Tostevin 2009 The Importance of Process and Historical Event in the Study of the Middle-Upper...

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Oxbow BooksOxford and Oakville

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES

Series EditorsC. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University

DAVID PILBEAM, Harvard UniversityOFER BAR-YOSEF, Harvard University

Editorial BoardSTEVEN L. KUHN, University of Arizona, Tucson

DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN, Harvard UniversityRICHARD H. MEADOW, Harvard University

MARY M. VOIGT, The College of William and MaryHENRY T. WRIGHT, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Publications CoordinatorWREN FOURNIER, Harvard University

The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monographs in Archaeology andPaleoanthropology present a series of documents covering a variety of subjects in the archaeology of theOld World (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania). This series encompasses a broad range of subjects –from the early prehistory to the Neolithic Revolution in the Old World, and beyond including: hunter-gatherers to complex societies; the rise of agriculture; the emergence of urban societies; human physi-cal morphology, evolution and adaptation, as well as; various technologies such as metallurgy, potteryproduction, tool making, and shelter construction. Additionally, the subjects of symbolism, religion, andart will be presented within the context of archaeological studies including mortuary practices and rockart. Volumes may be authored by one investigator, a team of investigators, or may be an edited collec-tion of shorter articles by a number of different specialists working on related topics.

American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Edited by

John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman

www.oxbowbooks.com

Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

© Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2009

ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Shea, John J., 1960–Lieberman, Daniel E., 1964–

Transitions in prehistory : essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef / edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E.Lieberman.

p. cm. -- (American School of Prehistoric Research monograph series)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-84217-340-41. Paleolithic period. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric. 4. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. I.

Shea, John J. II. Lieberman, Daniel, 1964- III. Bar-Yosef, Ofer.GN771.T76 2009930.1'2--dc22

2009002081

TYPESET AND PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

9

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS AND HISTORICAL EVENT IN THE STUDY

OF THE MIDDLE–UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION

Gilbert B. Tostevin

AbstractOfer Bar-Yosef ’s research views major changesin human behavior as transitions that can bestudied both as processes and as historicalevents. This paper argues that the combinedemphasis on process and event in studying pre-historic transitions can be taken further, specifi-cally, from the regional scale to the scale of oursmallest unit of contextual association, the arti-fact assemblage. Numerous epistemologicalproblems in studying the dispersion of anatomi-cally modern humans can be resolved by con-sidering assemblages as association units result-ing from process (specifically, cultural-transmis-sion processes captured by site formationprocesses) and event (the historical contingencyof a palimpsest’s spatial and temporal context).The recognition of behavioral units withinassemblages resulting from this approach allowsthe evaluation of comparable units of analysisbetween assemblages, which in turn can pro-duce behaviorally meaningful patterns in timeand space. Examples from the author’s researchinto the period of the Middle–Upper Paleolithictransition illustrate this critique of standardPaleolithic systematics.

IntroductionOfer Bar-Yosef ’s research serves as an excellentexample of viewing major changes or transitionsin human behavior as both processes and histor-ical events. This dual view can be seen in his two

approaches to the Middle–Upper Paleolithictransition. First, his emphasis on examiningarchaeological data within models of dispersionprocesses derived from the better-knownNeolithic and Industrial revolutions (Bar-Yosef1998, 2002) gives his syntheses a processualstructure for understanding how hominin socialsystems and adaptive strategies can “transition”through time and space. Second, his emphasison the historical contingency of the environ-mental, demographic, symbolic, and social con-texts at each geographical and temporal point inthe “transition” process allows him to offerexplanations for why the process worked differ-ently in different contexts (Bar-Yosef 2000,2002; Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999). A primeexample of this approach is Bar-Yosef ’s contex-tual argument, based on Neanderthal’s morederived anatomical adaptation to cold and thechange from OIS 5 to 4, for why the earliestmodern humans were out-competed byNeanderthals in the Levant (Bar-Yosef 1992)between roughly 80 and 50 ka. This environ-mental argument, combined with the separationof “behavioral” from “anatomical” modernity,has sparked numerous research trajectories toexplain why anatomically modern humans firstfailed and then succeeded in dispersing fromAfrica (Shea 2003; Shea and Bar-Yosef 2005;McBrearty and Brooks 2000). By combiningthese approaches to causal explanation, Bar-Yosef has argued that one can elucidate the

1 6 6 Transitions in Prehistory

interregional process through a contextualunderstanding of the regional and time-specific“events” that make up the process.

This paper argues that paleoanthropologistsneed to extend Bar-Yosef ’s example further, tobroaden this combined emphasis on process andevent in studying prehistoric transitions in orderto rectify common epistemological problems withPaleolithic systematics. Specifically, we need toextend the dual understanding of process andevent from the regional scale to the scale of oursmallest unit of contextual association, the geo-logically defined artifact assemblage. In so doing,we can replace epistemologically abstract andproblematic explanatory units, such as industrialtypes and technocomplexes1 (such as“Aurignacian,” “Châtel perron ian,” “Tabun B-type,” etc.) with analytical assemblages under-stood as the products of both process and event.

