The Upper Paleolithic Rock Art of Iberia

Nearly 200 rock art sites of Upper Paleolithic age are currently known on the Iberian Peninsula, in both caves and the open air. Over half are still concentrated in Cantabrian Spain and they span the period between c. 30–11 kya, but–tracking the course of human demography in this geographically circumscribed region–many of the images were probably painted or engraved during the Solutrean and, especially, Magdalenian. Dramatic discoveries and dating projects have significantly expanded the Iberian rock art record both geographically and temporally in recent years, in close coincidence with the growth of contemporaneous archeological evidence: cave art loci in Aragón and Levante attributable to the Solutrean and Magdalenian, many cave art sites and a few open-air ones in Andalucía and Extremadura that are mostly Solutrean (in line with evidence of a major Last Glacial Maximum human refugium in southern Spain), the spectacular Côa Valley open-air complex in northern Portugal (together with a growing number of other such loci and one cave) that was probably created during the Gravettian-Magdalenian periods, and a modest, but important increase in proven cave and open-air sites in the high, north-central interior of Spain that are probably Solutrean and/or Magdalenian. Despite regional variations in decorated surfaces, themes, techniques and styles, there are broad (and sometimes very specific) pan-Iberian similarities (as well as ones with the Upper Paleolithic art of southern France) that are indicative of widespread human contacts and shared systems of symbols and beliefs during the late Last Glacial. As this Ice Age world and the forms of social relationships and ideologies that helped human groups survive in it came to an end, so too did the decoration of caves, rockshelters and outcrops, although in some regions other styles of rock art would return under very different conditions of human existence.     

Radiocarbon Chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic

We have compiled 462 C-14 determinations for 120 Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites from Siberia and the Russian Far East. The Mousterian sites are dated to ca. 46,000–28,500 BP. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition dates to ca. 43,300–28,500 BP. Although there are a few earlier sites, most of the Upper Paleolithic sites are dated to the time interval between ca. 34,000 BP and 10,000 BP. The earlier Upper Paleolithic stage is characterized by macroblade technology and is radiocarbon-dated to ca. 34,000–20,000 BP. The earliest microblade technology occurs in the late stage of the Upper Paleolithic, dated to ca. 23,000–20,000 BP, but the majority of microblade sites is dated to ca. 20,000–11,000 BP. The Final Paleolithic (Mesolithic) sites date to ca. 12,000–6000 BP. At ca. 13,000–11,000 BP, the earliest Neolithic appeared in both the Russian Far East (Amur River basin) and the Transbaikal. The Paleolithic–Neolithic transition occurred ca. 13,000–6000 BP.     

Human ecological niches and ranges during the LGM in Europe derived from an application of eco-cultural niche modeling

We apply eco-cultural niche modeling (ECNM), an heuristic approach adapted from the biodiversity sciences, to identify habitable portions of the European territory for Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), circumscribe potential geographic extents of the Solutrean and Epigravettian technocomplexes, evaluate environmental and adaptive factors that influenced their distributions, and discuss this method's potential to illuminate past human–environment interaction. Our ECNM approach employed the Genetic Algorithm for Rule-Set Prediction (GARP) and used as input a combination of archaeological and geographic data, in conjunction with high-resolution paleoclimatic simulations for this time frame. The archaeological data consist of geographic coordinates of sites dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry to the LGM and attributed to the Solutrean and Epigravettian technocomplexes. The areas predicted by ECNM consistently outline the northern boundary of human presence at 22,000–20,000 cal BP. This boundary is mainly determined by climatic constraints and corresponds well to known southern limits of periglacial environments and permafrost conditions during the LGM. Differences between predicted ecological niches and known ranges of the Solutrean and Epigravettian technocomplexes are interpreted as Solutrean populations being adapted to colder and more humid environments and as reflecting influences of ecological risk on geographic distributions of cultures.     

Ideas no longer written in antler

In the course of the Upper Paleolithic, antler debitage techniques seem to have followed a linear evolution. The earliest one, fracturing by cleaving, appeared during the Aurignacian and is considered by some specialists to be ineffective. According to them, it was not until the invention of the groove and splinter technique during the Gravettian that antler debitage became efficient. Nonetheless, during the Solutrean, fracturing once again became the most common technique, but by splitting. Based on a study of 102 Solutrean pressure tools and experimentations, we reach the conclusion that splitting is a very effective technique that can produce blanks with the same qualities as those made by the groove and splinter technique. The splitting technique was nonetheless excluded in previous studies. We explore the reasons for this and the particularities of the different antler debitage techniques evidenced in the Western Upper Paleolithic.     

Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe

Early Upper Paleolithic sites are known in various parts of Eastern Europe, but the two main concentrations of them are the Prut-Dniester basin and the middle Don. The flint industries are divided into archaeological cultures (cultural traditions), of which some show clear archaic features (Kostenki-Streletsian, Gorodtsovian, Brynzenian, etc.), while others have no Mousteroid characteristics (Spitsynian, Telmanian, etc.). Both types of culture coexisted throughout the Early Upper Paleolithic. In some cases, it is possible to trace genetic links between archaeological cultures and to follow the transition between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. The radiocarbon age of the oldest Upper Paleolithic sites in the Russian Plain is about 40,000 B.P., but some sites may be older. The Early Upper Paleolithic ended about 24,000–23,000 B.P. In the Crimea, the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition appears to have taken place at about 20,000–18,000 B.P.     

Cave Art in Context: Methods for the Analysis of the Spatial Organization of Cave Sites

Investigations of prehistoric cave art have long neglected the surrounding context: space, archaeological objects, and imprints. As a result, an integrative structural approach that analyzes cave art as part of an anthropomorphized landscape has not been available. This article draws on urban planning and the physiology of the human eye to provide an innovative archaeospatial analysis of cave sites. A set of relevant features from the caves of Bédeilhac, Fontanet, and Le Portel was selected and defined (light zone, chamber type, path network, mode of movement, and available space). An analysis of the prehistoric remains in the caves allows the reconstruction of different concentrations of human activities (cave art, archaeological objects, and imprints). The projection of these concentrations onto the structured map of the caves results in four types of locations: drawing location, supply location, drawing location with substantial activities, and drawing location with consumption activities. This approach opens new avenues for the archaeological perception of caves and their inhabitants: Upper Paleolithic humans were very familiar with caves and probably followed a master plan during their stay in the dark.     

The Hidden Meaning of Forms: Methods of Recording Paleolithic Parietal Art

There are many restrictions placed on researchers studying Paleolithic Cave art due to the constraints of conservation that limit direct contact with the original works. This paper discusses how recent advances in technology have revolutionized the study and interpretation of Paleolithic cave art. The interpretation of Paleolithic symbolic systems is a complex process and hypotheses must be applied to cave art with the greatest of precision. A detailed analysis of the painted or engraved surfaces leads to a greater understanding of both the techniques employed and the actual sequence in which parietal compositions were executed. By unlocking the creative process followed by Upper Paleolithic artists we are able to glimpse the artist’s motivations and to understand a portion of the art’s hidden meaning.

Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear: Tianyuan and Sunghir

Trinkaus [Trinkaus, E., 2005. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1515–1526] provided a comparative biomechanical analysis of the proximal pedal phalanges of western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic and Middle Upper Paleolithic humans, in the context of those of variably shod recent humans. The anatomical evidence indicated that supportive footwear was rare in the Middle Paleolithic but became frequent by the Middle Upper Paleolithic. Based on that analysis, additional data are provided for the Middle Upper Paleolithic (∼27,500 cal BP) Sunghir 1 and the earlier (∼40,000 cal BP) Tianyuan 1 modern humans. Both specimens exhibit relatively gracile middle proximal phalanges in the context of otherwise robust lower limbs. The former specimen reinforces the association of footwear with pedal phalangeal gracility in the Middle Upper Paleolithic. Tianyuan 1 indicates a greater antiquity for the habitual use of footwear than previously inferred, predating the emergence of the Middle Upper Paleolithic.     

The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: A Review of Current Evidence

In spite of an active and sophisticated archaeological research program, the Paleolithic of the Iberian peninsula remains comparatively little known to English-speaking prehistorians, with the exception of Cantabrian Spain. The rich data set compiled by Spanish prehistorians and their colleagues over the past several decades stands to make a valuable and unique contribution to our understanding of the Pleistocene prehistory of Europe. We present a detailed overview of Upper Paleolithic chronology, sites, and assemblages for Mediterranean Spain, an area of over 1,600,000 km ² that extends from the French border to the Straits of Gibraltar. To interpret these data, we employ a regional perspective that emphasizes studies of paleoeconomy (especially zooarchaeology) and settlement. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition and Upper Paleolithic art also receive detailed treatment, and the Upper Paleolithic of Mediterranean Spain is discussed in the broader context of the late Upper Pleistocene of western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.     

New datings of Amudian layers at Qesem Cave (Israel): results of TL applied to burnt flints and ESR/U-series to teeth

Because only a few radiometric data are actually available, the chronology of the Amudian – a blade-dominated industry of the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant – is still not well constrained. Qesem Cave offers the opportunity to enhance our knowledge of the chronological position of this industry which is unique to the Levant. The Qesem Amudian bearing layers yielded also human remains showing affinities with those of modern populations recovered in the Middle Paleolithic sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. The results presented here are the first attempt to apply the TL and ESR/U-series dating methods at this site and these methods yielded results which are generally in agreement. They support a time interval of hominid-bearing occupation of the areas of the cave where Amudian lithic artifacts were recovered during MIS 8 and likely 9 for the Deep Pit Area, and during MIS 8 and possibly 7 for the Upper part of the sequence (Square K/10 and the Eastern Microfauna-Bearing Area). An older occupation of the cave is also conceivable on the base of two dating results (MIS 11).     

