 1989. Fossil hominids from the early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian) of France. See Mellars & Stringer 1989, pp. 194-211 GambleC. 1986. ThePalaeolithicSettlementof Europe.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press GambleC. 1993. Exchange,foragingandlocal hominid networks. In Trade and Exchange in PrehistoricEurope,ed. C Scarre,F Healy, pp. 35-44. Oxford:Oxbow Gamble C. 1999. The Paleolithic Societies of Europe.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press GargettRH. 1999. MiddlePalaeolithicburialis not a deadissue:theview fromQafzeh,SaintC6saire, Kebara,Amud, and Dederiyeh. J. Hum. Evol. 37:27-90 GarrodDAE, Bate DM. 1937. TheStoneAge of MountCarmel.Oxford:Clarendon Geneste J-M. 1988. Economie des resources lithiquesdans le Moust6riendu sud-ouestde la France. In L'HommeNeandertal. Vol. 6. La Subsistance,ed. M Otte,pp.75-97. Liege, Belgium: ERAUL Geneste JM, Plisson H. 1993. Hunting technologies andhumanbehavior:lithic analysis of Solutreanshoulderedpoints. See Knecht et al. 1993, pp. 117-36 Ghosh A. 1993. UpperPalaeolithicblade technology: a preliminaryanalysis of the cores from Mehtakheri (Madhya Pradesh). Man Environ.18:11-19 Gibson K. 1996. The bioculturalhumanbrain, seasonal migrations, and the emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic. See Mellars & Gibson 1996, pp. 33-46 Gilman A. 1984. Explainingthe Upper Palaeolithic revolution. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, ed. E Springs, pp. 220-37. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press Goebel T, WatersMR, Buvit I, Konstantinov

387

MV,KonstantinovAV.2000. Studenoe-2and the origins of microbladetechnologiesin the Transbaikal,Siberia.Antiquity74:567-75 Goring-MorrisAN. 1991. The Harifianof the Southern Levant. See Bar-Yosef & Valla 1991, pp. 173-216 Goring-MorrisNA, Belfer-CohenA, eds. 2002. More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxford: Oxbow Goring-MorrisAN, Marder O, Davidzon A, IbrahimE 1998. Putting Humpty together again: preliminaryobservationson refitting studies in the EasternMediterranean.In The Organization of Lithic Technologyin Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, ed. S Milliken, pp. 149-82. Oxford:B.A.R. Int. Ser. 700 GraysonDK, Cole SC. 1998. Stone tool assemblage richness duringthe Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25:927-38 Grayson DK, Delpech F 1998. Changingdiet breadth in the Early Upper Palaeolithic of southwesternFrance. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25: 1119-29 Grigor'ev GP. 1993. The Kostenki-Avdeevo archaeological culture and the WillendorfPavlov-Kostenki-Avdeevoculturalunity. In FromKostenkito Clovis: UpperPaleolithicPaleo-IndianAdaptations,ed. O Soffer, ND Praslov,pp. 51-66. New York:Plenum GuilbaudM. 1996. Psychotechnicanalysis and culture change: origins of the Upper Paleolithic as seen throughthe example of SaintC6saire.See Carbonell& Vaquero1996, pp. 337-54 HarpendingH, Batzer M, GurvenM, JordeL, Rogers A, SherryS. 1998. Genetic traces of ancient demography.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA95:1961-67 Harris D, ed. 1996. The Origins and Spread of Agricultureand Pastoralism in Eurasia. London:UCL Press HarroldFB. 1989. Mousterian,Chatelperronian and Early Aurignacianin WesternEurope: continuity or discontinuity?See Mellars & Stringer1989, pp. 677-713