The Problem with Industrial Types and TechnocomplexesSince the beginning of the discipline, Paleolithicarchaeologists have utilized generalizations andabstractions of data derived from individualassemblages as the explanatory units in first uni-linear evolutionary schemes (de Mortillet 1873)and then multilinear, culture-historical scenarios(Peyrony 1920; Breuil 1932; Bordes 1950).These generalizations have taken the form ofassemblage-defined periods (the type-siteapproach of de Mortillet 1869), cultures or peri-ods defined through the presence of characteris-tic tool types or fossiles directeurs (de Mortillet1869; Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot1954–1956), and cultural traditions definedthrough either quantitative frequencies of tooltypes (Bordes and Sonneville-Bordes 1970) orcharacteristic details of core-reduction behaviors(Commont 1913; Tixier et al. 1980).

Despite changes in analytical methodsfrom retouch typologies (Bordes 1961) to tech-nological typologies (Tixier 1984; Collectif1991; Inizan et al. 1992; Boëda 1995), thestudy of the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transi-tion today is still as much a captive of analyti-cally weak generalized units, such as“Aurignacian” and “Châtelperronian,” as is theLower–Middle Paleolithic transition (Monnier2006). For instance, because of the traditionalreliance on the industrial type, most of thedebate over the Neanderthal AcculturationHypothesis (d’Errico et al. 1998; Mellars 1999;Zilhão and d’Errico 1999, 2003; d’Errico 2003;Conard and Bolus 2003; Bordes 2003; Mellars2005; Gravina et al. 2005; d’Errico et al. 2006)has reified the homogeneity of the abstractAurignacian and Châtelperronian technocom-plexes through the typing of different assem-blages as one or the other, followed by the com-parison of their chronostratigraphic positions.This is ironically the opposite of what isrequired to test the hypothesis that one or bothhominins learned from the other. As I haveargued elsewhere (Tostevin 2007), evaluatingan acculturation hypothesis requires the decon-struction of these generalized industrial typesthrough the recognition within individualassemblages of behavioral units that can thenbe evaluated as potential instances of learningbetween entities. If Paleolithic archaeologists are tostudy culture change in an evolutionarily informed,nonessentialist paradigm (see the arguments ofTschauner 1994), archaeologists need to study thischange through time within the abstractions we calltechnocomplexes rather than between these typo-logically defined categories (sensu Adams andAdams 1991). If Neanderthal-made artifactassemblages are to reflect the results of culturecontact processes with modern humans and

Process and Historical Event in the Study of the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition 167

vice versa, it is necessary to recognize quantita-tively the changes that transpired between, say,an early and late Châtelperronian as well as asimilar temporal comparison within andbetween the Aurignacian. If all Neanderthal-made assemblages are to be treated as appleswhile modern human-made assemblages are tobe treated as oranges, little can be learned fromthe exercise. At the epistemological level, assem-blages rather than industrial types must be thelargest unit of association in Paleolithic systemat-ics, while variability in technological choiceswithin assemblages must be the largest unit ofanalysis, if we are to understand culture change(Tostevin and #krdla 2006; Tostevin 2006).

Assemblages as Process and EventWhile some information can be gleaned fromindividual artifacts, such as the fact that a certaincore-reduction method can be applied to a givenraw material (e.g., #krdla 1999), almost all of ourunderstanding of the Pleistocene comes from theassociation of artifact to artifact within a geologi-cally defined stratum. This association we call theartifact assemblage can be defined at even greaterresolution than the stratum, through micromor-phology and the careful digital proveniencing ofrecent excavations (McPherron et al. 2005), butthis approach is not yet widely applied. Changethrough time within a site and change throughtime within and between regions are all subjectsto be analyzed through reference to assemblages.Yet despite its centrality in almost all analyticalquestions, Paleolithic archaeologists rarely prob-lematize this primary unit of association. One rea-son for this reluctance is the fact that the geoar-chaeological understanding of site formationprocesses (Schiffer 1987) is more recent than thesystematics of Paleolithic explanation.Geoarchaeologists therefore have a difficult task

forcing archaeologists to confront the uncertain-ties in their most cherished assumptions aboutwhat behaviorally constitutes a geologically asso-ciated collection of artifacts (Goldberg, presentvolume; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef 1998). Forexample, there is an almost invariable assump-tion among Paleolithic archaeologists that onlyone hominin form could have contributed arti-facts to the site formation processes that resultedin a given assemblage, even in contexts in whichmultiple hominins were extant on the landscape.Given the fact that it is impossible to falsify thehypothesis that two hominins dropped artifactsinto a given depositional environment, it is neces-sary to state explicitly that one cannot assume acontribution from only one hominin or even onecultural tradition (Tostevin and #krdla 2006). Anartifact assemblage should thus be defined as the mate-rial evidence of the portion of knapping behaviorsenacted by all of the hominins who interacted with thesite formation processes that created the archaeologicalrecord at this particular locality during the length of theopen palimpsest. This is the only epistemologicallyvalid conception of a Pleistocene assemblagedefined by geological processes. This definition inessence negates both the one-hominin and themultiple-hominin hypotheses, because whichev-er hominins walked over a given locality anddeposited artifacts into the record constitute the“hominins of locality X,” even if these individualselsewhere produced assemblages of differentindustrial types or were themselves anatomicallydistinct. Assemblages are merely snapshot eventscapturing a population + locality + time combina-tion specific to that assemblage.

While the geoarchaeological conception ofartifact assemblages is gradually becoming morecommon, in no small part due to Bar-Yosef ’s per-sonal encouragement of the careers of notablegeoarchaeologists (e.g., Paul Goldberg, Reid


Ferring, Carolina Mallol), artifact assemblages arealready widely recognized as being affected byother processes. The most-referenced processesresult in morphological change due to landscapeuse, raw-material conservation, artifact curation,and resharpening by retouch (Frison 1968;Dibble 1987, 1988, 1995; Dibble and Rolland1992). The “organization of technology”approach (Nelson 1991), in general, is well artic-ulated in Paleolithic archaeology. What is oftenneglected, however, is a theoretically sophisticat-ed treatment of how cultural transmissionprocesses are reflected in artifact assemblages.

