Society for American Archaeology

Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy
Author(s): Julien Riel-Salvatore and C. Michael Barton
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 257-274
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128419 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 19:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR, AND
LAND-USE DYNAMICS IN SOUTHERN ITALY

Julien Riel-Salvatoreand C. Michael Barton

This paper proposes a new methodology to studyprehistoric lithic assemblages in an attempt to derivefrom thatfacet of
prehistoric behavior the greater technoeconomicsystem in which it was embedded.By using volumetricartifact density and
thefrequency of retouchedpieces within a given lithic assemblage, it becomespossible to identifywhetherthese stone tools
were created by residentially mobile or logistically organizedforagers. The linkingfactor between assemblage composi-
tion and land-use strategy is that of curation within lithic assemblages as an expression of economizing behavior. This
method is used to study eight sites from southeasternItaly to detect changes in adaptation during the Late Pleistocene. We
compare and contrast Mousterian, Uluzzian,proto-Aurignacianand Epigravettianassemblages, and argue that the first
three industries overlap considerably in terms of their technoeconomicflexibility. Epigravettianassemblages, on the other
hand, display a different kind of land-use exploitation pattern than those seen in the earlier assemblages, perhaps as a
response to deteriorating climatic conditions at the Last Glacial Maximum.Whilewe discuss the implications of these pat-
terns in the context of modern human origins, we argue that the methodology can help identify land-use patterns in other
locales and periods.

Nous proposons une nouvelle approchepour l'dtude des ensembles lithiques permettantd'identifier les systkmes techno-
economiquesdans lesquels ils s'inskrent. Utilisant commeparamktresanalytiques la densite volumdtriqued'artifacts et le
rapportoutils/ddbitage,il devientpossible d'attribuerun ensemble lithiqueprdhistoriquea un mode d'organisation< logis-
tique >>ou <<a mobilitdrdsidentielle>. Le degre'de <<conservation>~au sein d'un ensemble lithique, interprdt,comme l'ex-
pression variabled'une attitudedconomevis-ia-visde la matikrepremiere,constituele lien entrela compositiond'un ensemble
lithiqueet un modeprdffrentield'exploitationdu territoire.Nous appliquonsnotremethodologie le'tude de huit sites de 'I-
talie mdridionaleremontantau Pldistocknesupe'rieurEn comparantles rdsultatstirds d'ensembles mousteriens,uluzziens,
proto-aurignacienset dpigravettiens,nous constatons que les troispremieresindustriessemblentcaractdrisdespar une simi-
laritdmarqueeen ce qui a traita leurflexibilitdtechno-dconomiquealors que l' Epigravettienapparaitddfinipar un modkle
distinct d'exploitationdu territoire,reprdsentantvraisemblablementune adaptationaux climatsplus rudes du dernier maxi-
mum glaciaire. Nous interprdtonsles resultats de cette approche dans le contexte de l'origine de l'homme moderne, mais
soulignons que cette methodologiepeut aussi permettred'identifierles modklesd'exploitationdu territoiredans les sites strat-
ifies d'autresperiodes et regions.

ue to the prevalenceof stoneartifactsin debatedtoday.Twofacetsthathave emergedfrom

thearchaeologicalrecord,behavioralmod-
els for prehistoricnomadic foragers are
based almost exclusively on lithics. Fortunately,
the morphologyof stone implementsis a resultof
prehistoricactivityand,therefore,can yield useful
insights into the behavior of their makers. But,
while chippedstoneartifactsarewidelyrecognized
as fundamentalcomponentsof the technologies
used to acquireand process needed resourcesin
prehistory,the causes and meaning of variation
amongand withinlithic assemblages-especially
with respectto retouchedartifacts-remain hotly
Julien Riel-Salvatore and C. Michael Barton a Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University,Box 872402,
Tempe,AZ, 85287-2402; (julienrs@asu.edu),(cmbarton@asu.edu)
the debatesurroundingthe meaningof lithic vari-
abilityareparticularlyrelevantto the studyof the
adaptationsof prehistoricforagers. The first of
those contraststhe role of drift and selection in
shapinglithicmorphology.Someresearchersview
interassemblagevariabilityas primarilythe result
of drift-like,stochasticprocessesoften glossed as
"culturaltradition."'Fromthisoutlook,patternsof
similarities(treatedlike evolutionaryhomologies)
and differencesamong lithic assemblages(espe-
cially retouched tools) are felt to trace cultural
descent spatiallyand temporally.The contrasting