388

BAR-YOSEF

Harrold FB. 1991. The elephant and the blind men: paradigms, data gaps, and the Middle-UpperPaleolithictransitionin southwestern France. See Clark 1991, pp. 16482 HenryDO. 1995. PrehistoricCulturalEcology and Evolution.New York:Plenum.464 pp. Henshilwood C, Sealy J. 1997. Bone artifacts fromtheMiddleStoneAge atBlombos Cave, SouthernCape, South Africa. Curr.Anthropol. 38:890-95 Henshilwood CS, Sealy JC, Yates R, CruzUribe K, GoldbergP, et al. 2001. Blombos Cave, SouthernCape, South Africa:preliminary report on the 1992-1999 excavations of the Middle Stone Age levels. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:421-48 Hillman GC. 2000. Abu Hureyra 1: the Epipalaeolithic. In Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farmingat Abu Hureyra, ed. AMT Moore,GC Hillman,AJ Legge, pp. 327-99. Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press Hole F. 1989. A two-part,two-stage model of domestication.In The WalkingLarder,ed. J Clutton-Brock,pp. 97-104. London:Unwin Hyman Hole F. 1996. The context of caprinedomestication in the Zagrosregion. See Harris1996, pp. 263-81 HoversE. 2001. Territorialbehaviorin the Middle Paleolithic of the SouthernLevant. See Conard2001, pp. 123-52 HoversE, KimbelWH, RakY.2000. Amud7still, a burial:response to Gargett.J. Hum. Evol. 39:253-60 Howell FC. 1998. Evolutionaryimplicationsof alteredperspectiveson homininedemes and populationsin the LaterPleistocene of western Eurasia. See Akazawa et al. 1998, pp. 5-27 hominid HublinJ-J.2000. Modern-nonmodern interactions: a Mediterraneanperspective. See Bar-Yosef & Pilbeam 2000, pp. 15782 JensenHJ. 1988. Microdenticulatesin the Danish Stone Age: a functionalpuzzle. In Industries Lithiques: Traciologie et Technologie, ed. S Beyries. Oxford:B.A.R. Int. Ser. 441

JohnsonAW, Earle T. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to AgrarianState.Stanford,CA, StanfordUniv. Press Kislev ME, Nadel D, Carmi I. 1992. EpiPalaeolithic (19,000 B.P.) cereal and fruit diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Rev. Palaeobot.Palynol. 71:161-66 Klein R. 1998. Why anatomicallymodem people did not disperse from Africa 100,000 yearsago. See Akazawaet al. 1998, pp. 50921 Klein RG. 1995. Anatomy,behavior,and modem humanorigins.J. WorldPrehist. 9:16798 Klein RG. 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Klein RG. 2001a. SouthernAfrica and modem humanorigins.J. Anthropol.Res. 57:1-16 Klein RG. 20001b. Fully modem humans. In Archaeologyat theMillennium,ed. GMFeinman, TD Price, pp. 109-35. New York: Plenum KnechtH, Pike-TayA, WhiteR, eds. 1993. Before Lascaux: the Complete Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press KoumouzelisM, GinterB, KozlowskiJK,Pawlikowski M, Bar-Yosef O, et al. 2001. The Early Upper Palaeolithicin Greece: the excavationsin KlisouraCave.J. Archaeol.Sci. 28:515-39 Kozlowski JK. 2000. The problem of cultural continuitybetween the Middle and the Upper Paleolithicin centralandeasternEurope. See Bar-Yosef& Pilbeam2000, pp. 77-105 KozlowskiJK, Otte M. 2000. The formationof the AurignacianinEurope.J. Anthropol.Res. 56:513-34 Kozlowski SK. 1999. The Eastern Wingof the Fertile Crescent:Late Prehistoryof Greater MesopotamianLithicIndustries.Oxford:Archaeopress.220 pp. KringsM, CapelliC, TschentscherF, GeisertH, Meyer S, et al. 2000. A view of Neandertal genetic diversity.Nat. Genet. 26:144-49 Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki

UPPER PALEOLITHICREVOLUTION H, Stoneking M, Paibo S. 1997. Neandertal DNA sequencesand the origin of modern humans.Cell 90:19-30 KuhnSL. 1998. The economy of lithic rawmaterialsandthe economy of food procurement. In tconomie prdhistorique:les comportements de subsistance au Paldolithique,ed. J-PBrugal,L Meignen,M Patou-Mathis,pp. 215-26. Sophia Antipolis, France:EIditions APDCA Kuhn SL, Bietti A. 2000. The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Italy. See BarYosef & Pilbeam2000, pp. 49-76 KuhnSL, StinerMC, Reese DS, Gulec E. 2001. Ornamentsof the earliestUpperPaleolithic: new insights from the Levant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA98:7641-46 Kuzmin YV, Orlova LA. 1998. Radiocarbon chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic. J. WorldPrehist. 12:1-53 Legge T. 1996. The beginning of caprine domestication in Southwest Asia. See Harris 1996, pp. 238-62 L6vequeF,BackerAM, GuilbaudM, eds. 1993. Context of a Late Neanderthal. Madison, Wisc.: PrehistoryPress L6vlque F, Vandermeersch B. 1981. Le n6andertaliende Saint-C6saire.Recherche 119:242-44 Lewis-WilliamsJD. 1991. Wrestlingwith analogy: a methodological dilemma in upper Palaeolithicartresearch.Proc. Prehist. Soc. 57:149-62 Lewis-Williams JD. 1997. Harnessing the brain: vision and shamanismin Upper Paleolithic western Europe. See Conkey et al. 1997, pp. 321-42 LiebermanDE. 1998. Sphenoidshorteningand the evolutionof modernhumancranialshape. Nature 393:158-62 LiebermanP. 1998. Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution. New York: Norton. 192 pp. Lindly JM, Clark GA. 1990. Symbolism and modernhumanorigins. Curr.Anthropol.31: 233-62 MareanCW. 1998. A critique of the evidence for scavenging by Neandertals and early

389

modernhumans:new datafrom Kobeh Cave (Zagros Mountains, Iran) and Die Kelders Cave 1 Layer 10 (South Africa). J. Hum. Evol. 35:111-36 MareanCW,Assefa Z. 1999. Zooarcheological evidence for the faunal exploitationbehavior of Neandertalsandearlymodem humans. Evol. Anthropol.8:22-37 MarksAE. 1990. The Middle andUpperPalaeolithic of the Near East and the Nile Valley: the problem of culturaltransformations.In The Emergence of Modern Humans, ed. P Mellars, pp. 56-80. Edinburgh,UK: Univ. EdinburghPress MarksAE. 1993. The EarlyUpperPaleolithic: the view from the Levant. See Knecht et al. 1993, pp. 5-22 Marks AE, Chabai VP. 2001. Constructing "MiddlePaleolithic"settlementpatterns in Crimea: potentials and limitations. See Conard2001, pp. 179-204 Marks AE, Hietala HJ, Williams JK. 2001. Tool standardizationin the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: a closer look. Cambridge Archaeol.J. 11:17-44 MarshackA. 1972. The Roots of Civilization; TheCognitiveBeginningsofMan's FirstArt, Symbol,and Notation. New York:McGrawHill. 413 pp. MarshackA. 1997. Paleolithic image making and symboling in Europe and the Middle East:a comparativereview.See Conkeyet al. 1997, pp. 53-91 Martin L. 1999. Mammal remains from the EasternJordanianNeolithic, and the nature of caprineherding in the steppe. Paldorient 25:87-104 McBreartyS, BrooksAS. 2000. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretationof the origin of modem humanbehavior.J. Hum.Evol. 39:453-563 MeignenL, Bar-YosefO, GoldbergP. 1989. Les structuresde combustion moust6riennesde la grotte de Kebara (Mont Carmel, Israel). In Nature et Fonctions des Foyers Prehistoriques,ed. M Olive, Y Taborin,pp. 141-46. Nemours, France:APRAIF Meignen L, Beyries S, Speth J, Bar-Yosef O.