I have elsewhere endeavored to fill this gapwith a middle-range theory built on ethnograph-ic data (Wiessner 1982, 1983, 1984; Lee andDeVore 1976) and anthropological theory (Carr1995; Wobst 1977; Sackett 1990) on how, where,and when individual foragers learn and transmittheir cultural behavior. Tostevin (2007) presentsthe kernel of the middle-range theory for predict-ing which aspects of a lithic operational sequencereflect behaviors learned and learnable only incontexts of social intimacy among foragers.Tostevin (in press) develops these ideas in greaterdetail within the context of an evolutionaryapproach to Pleistocene culture history, buildingoff of dual-inheritance modeling within the cul-tural-transmission theory of Boyd and Richerson(1985, 1987, 1996; Richerson and Boyd 1978,2002, 2005; Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981;Boesch and Tomasello 1998; Shennan and Steele1999; Shennan 2000, 2003; Tehrani and Collard2002; Eerkens et al. 2006; Pocklington 2006).Taking a behavioral approach (Schiffer 1975,1976, 1996) to flintknapping, an artifact assem-blage is recognized as the central tendencies anddispersions in flake attributes reflecting specificdecisions a knapper must make during the reduc-tion of a core for blanks to subsequently be made

into tools to be used on the landscape. These deci-sion nodes must be taken regardless of the tech-nology in a given assemblage and the option usedat a given node, making them consistently com-parable units of analysis across space and time.These decision nodes can thus be treated as thecultural instruction sets that would have been vis-ible and thus learnable by foragers present at thedifferent localities being compared. The exposureof socially intimate individuals to flintknappingperformances at base camps and raw-material-procurement sites would have allowed these indi-viduals to learn the body techniques and behav-ioral details involved in blank production. Thisexposure is in contrast to socially distant individ-uals who would be exposed to only the mobiletool kit visible from “bow shot” range, the likelyrange for contact between strange foragers(Wiessner 1983). Given the equifinality in lithicreduction, exposure to the mobile tool kit on thepathways of the landscape (Gamble 1999:68–71)or from discarded tools at retooling camps wouldnot be sufficient for a stranger to produce thesame debitage-wide central tendencies for all of thebehaviors in the process even if a few of the optionswere intuited from a curated tool. Independentinnovation or convergence of behaviors, repre-senting homoplasy, within blank production isthus always a possibility, but not a high probabili-ty. This is the basis of the taskscape vis ibility con-cept, defined as the relationship between where,when, and with whom a cultural trait, such as aflintknapping behavior, is performed and the pos-sible cultural transmission modes (sensu Boyd andRicherson 1985) available for promulgating thetrait into the next generation.

Viewed this way, the artifact assemblagethus represents one enculturating environment cre-ated by all of the hominins who contributedmaterial culture to the site formation processes.


An enculturating environment represents thesocial realm in which individuals were encultur-ated into how to lead their lives within a group(see also Donald 1991, 1998). This encultura-tion, extending from birth to death, includes theway the individual learns and gains proficiencyin a wealth of behaviors, such as the formationof social relationships with kin and non-kin, thesocial uses of material culture, methods forexploiting a landscape’s resources, the bodytechniques and operational sequences for mate-rial-culture production (sensu Lemonnier 1992),and the articulation between technologicalchoices and the organization of the society’stasks on the landscape (Nelson 1991). Theenculturating environment is thus similar toBoesch and Tomasello’s (1998) and Kelly’s(1995:153– 156) discussions of social learningfrom role models. By defining an assemblage asa configuration of behavioral details of flintk-napping choices reflecting the enculturatingenvironment of a body of socially intimate indi-viduals, an assemblage is defined according to aprocess of cultural transmission. At a given local-ity, with the specific temporal and spatial catch-ment of the site formation processes, it is alsodefined as an event or snapshot within theprocess of cultural transmission within a region.Using this dual approach to process and event, itis thus possible to use the analytical assemblageas a unit in the study of population dispersalsand technological diffusion, such as the Out ofAfrica 2 event.

The Behavioral Package Conceptversus the Industrial TypeIn Tostevin (2000a, b, 2003a, b), I presented anargument for the recognition of a cultural trans-mission event between 47 and 38 ka, from theLevant through southeastern Europe to Central

and Eastern Europe using the approach outlinedabove. While Tostevin (in press) makes correc-tions to the analytical methodology as well asrefines it in terms of the middle-range theory ofsocial intimacy and taskscape visibility, the fol-lowing discussion applies to both examples.When comparing the first post-60 ka assem-blage appearing on the landscape in each of thethree regions studied in the research project withthe next absolutely dated assemblage, a consis-tent pattern emerged. While all of the firstassemblages differed greatly between regions, ineach region the second assemblage was bothstrikingly dissimilar to its regional predecessorand strikingly similar to the other “second”assemblages. Following the evaluation of fivemodel expectations derived from cultural trans-mission theory, social anthropological theory,and archaeological theory, this pattern most par-simoniously matched a cultural transmissionevent. The chronologically logical progression ofthese assemblages from the Levant to southeast-ern Europe (based on the literature) to CentralEurope and then Eastern Europe corroboratedthe similarity of the flintknapping choices madein the three regions. The term “BohunicianBehavioral Package” was advanced to label thiscultural transmission event. Although an ungain-ly term, the concept of a “behavioral package”has a unique utility for structuring Paleolithicsystematics, particularly, but not exclusively, fordispersal questions. It is, however, easy to mis-take it as a replacement name for an industrialtype. When examined closely, however, its dis-tinct relationship to process and event clearlyseparates it from the typological approach. Thisdistinction warrants further discussion.