Chagyrskaya Cave:A Middle Paleolithic Site In The Altai

This article presents the results of multidisciplinary studies conducted at Chagyrskaya – an Upper Pleistocene karst cave in the northwestern Altai where Middle Paleolithic stone tools and fossil remains of Neanderthals were found. Taphonomic aspects of the site are addressed, and results of science-based analyses including radiocarbon and paleomagnetic dating are presented. The deposits are similar to loess-like Upper Pleistocene loams of Western Siberia. Among the Middle Paleolithic industries of the Altai, the Chagyrskaya industry is paralleled only by that of Okladnikov (formerly Sibiryachikha) Cave. Both represent a local Middle Paleolithic Mousteroid facies, named Sibiryachikha after the eponymous site.     

Paleolithic Art: A Cultural History

In this article we review the history of the terms and ideas that have been used to conceptualize Paleolithic art since the end of the 19th century. Between 1900 and 1970, prehistoric representations were typically divided into two main groups: parietal art (including rock and cave art) and portable (or mobiliary) art. This classification gave rise to asymmetrical attitudes about Paleolithic images. In particular, many portable and nonfigurative representations were overlooked while a small number of cave paintings were praised for their realism. Although the portable/parietal division has remained a popular divide among archaeologists, in the last 30 years increasing numbers of specialists have crossed the boundaries established by these categories. They have developed new frameworks within which more kinds of images are meaningfully approached and incorporated into the analysis of Paleolithic art and symbolism. The emergence of new approaches to Pleistocene imagery is the result of a number of interrelated processes, including the globalization of Paleolithic art studies, the impact of new discoveries, and the development of new approaches to art, images, and symbolism.     

哈尔滨阎家岗遗址动物骨骼圈状堆积的初步研究

目次一阎家岗遗址及动物骨骼圈状堆积的概况二国外旧石器时代居址材料与阎家岗遗址的比较三对动物骨骼圈状堆积的分析我国北方的旧石器时代遗址以洞穴遗址为主,许多遗址堆积巨厚,文化遗迹丰富,可以确定为古人类的居址。相对而言,旷野遗址的发现就少了许多,其中能被确定为人类居址的更是少之又少。进入旧石器时代晚期,由于人类适应自然的能力增强,过去很少发现旷野居址的俄罗斯、乌克兰等地,也大量涌现出各种类型的居址。但是与俄罗斯接邻的我国北方地区却几乎没有发现旷野居址。1982年开始发掘的哈尔滨阎家岗遗址,发现了两处由动物骨骼围成的圈状堆积,发掘者遂将该遗迹定为古人类营地遗址。这一重大发现受到了学术界的普遍关注,有赞成的,也有质疑的。赞同者主要从埋藏学的角度来支持他们的观点。不少学者在有关文     

Upper Paleolithic raw material economies at Üçağızlı cave, Turkey

This paper addresses variation in lithic raw material economy within the early Upper Paleolithic at Üçağızlı cave (south-central Turkey). The stratigraphic sequence documents some 12,000 years of the early Upper Paleolithic, entailing changes in lithic technology, raw material exploitation, and game use. Although the same lithic raw materials were exploited throughout the sequence to make quite similar ranges of products, there are marked changes in the ways raw materials from different source areas were treated, including patterns of transport and raw material consumption. The concept of technological provisioning is used to understand changing strategies for procuring and managing supplies of flint from different source locations. Shifts in raw material economy are argued to represent responses to changes in residential mobility and the scale/duration of occupations at the cave itself: data on cultural features and foraging strategies provide independent evidence for these shifts in land use. Results have implications for more nuanced approaches to investigating of lithic raw material economies and the significance of “raw material transfers.”     

A juvenile human frontal bone from the French Upper Palaeolithic site of Lacave: significance and problems of interpretation

In 1902, a portion of a juvenile human frontal bone was excavated by Armand Viré from the cave of Lacave in the Dordogne valley of southwestern France. The specimen is clearly from an Upper Palaeolithic context, although problems in interpreting the stratigraphy and postdepositional history in the cave render it essentially impossible to determine whether it is from a Magdalenian or Solutrean context. The morphology of the specimen is modern, as would be expected considering its relatively late Upper Palaeolithic context. Examination of aspects of brow ridge and frontal sinus development, as well as metopic suture obliteration, allows estimation of a developmental age of approximately 7–8 years for the specimen. Sex is indeterminate, and there is no pathology present. Apart from serving as an example of the problems of interpreting fragmentary skeletal remains from early 20th century excavations, the Lacave frontal represents one of the relatively few subadult cranial specimens known from the European Upper Palaeolithic. As such it is a valuable addition to the fossil record of early modern humans from Europe. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Upper Paleolithic of Northern Asia: Achievements,problems, and perspectives. II. Central and Eastern Siberia