390

BAR-YOSEF

1998. Acquisition, traitementdes matibres animaleset fonction du site au Paldolithique moyen dans la grotte de K6bara (IsraS1): approche interdisciplinaire. In Economie Prdhistorique:LesComportementsde Subsistance au Paleolithique, ed. J-P Brugal, L Meignen, M Patou-Matis, pp. 227-42. Sophia Antipolis, France:EditionsAPDCA Mellars P. 1989. Technologicalchanges at the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition:economic, social andcognitiveperspectives.See Mellars & Stringer1989, pp. 338-65 Mellars P. 1996a. The Neanderthal Legacy: an ArchaeologicalPerspectivefrom Western Europe.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.Press Mellars P. 1996b. Symbolism, language, and the Neanderthalmind. See Mellars & Gibson 1996, pp. 15-32 Mellars P. 2000. Chitelperronianchronology and the case for Neanderthal/modernhuman 'acculturation'in WesternEurope.See Stringeret al. 2000, pp. 33-39 Mellars P, Gibson K, eds. 1996. Modelling the Early Human Mind. Cambridge,UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol.Res. MellarsP, Otte M, StrausL, ZilhdoJ, D'Errico F. 1999. TheNeanderthalproblemcontinued. CA Forumon Theoryin Anthropology.Curr. Anthropol.40:341-64 Mellars P, StringerC, eds. 1989. The Human Revolution:BehaviouralandBiological Perspectives on the OriginsofModernHumans. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv. Press MithenS. 1994. Fromdomainspecificto generalized intelligence:a cognitiveinterpretation of the Middle/UpperPalaeolithictransition. In TheAncientMind:Elementsofa Cognitive Archaeology,ed. C Renfrew,E Zubrow,pp. 29-39. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press Mithen S. 1996. Domain-specific intelligence and the Neanderthalmind. See Mellars & Gibson 1996, pp. 217-29 MulvaneyDJ, KammingaJ. 1999.Prehistoryof Australia. Washington,DC: Smithson.Inst. Press:Allen & Unwin. 481 pp. MurtyMLK. 1979. Recent researchon the Upper Paleolithic phase in India. J. Field Archaeol. 6:301-20

Neuville R. 1951. Le Palgolithique et le Misolithiquede Desert de Judge.Paris:Masson et Cie OhnumaK. 1988. KsarAkil, Lebanon:a Technological Studyof the Earlier UpperPalaeolithic Levels at Ksar Akil,Vol. III. Levels XXV-XIV.Oxford:B.A.R. Int. Ser. 426 Oliva M. 1993. The Aurignacianin Moravia. See Knechtet al. 1993, pp. 37-56 Orschiedt J, Weniger G-C, eds. 2000. Neanderthals and Modern Humans-Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europefrom50,000-30,000 B.P. Mettman,Germany:NeanderthalMus. OtteM, DereviankoAP.2001. The Aurignacian in Altai. Antiquity75:44-48 Otte M, Kozlowski JK. 2001. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in NorthEurasia.Archaeol.Ethnol.Anthropol. Eurasia 3:51-62 Ovchininkov IV, G6therstr6mA, Romanova GP, Kharitonov VM, Lid6n K, Goodwin W. 2000. Molecularanalysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northernCaucasus. Nature 404:490-93 Past6 I, Allu6 E, VallverdliJ. 2000. Mousterian hearthsat Abric Romani,Catalonia(Spain). See Stringeret al. 2000, pp. 59-67 Pavlov P, Svendsen JI, IndrelidS. 2001. Human presencein the EuropeanArctic nearly 40,000 years ago. Nature413:64-67 PelegrinJ. 1990a.Observationstechnologiques sur quelquess6ries du Chatelperronienet du MTAB du Sud-Ouestde la France.Une hypothese d'evolution.In PaleolithiqueMoyen Recent et PalMolithique Superieurancien en Europe,ColloqueInternationalde Nemours, ed. C Farizy, pp. 39-42. Nemours, France: APRAIF Pelegrin J. 1990b. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspectsof research.Archaeol.Rev. Cambridge9:116-25 Peltenburg E, Colledge S, Croft P, Jackson A, McCartneyC, Murray MA. 2001. Neolithic dispersalsfrom the Levantinecorridor:a Mediterraneanperspective.Levant33: 35-64 PinkerS. 2000. TheLanguageInstinct:How the