As the recent Neanderthal acculturationdebate has shown (d’Errico et al. 1998;d’Errico 2003; Mellars 1999, 2005), the current


arguments using industrial types and techno-complexes as the units of analysis have provenunproductive and inappropriate for two reasons.First, the use of industrial types outside of theregions in which the industries were firstdefined can result in assemblage variabilitybeing ignored as individual assemblages arepigeonholed into potentially unsuitable indus-trial types. Even the conventional method ofgraphically representing the change in industri-al types through time within a region resemblesa set of pigeonholes (Figure 9.1), much likeBordes used to curate the Combe Grenalretouched tool assemblages as currently held atthe Musée National de Préhistoire des Eyzies.Second, as noted above, a typological approachis simply ineffective as a test of an acculturationhypothesis. Behavioral steps or decision nodeswithin the lithic operational sequence evi-denced within one assemblage, however, do notrequire inclusive and exclusive principles of def-inition. Through the recognition of technicalchoices of artisans according to the social-inti-macy and taskscape-visibility concepts, thebehavioral approach taken here avoids the ubiq-uitous problem of defining acceptable limits toindustrial variability and does not constrainassemblage variability into industrial typeswhen we specifically want to understand changein hominin material-culture behavior.

The term “behavioral package” thus servesas a noun to describe the physical evidence of aparticular cultural transmission event. The defini-tion of a specific behavioral package consists ofthe grouping or association of flintknappingbehaviors that link one assemblage to the next in theorder of the package’s chronological appearance (thegeographical appearance must already belogical – without breaks between regions – oth-erwise the pattern would not have been judged

to be a cultural-transmission event). Unlike anindustrial type, a behavioral package may gain orlose constituents as it spreads through time and space.Industrial types are often depicted as evolvingthrough time, say from an “Early Aurignacian”to an “Evolved Aurignacian,” but this is fre-quently presented (e.g., Otte and Koz!owski2003) as a transformative process akin toWhitean-Spencerian change (sensu Tschauner1994: 82), contradictory to evolutionary theoryas understood since the Modern Synthesis(Mayr 1982:Chap. 11). The behavioral packageconcept, however, does not have this problem asit is composed of different elements that canvary between assemblages; it is the consistencyof the package from one assemblage to the nextchronogeographically that serves as an indicatorof the transmission strength of the package,rather than an absolute similarity between endpoints. To illustrate my point, Figure 9.2 con-trasts the behavioral package concept, in thelarge box at the top, with the traditional indus-trial type concept at the bottom of the figure.The traditional industrial type characterizes thedifferences between the four assemblages in thefigure as a gradual transformation of the wholeentity from one to the next, i.e., as a bar gradingfrom light on the left to dark on the right. Thebox at the top of the figure presents anotherseries of four assemblages according to a behav-ioral approach to their operational sequences.2

Each black line between two chronogeographi-cally adjacent assemblages represents a statisti-cal or qualitative similarity between the optionsenacted in those assemblages for that specificknapping step or decision node. Please note thatassemblages at either end of a black line thatconnects more than two assemblages are notnecessarily similar at the given knapping step.The behavioral package uniting these four


assemblages is shown as the assortment of deci-sion nodes contained within the grey lines in thefigure. For instance, between the operationalsequences of Assemblages 1 and 2 in one region,there are 11 out of 12 similar knapping steps.The behavioral package as evidenced in the nextadjacent region, Assemblage 3, might includeonly eight similar knapping steps withAssemblage 2. Assem blage 4 in a third regionmight bear witness to the same behavioral pack-age also with eight similar knapping stepsbetween Assemblages 3 and 4 but these are notthe same eight as those that united the first andsecond regions. In this case, only six of the knap-ping steps might actually unite all four assem-blages across the three regions and yet the lowestnumber of similar knapping steps in the whole

process was 8 out of 12. This “hypothetical” caseis, in fact, the data from the BohunicianBehavioral Package (Tostevin 2000b, in press):Assemblage 1 is Boker Tach tit Level 1 in theLevant at 47 ka, Assemblage 2 is Boker TachtitLevel 2 in the Levant slightly after 47 ka,Assemblage 3 is Stránská skála IIIa Level 4 inCentral Europe at 41 ka, and Assemblage 4 isKorolevo II Complex II in Eastern Europe at 38ka. An even more distant region receiving thetransmitted package, such as a truly hypotheticalassemblage in Western Europe, might exhibitonly one or two of the specific knapping options,although the transmission interpretation at thispoint would be based on so few behaviors as tobe unlikely to be recognized; independent inno-vation would be a more likely interpretation.

Figure 9.1. A traditional graphic of the succession of industrial types within

the Middle Danube region of Central Europe.