Earlier scholars believed that the Upper Paleolithic of Central and Eastern Siberia appeared very late. However, modern research has shown that not only was there a local Middle Paleolithic, but also there was a very early series of sites in Central Siberia which show both Middle and early Upper Paleolithic traits. These are called the Makarovo horizon and may be 70,000–50,000 years old; features derived from this horizon can be dated to about 30,000 B.P. and can be seen in the early D'uktai culture. The true early Upper Paleolithic is relatively homogeneous in Central and Eastern Siberia and includes artwork. The local Upper Paleolithic reached its florescence in the culture of Mal'ta and Bur'et', which developed out of local antecedents and which is here reinterpreted in light of recent research (including the artwork, structures, and burials). The final stages of the Upper Paleolithic show considerable variability, perhaps including some exotic traits.     

The Sibiryachikha Facies of the Middle Paleolithic of the Altai

The Middle Paleolithic industry of the Sibiryachikha facies is described on the basis of two stratified sites in the Altai – Okladnikov Cave (formerly Sibiryachikha) and Chagyrskaya Cave. Stratigrtraphic, environmental, and chronological aspects are discussed. The structure of two cave sites is analyzed. Petrographic properties of raw material are described and the typology and technology of the lithic industry are compared with those of other local Middle Paleolithic traditions. The Sibiryachikha facies of the Altai Middle Paleolithic represented by two sites was clearly associated with a small group of Neanderthals who migrated from western Central Asia. Eventually the Middle Paleolithic industry evolved into a local variant of the Upper Paleolithic.     

New radiocarbon dating of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave,Israel

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (MP-UP transition) is considered a major technological and cultural threshold, at the time when modern humans spread “out of Africa”, expanded from the Levant into Europe and possibly into central and northern Asia. The dating of this techno-cultural transition has proved to be extremely difficult because it occurred sometime before 40,000 radiocarbon years before present (¹⁴C years BP), which is close to the end of the effective dating range of radiocarbon. Other dating methods such as Thermoluminescence (TL) or Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) are not sufficiently precise to date the recorded archaeological MP-UP transition in the Levant. Here we report a consistent set of stratified radiocarbon ages on freshly excavated charcoal from Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel (Israel), that span the late Middle Paleolithic (MP) and Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) This study applied novel strategies to improve sample preparation techniques and data analysis to obtain high-resolution radiocarbon models. From this study it is proposed that the MP-UP transition for this site can be placed immediately after 45,200 ± 700 ¹⁴C years BP and before 43,600 ± 600 ¹⁴C years BP or from 49/48 to 47/46 radiocarbon calibrated years before present (years Cal BP).     

Investigating links between ecology and bifacial tool types in Western Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum

We apply Eco-Cultural Niche Modeling (ECNM), using the Genetic Algorithm for Rule-Set Prediction, to reconstruct the ecological niches exploited by Middle Solutrean and Upper Solutrean populations during the latter stages of Heinrich Event 2 and the early part of the Last Glacial Maximum, respectively. We focus on the Upper Solutrean technocomplex and its regionally distinct styles of hunting weaponry to investigate whether regional cultural variability reflects a link between material culture and ecology. Our analytical approach uses archaeological and geographic data in conjunction with high-resolution paleoclimatic simulations and vegetation reconstructions for the two climatic phases in question. Our results indicate that cultural choices behind the production of specific projectile point types have at some level an ecological basis and are linked to particular environments. We also find that the identified pattern of Upper Solutrean territoriality has an ecological foundation, but that its stylistic expression in the variation of diagnostic armature types is likely a byproduct of cultural drift. We argue that ECNM is an effective means with which to evaluate the paleoecological pertinence of archaeologically defined artifact types and to identify the ecological and cultural mechanisms underlying material culture variability.     

The Upper Paleolithic of northern Asia: Achievements,problems, and perspectives. I. Western Siberia

The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Western Siberia is now dated to almost 35,000 B.P. The earliest sites reveal a well-developed blade technology and very sophisticated mobiliary art. The evidence suggests that the early Upper Paleolithic developed within Siberia out of the local Mousterian and that there is no need to regard it as an intrusive phenomenon out of the west, as has been traditionally done. The florescence of the Western Siberian Upper Paleolithic began at about the glacial maximum and two major cultural groups can be identified. However, they share many features in common and seem not to have existed in isolation from each other; instead, it is possible to trace numerous complex and interwoven connections between them. Together, they form a Western Siberian Upper Paleolithic technocomplex, which was essentially local but fully as sophisticated and as technologically advanced as was that of Europe.