UPPER PALEOLITHICREVOLUTION Mind Creates Language. New York:Perennial. 525 pp. Rak Y. 1998. Does any Mousterian cave present evidence of two hominid species? See Akazawaet al. 1998, pp. 353-66 Renfrew C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 346 pp. Renfrew C. 1996. The sapientbehaviourparadox: how to test for potential?See Mellars& Gibson 1996, pp. 11-14 R6villion S, Tuffreau A, ed. 1994. Les industries laminairesau Palkolithiquemoyen. Paris:CNRS RichterJ. 2000. Social memoryamonglate Neanderthals.See Orschiedt& Weniger2000, pp. 123-32 Rigaud J, Simek JF, Thierry G. 1999. Mousterian fires from Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France).Antiquity69:901-12 Rigaud J-P. 1997. Scenarios for the Middle to UpperPaleolithictransition:a Europeanperspective. See Clark & Willermet 1997, pp. 161-67 SackettJR. 1983. Style andethnicityin archaeology: the case for isochrestism.See Conkey & Hastrof 1983, pp. 32-43 SackettJR. 1991. StraightarchaeologyFrench style: the phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective.See Clark 1991, pp. 10939 Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ, Lin AA, ArbuzovaS, et al. 2000. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans:a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290:1155-59 Shea JJ. 1988. Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant.J. Field Archaeol. 15:441-50 ShennanS. 2001. Demographyand culturalinnovation:a model and its implicationfor the emergence of modem humanculture.CambridgeArchaeol.J. 11:5-16 Singer R, WymerJJ. 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in SouthAfrica. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Smith ML. 1999. The Role of ordinarygoods

391

in premodernexchange.J. Archaeol.Method Theory6(2):109-35 Soffer 0. 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. New York: Academic. 539 pp. Soffer 0. 1989. Storage, sedentism and the Eurasian Palaeolithic record. Antiquity 63: 719-32 Soffer O, Adovasio JM, HylandDC. 2000. The "Venus"figurines:textiles, basketry,gender, and statusin the UpperPaleolithic.Curr.Anthropol.41:511-37 SvobodaJ, SimainK. 1989. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in southeasternCentral Europe (Czechoslovakiaand Hungary). J. WorldPrehist. 3:283-322 SvobodaJ, SkrdlaP. 1995. Bohuniciantechnology. In The Definition and Interpretationof Levallois Technology,ed. H Dibble, O BarYosef, pp. 432-38. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory Press Stefan VH, TrinkausE. 1998. Discrete trait and morphometricaffinities of the Tabun2 mandible (hu970210). J. Hum. Evol. 34(5): 443-68 StinerMC, KuhnSL. 1992. Subsistence,technology, and adaptive variation in Middle Paleolithic Italy. Am. Anthropol. 94:30639 Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA, Tchemov E, Bar-Yosef 0. 1999. Paleolithic population growth pulses evidenced by small animalexploitation.Science 283:19094 Straus LG. 1996. Continuity or rupture;convergence or invasion;adaptationor catastrophe; mosaic or monolith:views on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transitionin Iberia. See Carbonell & Vaquero 1996, pp. 20318 StrausLG. 2001. Africa andIberiain the Pleistocene. Quat.Int. 75:91-102 Stringer C. 1998. Chronological and biogeographic perspectives on later human evolution. See Akazawaet al. 1998, pp. 29-37 StringerC. 2001. Modem humanorigins: distinguishing the models. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 18:67-75