Figure 9.2. A variable-by-variable view of the interregional pair-wise comparisons

between four assemblages evidencing a cultural-transmission event. The behavioral

package in this case is contained within grey lines. The black bars connecting two

assemblages represent the use of statistically similar attribute states between the two

assemblages (p > 0.05). Similarities are not necessarily implied between assemblages

connected by a bar that are not immediately adjacent (chronostratigraphically and

geographically) to each other. The knapping variables are ordered from top to bottom

to make it easier to draw the behavioral package as a channel, albeit of variable width.

The real assemblages behind this data are identified in the text. At the bottom of the

figure, the thick straight-sided bar is provided as a representation of the transforma-

tional change inherent in most discussions of change through time within typologized

industrial types (e.g., Otte and Koz!owski 2003).


Thus, the definition of a behavioral package isboth the process from beginning to end as well asthe contextual specifics at each point/event alongthe transmission route.

When Abstractions Are Useful: RaisingNew Hypotheses but Not Testing ThemThe blank-production choices characteristic ofthe Bohunician Behavioral Package in its fourevents/snapshots could have appeared betweenthe Levant and Eastern Europe without thewholesale displacement of resident populationsby an intrusive population of artisans.Specifically, the mating networks with whichhunter-gatherers structure their social environ-ment (Lee and DeVore 1976) are more likely tobe responsible for the diffusion of theBohunician Behavioral Package. The behaviorsare learnable only at levels of close social intima-cy, since the individual behaviors are restrictedto the taskscape visibilities of blank production.As different degrees of gene flow during culture-contact events known from ethnohistoric andethnographic contexts clearly reflect levels ofsocial intimacy (Van Kirk 1983; Merrell 1999;White 1991; Fix 1999), the level of social inti-macy exhibited in the Bohunician BehavioralPackage would, in modern forager groups,involve individuals mixing their residential lives,via mating networks and the exchange of socialobligations. Thus, assuming that the residentpopulation into which the demic diffusion pro-gressed (sensu Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993;Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; see alsoFix 1999:168–182) was not beyond the Paterson(1985) point of speciation by mate recognitionand assuming that there were hominins residentin the area, it is likely that gene flow would beone result of this cultural transmission eventfrom the Levant to Eastern Europe.

It is purely speculative at the moment to dis-cuss which hominins were involved in this cul-tural-transmission process, as no clear homininassociation has been made with one of the fourassemblages or even with assemblages associat-ed with them under a more abstract industrial-type label. The hominins responsible could bemodern humans dispersing from the Nile Valley,or a Neanderthal lineage with an adaptive edgepenetrating Neanderthal territory in Moraviafrom the Levant, or a combination of both, oneon either end of the process. (See Tostevin inpress for a fuller discussion.) But certain aspectsof the recognition of the Bohunician BehavioralPackage are useful as stimulators of furtherhypotheses.

There is no indication that the BohunicianBehavioral Package spread further west thanBohemia. This last, westernmost extant examplefrom the site of Hradsko is purely another hypoth-esis, as Neruda and Nerudová (2000) have recent-ly reascribed this assemblage to the BohunicianIndustrial Type from the Szeletian. It remains tobe seen if analytically it contains flintknappingchoices that could have been inherited from theBohunician Behavioral Package assemblages cur-rently studied (see Tostevin 2003b; #krdla andTostevin 2005; Tostevin and #krdla 2006; see alsoSvoboda and #krdla 1995; Svoboda et al. 1996;Svoboda and Bar-Yosef 2003).

Nevertheless, from extant descriptions in theliterature, there is no indication of a BohunicianBehavioral Package in Western Europe. This“event” level issue raises several questions: whatmade the package successful enough to spread toCentral Europe but not further west? From thepoint of view of event, was it an issue with thecontext of the Middle Danube versus the UpperDanube (the higher elevations, perhaps)? Fromthe processual point of view, did the mode of


transmission change during the spread of thepackage, so that the lithic package was no longerbeing carried on the coattails of the actuallyadvantageous behaviors that originally caused thetransmission event in the first place? This is one ofthe strengths of the cultural transmissionapproach, for Boyd and Richerson (1985, 2005)and others (Eerkens et al. 2006) have modeledthe different modes of transmission in a way toillustrate how behaviors that are otherwise notthemselves advantageous get preferential trans-mission into succeeding generations. Thesemodes of transmission include biased transmis-sion that affects the direction and/or fidelity oftransmission through the learner’s evaluation offeatures of extant variants (direct bias), the fre-quency of the variant relative to other variants inthe population (frequency-dependent bias), orthe appropriateness or attractiveness of the rolemodel displaying the variant (indirect bias).Indirect bias is, in essence, the coattail effect,while frequency-dependent bias serves as“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”(Richerson and Boyd 2002). Specific environ-mental and contextual scenarios make one formof bias more adaptive than others are (Boyd andRicherson 1985). Thus, while there is still a pos-sibility that there is something inherently advan-tageous within the lithic package itself, as Shea(2006; see also Hughes 1998) has argued forparticular assemblages, it is far more likely thatthis is only a portion of the physical evidence ofa demic diffusion that happened to preserve bet-ter than the responsible agent, which could be asimmaterial as a greater reliance on social bondsof reciprocal altruism across the landscape(Wiessner 1982; but see also Roebroeks et al.1988; Adler et al. 2006).

With the resolution of multiple events inthe cultural transmission process of a given

package, it is possible that changes in the rateand/or fidelity of the transmission betweenassemblage snapshots may provide key evidenceof changes in mode of transmission as the con-text of the package changed by region. This is alevel of hypothesis formation and archaeologicalexplanation that is rarely available through tra-ditional industrial-type systematics. We havenow returned full circle to Bar-Yosef ’s regionalscale of process and event, although we are nowon firmer epistemological ground in terms oftesting hypotheses derived from the abstractionsof industrial types.