AmericanAntiquity,69(2), 2004, pp. 257-274

Copyright@2004 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

257

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
perspective sees lithic variabilitymainly as the
resultof selectionfavoringmorphologiesthatbet-
ter serve to accomplishvaryingcombinationsof
resource acquisition and processing activities.
Thus, patternsof similarity(treatedas evolution-
ary analogies)and differenceamongassemblages
areinsteadfelt to indicatesuitesof resourceacqui-
sition/processingstrategiesor "adaptiveposes."In
Paleolithicarchaeology,thisfacetis typifiedby the
well-known Bordes-Binforddebate of the mid-
twentiethcentury(Binford1973;BinfordandBin-
ford 1966, 1969;BinfordandSabloff1982;Bordes
1969, 1973, 1981; Bordesandde Sonneville-Bor-
des 1970; see also Barton1997; Bartonand Nee-
ley 1996).
The second,relatedfacet contrastsintentional-
ity and life-historyapproachesin how to interpret
lithic variability.In the original Bordes-Binford
debate, both sides viewed retouchedartifactsas
"tools"whose morphologies(i.e., the formsfound
in archaeologicalassemblages)were the intended
productof ancient artisansbehavingtechnologi-
cally accordingto mentaltemplates(see also Mel-
lars 1996). To a degree, this perspective is
exemplifiedtoday, albeit in a more sophisticated
fashion,by the chaine opdratoireapproachto the
studyandclassificationof Paleolithicassemblages
(Bleed2001; Boada1994, 1995;Boadaet al. 1990;
Lemonnier1992;Schlanger1994;Sellet 1993).In
contrast,a numberof mostlyAmericanresearchers
have arguedthat retouchedartifactsin archaeo-
logical contextareprimarilythe unintended-and
generally unwanted-end productsof extending
lithic artifactuse-life throughrepeatedresharpen-
ing. Thismodel,now supportedby numerousactu-
alistic studies and quantitative analyses of
prehistoric assemblages, attributesmuch of the
morphologicalvariabilityin retouchedtoolsto vari-
ations in the length and natureof their life histo-
ries (Barton1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1991; Bartonet
al. 1996; Bleed 2001; Dibble 1984, 1987, 1988,
1995; Flennikenand Raymond 1986; Flenniken
and Wilke 1989; Hiscock and Attenbrow2003;
Hoffman1985;Kuhn1989, 1990, 1994, 1995;Rol-
land 1977, 1981; RollandandDibble 1990; Shott
1989, 1996;Weedman2002; WilkeandFlenniken
1991).While the initialformof a lithicartifactcan
undoubtedly be shaped by cultural traditionor
intendedfunction (or some combinationof these
[Jelinek 1976, 1988; see also Bisson 2000]), the
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 69, No. 2, 2004
final formrecoveredin archaeologicalcontextwill
mainlybe theresultof therangeof tasksperformed,
length and intensity of use, and decisions about
whether to replace or rejuvenatethe artifact.As
such, the morphologyof archaeologicallyrecov-
eredretouchedstonetools may thereforebe some-
what differentfromtheirinitialone (Barton1991,
1997; Dibble 1987;Frison 1968;Neeley and Bar-
ton 1994).
Wefindtheevidencesupportingthe life-history
perspectiveespecially compelling for many pre-
historic assemblages and feel that, while social
descentcertainlycan contributeto lithicmorphol-
ogy, the fundamentalrole of lithic technologyin a
foragereconomy means that selection is likely a
much more importantdeterminantof lithic form.
From this perspective, technological decisions
aboutthereplacementand/ormaintenanceof lithic
artifactsareembeddedin a widerweb of economic
considerationsand land-usestrategiesbecause of
the variable cost/benefit balance (in time and
energy)of lithicrawmaterialprocurementanddif-
ferentialeffectivenessof freshandrejuvenatedarti-
factsin criticalresourceacquisitionandprocessing
tasks.Hence,while thereis undoubtedlyinsightto
be gleaned from the study of retouched stone
"tools"alone, we would arguethat more behav-
iorally meaningfulinformationcan be obtained
from problem-orientedstudies of how retouched
implementsrelate to the whole of a site's lithic
assemblage (including unretouched debitage,
cores, and otherproductiondebris)and the larger
contextof foragersocioecosystems.This perspec-
tive is supportedby three additionalpoints about
prehistorictechnologicalbehaviorand its expres-
sion in the archaeologicalrecord.
First,it appearshighly unlikelythatretouched
artifactsrepresentthe only lithic materialused by
prehistoricforagers.There is, in fact, substantial
evidencefrommicrowearstudiesthatunretouched
flakeswerefrequentlyusedfor a rangeof functions
by prehistorichunter-gatherers(Beyries1987;Kee-
ley and Toth 1981;Young and Bamforth1990).
Secondly, retouched "tools" usually comprise
only a smallfractionof the totallithicassemblages
found in archaeological contexts. Relying on
typologies that focus almost exclusively on
retouched stone implements therefore prevents
archaeologistsfrom addressingthe full range of
prehistorictechnologicalbehavior.Because unre-
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] LATEPLEISTOCENE INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY 259