392

BAR-YOSEF

StringerC, Gamble C. 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals.London:Thames& Hudson StringerCB, Barton RNE, Finlayson JC, eds. 2000. Neanderthalson theEdge:Papersfrom a ConferenceMarkingthe150thAnniversary of the Forbes' QuarryDiscovery, Gibraltar. Oxford:Oxbow TaborinY. 1993. Shells of the FrenchAurignacian andP6rigordian.See Knechtet al. 1993, pp. 211-28 TostevinGB. 2000. The Middle to UpperPaleolithic transitionfrom the Levantto Central Europe:in situ developmentor diffusion.See Orschiedt& Weniger2000, pp. 92-111 Trask L, Tobias PV, Wynn T, Davidson I, Noble W, Mellars P. 1998. The origins of speech. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 8:6994 TrinkausE, Ruff CB, ChurchillSE. 1998. Upper limb versus lower limb loading patterns among Near EasternMiddle Paleolithic hominids. See Akazawa et al. 1998, pp. 391404 van Andel T, Runnels CN. 1995. The earliest farmersin Europe.Antiquity69:481-500 van Andel TH, TzedakisPC. 1996. Palaeolithic landscapesof Europeandenvirons,150,00025,000 years ago: an overview. Quat. Sci. Rev. 15:481-500 Van Peer P. 1998. The Nile Corridorand the Out-of-Africamodel: an examinationof the archaeologicalrecord. Curr.Anthropol.39: S 115-40 Vasil'ev SA. 1993. The Upper Paleolithic of northernAsia. Curr.Anthropol.34:82-92 VermeerschPM, Paulissen E, Stokes S, Charlier C, Van Peer P, et al. 1998. A Middle Palaeolithic burial of a modem human at TaramsaHill, Egypt. Antiquity72:47584 Vigne J-D, Buitenhuis H, Davis S. 1999. Les premierspas de la domesticationanimale 'a l'Ouest de l'Euphrate:Chypreet I'Anatolie Centrale.Paliorient 25:49-62 Wadley L. 2001. What is culturalmodernity? A generalview anda SouthAfricanperspective fromRose CottageCave.CambridgeArchaeol. J. 11:201-21

WagnerGA. 1998.Age Determinationof Young Rocksand Artifacts:Physical and Chemical Clocks in QuaternaryGeology and Archaeology. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.466 pp. WenglerL. 1997. La Transitiondu Moust6rien a l'At6rien.Anthropologie101:448-81 WestFH. 1996.AmericanBeginnings.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Villa P, d'ErricoF. 2001. Bone andivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. J. Hum.Evol. 41:69-112 White R. 1993. A technological view of the CastelperronianandAurignacianbody ornaments in France. In El Origen del Hombre Moderno en el Suroeste de Europea, ed. V CabreraVald6s.Madrid:UNED White R. 1997. Substantialacts:frommaterials to meaning in Upper Paleolithicrepresentation. See Conkeyet al. 1997, pp. 93-121 White RK. 1982. Rethinking the middle/ upperpaleolithictransition.Curr.Anthropol. 23:169-76, 87-92 WiessnerP. 1989. Style and changingrelations between the individual and society. In The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and SymbolicExpression,ed. I Hodder.London: Unwin Hyman Wobst MH. 1976. Locational relationship in Palaeolithic society. J. Hum. Evol. 5:4958 Wobst HM. 1999. Style in archaeology or archaeologists in style. In MaterialMeanings: Critical Approachesto the Interpretationof Material Culture,ed. ES Chilton, pp. 118132. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press Wright KI. 1992. A classification system for groundstone tools from the prehistoricLevant.Paliorient 18:53-81 Wynn T. 1991. Archaeological evidence for modem intelligence. In The Origins of HumanBehavior, ed. RAFoley. London:Unwin Hyman Zeder MA, Hesse B. 2000. The initial domestication of goats (Caprahircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago. Science 287:2254-57 ZilhaioJ. 1995. The age of the Coa valley (Portugal) rock-art:validationof archaeological

UPPERPALEOLITHICREVOLUTION

393

anderthalextinction.J. WorldPrehist. 13:1dating to the Paleolithic and refutation of 68 'scientific' datingto historicorproto-historic times. Antiquity69:883-901 Zvelebil M, Lillie M. 2000. Transitionto agriculturein easternEurope.In Europe's First Zilhio J, D'ErricoF. 1999. The chronologyand Farmers, ed. TD Price, pp. 57-92. Camtaphonomy of the earliest Aurignacianand its implicationsfor the understandingof Nebridge:CambridgeUniv. Press