ConclusionsWhat made modern humans different enoughfrom Neanderthals (and other archaic popula-tions) that the former survived the Pleistocenewhile the latter did not is a fundamental ques-tion in paleoanthropology. One of the ways toaddress this question is by reconstructing thecontext of how modern humans dispersing fromAfrica replaced (or mixed with) local Eurasianpopulations at different points in the dispersalprocess. This task requires understandingregional as well as assemblage-level process andevent in the formation of the archaeologicalrecord. As we have learned from the forager-to-agricultural transition in different areas (Cowanand Watson 1992; Harris 1996), we can learnmuch about the adaptations of two groups bycomparing regional contexts, which produceddifferent results from the interaction of the pop-ulations. For example, the resistance to changeexhibited by the Ertebølle in southernScandinavia when compared to the quickreplacement of Mesolithic adaptations to thesouth is highly indicative of both the advantagesand the limitations of the dispersing agricultur-al Linearbandkeramik population (Price and


Gebauer 1992). The application of a dualapproach to process and event in analyticalassemblages, studied through cultural transmis-sion theory, the middle-range theory of socialintimacy and taskscape visibility, and the inter-regional comparison of intra-assemblage behav-ioral units promises to provide more utility forcertain archaeological practices and questionsthan do the traditional systematics of industrialtypes. While industrial types need not be aban-doned, since the typological approach is bothfast and easy for communicative purposes in theliterature, this paper presents an argument forhow the tension between process and event maybe as useful in Paleolithic archaeology as thetension between wave and particle models oflight were once for physics (Kaku 1994). It willlikely take many studies utilizing a similarapproach, as it did with the application ofBordes’s (1961) typology, for the synergisticbenefit of the behavioral approach advocatedhere to be truly useful rather than just a casestudy. Regardless, it is certain that archaeologywill not need to pursue computationally inten-sive mathematics akin to String Theory to maxi-mize the potential of process and event. It mere-ly requires a change in focus and recognitionthat certain questions require epistemologicallyvalid methodologies suitable to the dataset.

Notes1. Here, I am using technocomplex and industrial

type as synonymous terms, despite the distinc-tions between their technical definitions(Gamble 1999:366–371; Clarke1978:328–362; Laville et al. 1980:14). Whileimportant, these distinctions are not relevanthere since they do not change the fact that all ofthese entities are generalizations from moredetailed datasets.

2. Here, each assemblage is being contrastedaccording to the knapping steps or decisionnodes advocated by Tostevin (2007, in press) for

the purposes of the taskscape visibility concept inpursuit of the social intimacy question. Thesesteps are thus focused on the process of knappingcores into blanks. Many other ways of parsing anoperational sequence exist, depending upon theanalytical question being asked.


References Adams, W. Y., and E. W. Adams

1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Adler, D. S., G. Bar-Oz, A. Belfer-Cohen, and O. Bar-Yosef

2006 Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic hunting behaviors in the southern Caucasus.

Current Anthropology 47(1):89–118.

Ammerman, A. J., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza

1984 The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bar-Yosef, O.

1992 The role of western Asia in modern human origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series

B 337:193–200.

1998 On the nature of transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141–163.

2000 The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Southwest Asia and neighboring regions. In The

Geography of Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-

Yosef and D. Pilbeam, pp. 107–156. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. Peabody Museum of Archaeology

and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridg.

2002 The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:363–393.

Bar-Yosef, O., and S. Kuhn

1999 The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist

101:1–17.

Boëda, E.

1995 Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In The Definition and Interpretation of

Levallois Technology, edited by H. L. Dibble and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 41–68. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Boesch, C., and M. Tomasello

1998 Chimpanzee and human cultures. Current Anthropology 39(5):591–614.

Bordes, F.

1950 L’évolution buissonnante des industries en Europe Occidentale: Considérations théoriques sur le

Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54:393–420.

1961 Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Publication de l’Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de

Bordeaux, Bordeaux.

Bordes, F., and D. de Sonneville-Bordes

1970 The significance of variability in Paleolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73.

Bordes, J.-G.

2003 Lithic taphonomy of the Châtelperronian/Aurignacian interstratifications in Roc de Combe and Le

Piage (Lot, France). In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating,

Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhão and F. d’Errico, pp. 223–244. Trabalhos de

Arquelogia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa.


Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson

1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1987 Evolution of ethnic markers. Cultural Anthropology 2(1):65–79.

1996 Why culture is common but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88:77–93.

2005 The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford University Press, New York.

Breuil, H.

1932 Le paléolithique ancien en Europe occidentale et sa chronologie. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique

Française 29:570–578.

Carr, C.

1995 A unified middle-range theory of artifact design. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and

Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J. Neitzel, pp. 171–258. Plenum Press, New York.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and M. W. Feldman

1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza

1993 Demic expansions and human evolution. Science 259:639–646.

Clarke, D.

1978 Analytical Archaeology, 2d ed. Columbia University Press, New York.

Collectif

1991 25 ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire: bilan et perspectives. Actes des XIe rencontres internationales

d’Archéologie et d’ Histoire d’Antibes, 18–20 octobre 1990. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

Commont, V.

1913 Les hommes contemporains du Renne dans la vallée de la Somme. Imprimerie Yvert and Tellier, Amiens.

Conard, N. J., and M. Bolus

2003 Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in

Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44:331–371.

Cowan, C. W., and P. J. Watson (editors)

1992 The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dibble, H. L.

1987 The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–117.

1988 Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources in the French

Mousterian. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. L. Dibble and A. Montet-

White, pp. 181–187. University Museum Monograph 54, University Museum Symposium Series 1.

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1995 Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(4):299–368.

Dibble, H. L., and N. Rolland

1992 On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of western Europe: History, perspectives, and a

new synthesis. In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability, edited by H. Dibble and P.

Mellars, pp. 1–28. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.


Donald, M.

1991 Origins of the Human Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge.

1998 Hominid enculturation and cognitive evolution. In Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of

Symbolic Storage, edited by C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, pp. 7–18. McDonald Institute Monographs.

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Eerkens, J. W., R. L. Bettinger, and R.McElreath

2006 Cultural transmission, phylogenetics, and the archaeological record. In Mapping Our Ancestors:

Phylogenetic Approaches in Anthropology and Prehistory, edited by C. Lipo, M. O’Brien, M. Collard, and S.

Shennan, pp. 169–183. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick.

d’Errico, F.

2003 The invisible frontier: A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evolutionary

Anthropology 12:188–202.

d’Errico, F., J.-G. Bordes, A. Lenoble, and J. Zilhão

2006 No Neandertal/early modern human interstratification at the Châtelperronian type-site. Paper pre-

sented at the Paleoanthropology Society Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, April 26.

d’Errico, F., J. Zilhão, M. Julien, D. Baffier, and J. Pelegrin

1998 Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpreta-

tion. Current Anthropology 39(Supplement):S1–S44.

Fix, A. G.

1999 Migration and Colonization in Human Microevolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Frison, G.

1968 A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.

Gamble, C.

1999 The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goldberg, P., and O. Bar-Yosef

1998 Site formation processes in Kebara and Hayonim Caves and their significance in Levantine prehis-

toric caves. In Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, edited by T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O.

Bar-Yosef, pp. 107–125. Plenum Press, New York.

Gravina, B., P. Mellars, C. Bronk Ramsey

2005 Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the

Châtelperronian type-site. Nature 438:51–56.

Harris, D. R. (editor)

1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Hughes, S.

1998 Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method

and Theory 5(4):345–408.

Inizan, M.-L., H. Roche, and J. Tixier


1992 Technology of Knapped Stone. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, Vol. 3. Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique, Meudon.

Kaku, Michio

1994 Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension. Oxford

University Press, New York.

Kelly, R. L.

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Laville, H., J.-P. Rigaud, and J. R. Sackett

1980 Rock Shelters of the Périgord. Academic Press, New York.

Lee, R., and I. DeVore (editors)

1976 Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Regional Studies of the !Kung-San and Their Neighbors. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge.

Lemonnier, P.

1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan 88. Ann Arbor.

Mayr, E.

1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, Cambridge.

McBrearty, S., and A. S. Brooks

2000 The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of

Human Evolution 39(5):453–563.

McPherron, S. J. P., H. L. Dibble, and P. Goldberg

2005 Z. Geoarchaeology 20(3):243–262.

Mellars, P.

1999 The Neanderthal problem continued. Current Anthropology 40:341–350.

2005 The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behaviour in

Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14:12–27.

Merrell, J. H.

1999 Into the American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier. W. W. Norton, New York.

Monnier, G.

2006 The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization in western Europe: An evaluation. Current Anthropology

47:709–744.

Mortillet, G. de.

1869 Essai d’une classification des cavernes et des stations sous abri, fondée sur les produits de l’industrie

humaine. Matériaux pour Servir à l’ Histoire Primitive de l’ Homme 5:172–179.

1873 Classification des diverses périodes de l’Âge de la Pierre. In Congrès International d’Anthropologie et

d’Archéologie Préhistoriques, 6ème session, pp. 432–459.


Nelson, M.

1991 The study of technological organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M.

Schiffer, pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Neruda, P., and Z. Nerudová

2000 The Upper Palaeolithic Levallois industry from Hradsko (Me lnik District, Czech Republic).

Anthropologie (Brno) 38:271–281.

Otte, M., and J. K. Koz!owski

2003 Constitution of the Aurignacian through Eurasia. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the

Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhão and F.

d’Errico, pp. 19–28. Trabalhos de Arquelogia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

Paterson, H. E. H.

1985 The species recognition concept. In Species and Speciation, edited by E. S. Vrba, pp. 21–29. Transvaal

Museum Monograph 4, Pretoria.

Peyrony, D.

1920 Le Moustérien – Ses faciès. Association Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences 44:496–497.

Pocklington, R.

2006 What is a culturally transmitted unit, and how do we find one? In Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic

Approaches in Anthropology and Prehistory, edited by C. Lipo, M. O’Brien, M. Collard, and S. Shennan,

pp. 19–31. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick.

Price, T. D., and A. B. Gebauer

1992 The final frontier: Foragers to farmers in southern Scandinavia. In Transitions to Agriculture in

Prehistory, edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp. 97–116. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Richerson, P. J., and R. Boyd

1978 A dual inheritance model of the human evolutionary process: I. basic postulates and a simple

model. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 1:127–154.

2002 Culture is part of human biology: Why the superorganic concept serves the human sciences badly.

In Probing Human Origins, edited by P. J. Richerson, pp. 59–85. American Academy of Arts and

Sciences, Cambridge.

2005 Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Roebroeks, W., J. Kolen, and E. Rensink

1988 Planning depth, anticipation and the organization of Middle Paleolithic technology: The “Archaic

Natives” meet Eve’s descendants. Helinium XXVIII/1:17–34.

Sackett, J. R.

1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: The case for isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edit-

ed by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 32–43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schiffer, M. B.

1975 Behavioral chain analysis: Activities, organization, and the use of space. In Chapters in the Prehistory

of Eastern Arizona IV, Fieldiana: Anthropology 65, pp. 103–119. Field Museum of Natural History,

Chicago.

1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.


1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1996 Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies. American Antiquity

61:643–662.

Shea, J. J.

2003 Neandertals, competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant. Evolutionary

Anthropology 12(4):173–187.

2006 The origins of lithic projectile point technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe.

Journal of Archaeological Science 33:823–846.

Shea, J. J., and O. Bar-Yosef

2005 Who were the Skhul/Qafzeh People? An archaeological perspective on Eurasia’s earliest modern

humans. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35:449–466.

Shennan, S. J.

2000 Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology

41(5):811–835.

2003 Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. Thames and Hudson,

London.

Shennan, S. J., and J. Steele

1999 Cultural learning in hominids: A behavioural ecological approach. In Mammalian Social Learning:

Comparative and Ecological Perspectives, edited by H. O. Box and K. R. Gibson, pp. 367–388. Symposia

of the Zoological Society of London 72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

#krdla, P.

1999 Mohelno – stanice z období pr echodu od str edního k mladému paleolitu na Morave . Mohelno – A

MP/UP transitional site in Moravia. Pr ehled vy zkumu 40:35–50.

#krdla, P., and G.Tostevin.

2005 Brno-Bohunice, analysis of the material from the 2002 excavation. Pr ehled vy zkumu 46:35–61.

Sonneville-Bordes, D. de, and J. Perrot

1954–1956 Lexique typologique du Paléolithique supérieur. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française

51:327–335; 52:76–79; 53:408–412, 547–559.

Svoboda, J., and O. Bar-Yosef (editors)

2003 Stránská skála: Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin. Peabody Museum Bulletin. Peabody

Museum Publications, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Svoboda, J., and P. #krdla

1995 The Bohunician technology. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by H. L.

Dibble and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 429–438. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Svoboda, J., V. Loz ek, and E. Vlc ek

1996 Hunters between East and West: The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.

Tehrani, J., and M. Collard

2002 Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology 21:443–463.


Tixier, J.

1984 Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 2: Économie du débitage laminaire. Cercle de Recherches et d’Études

Préhistoriques, Paris.

Tixier, J., M.-L. Inizan, and H. Roche

1980 Préhistoire de la pierre taillée. 1. Terminologie et technologie. Cercle de Recherches et d’Études

Préhistoriques, Paris.

Tostevin, G.

2000a The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition from the Levant to central Europe: In situ development

or diffusion? In Neanderthals and Modern Humans: Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe

from 50,000–30,000 BP, edited by G.-C. Weniger and J.Orschiedt, pp. 90–109. Neanderthal

Museum, Düsseldorf.

2000b Behavioral change and regional variation across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in cen-

tral Europe, eastern Europe, and the Levant. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

Harvard University.

2003a A quest for antecedents: A comparison of the Terminal Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper

Paleolithic of the Levant. In More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near

East, edited by N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 54–67. Oxbow Press, Oxford.

2003b Attribute analysis of the lithic technologies of Stránská skála II–III in their regional and inter-

regional context. In Stránská skála: Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, edited by J. Svoboda

and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 77–118. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 47. Dolní Ve stonice

Studies 10. Peabody Museum Publications, Harvard University, Cambridge.

2006 Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire methods of lithic

analysis. Paper presented in the electronic symposium Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and

Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Society for American

Archaeology Meetings, San Juan, P.R. Available at http://anthropology.umn .edu /peo-

ple/tostevinPub.php

2007 Social intimacy, artefact visibility, and acculturation models of Neanderthal-modern human interac-

tion. In Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins and

Dispersal of Modern Humans, edited by P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, and C. Stringer. McDonald

Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

in press Testing for Cultural Transmission in the Pleistocene: The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition from the

Near East to Europe. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin. Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Tostevin, G., and P. #krdla

2006 New excavations at Bohunice and the question of the uniqueness of the type-site for the Bohunician

industrial type. Anthropologie (Brno) XLIV(1):31–48.

Tschauner, H.

1994 Archaeological systematics and cultural evolution: Retrieving the honour of culture history. Man

29(1):77–93.


Van Kirk, S.

1983 Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670–1870. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

White, R.

1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge

Studies in North American Indian History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wiessner, P.

1982 Risk, reciprocity, and social influences on !Kung San economics. In Politics and History in Band

Societies, edited by E. Leacock and R. B. Lee, pp. 61–84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1983 Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48:253–276.

1984 Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: A case study among the Kalahari San. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 3:190–234.

Wobst, H. M.

1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin,

edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers of the University of Michigan 61, Ann

Arbor.

Zilhão, J., and F. d’Errico

1999 The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understand-

ing of Neandertal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13(1):1–68.

2003 The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In The

Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural

Implications, eds. J. Zilhão and F. d’Errico, pp. 313–349. Trabalhos de Arquelogia 33. Instituto

Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

Date post:	16-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	umn
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Tostevin 2009 The Importance of Process and Historical Event in the Study of the Middle-Upper...

Documents