touchedflakes were actively used componentsof retouchedtools, this whole assemblage analysis
prehistoriclithic assemblages and because other approachexaminesthenatureandintensityof tech-
formsof debitageandcores (as manufacturing and
nological behavior by comparing artifact volu-
maintenanceby-products)indicate artifactpro- metric density and the relative frequency of
ductionand use, it is necessaryto develop meth- retouchedpieces within an assemblage.Artifact
ods to incorporatethe full rangeof lithic productsvolumetricdensity is definedas the total number
in the analysis of chipped stone assemblagesin of pieces of chippedstonepercubicmeterof exca-
orderto gaina completepictureof prehistorictech- vated sediment,and serves as a proxy for artifact
nological-and therefore economic-behavior. accumulation rate. The relative frequency of
Despite its importance,studies of debitage have retouchedpieces is simply the count of retouched
tendedto be rarein general(see Ahler 1989; Sul- "tools" (e.g., the pieces in Bordes Middle Pale-
livan and Rozen 1985), althoughrecent publica- olithic type list minus unretouchedtypes 1-3 and
tions have begun to emphasize its analytical 5) dividedby the totalnumberof pieces (including
usefulness(e.g., papersinAndrefsky2001; see also all flakes,cores, andotherdebitage)in the assem-
Hiscock 2002). blage. Artifactvolumetricdensity potentiallycan
Lastly, it is essential that lithic variabilitybe
varywithexcavationtechnique(e.g.,different-sized
framedwithin broadertheoreticalframeworksin screensor no screening)andso directcomparisons
order to assign meaning to recurrentobservable can only be made between sites when this is
patternsin the archaeologicalrecordandhelp for- accountedfor. It also can vary as a resultof fluc-
mulate furtherresearchquestions. For example, tuatingsedimentationratesduringdeposition(see
building on forager studies by Binford (1979, Bartonand Clark1993; Farrand2001; Stein et al.
1980), a numberof scholarshave providedinte- 2003) and/ora range of post-depositionaltapho-
grated models linking technologicalbehaviorto nomic processes that can reduce its final volume
stone artifactform and patternsin lithic assem- throughselectivediagenesisof certainsedimentary
blages (e.g., Bamforth1986, 1991; Bamforthand components(e.g., Karkanaset al. 2000; Weineret
Bleed 1997;Bleed 1986; Kuhn1989, 1991, 1992; al. 2002). To avoid the potentialimpact of time
Nelson 1991; Shott 1989, 1996). Nelson (1991), averaging,it wouldbe preferableto calculateactual
for instance,articulatesa cleardifferencebetween artifactaccumulationratesratherthanuse artifact
curated and expedient lithic assemblages in the densityas a proxy,butmanysites-including those
archaeologicalrecord.Theuniquenatureandstruc- discussed here-lack the high-resolutionradio-
tureof eachtype of assemblage,andtheirposition metricdatingrequiredto do this.Fortunately,there
atoppositeendsof a continuumof economicbehav- is no indicationthatsedimentationratesvariedby
ior (see also Shott 1996, for a review of the con-ordersof magnitudewithin each of the sites ana-
cept of curation), constitute useful theoretical lyzed here and in fact, as we discuss below, the
referencepoints upon which we can formulatea analysisof lithicassemblagespresentedhereholds
general model of the relationbetween economic thepossibilityto helpdistinguishthosecaseswhere
behavior,mobility strategies,andrelevantaspects sedimentationratesdo vary significantly.We cer-
of lithic variabilityat the assemblagelevel. With tainlydo notmeanto trivializetheneedfordetailed
this in mind,we endeavorto identifyvariablesthat geoarchaeologicalstudiesin helpingto understand
monitorlithicvariabilityconsistentlyacrossdiverse site formationprocesseswhenpossible.Rather,our
assemblages within a framework designed to model simplyposits thatceterisparibusthereis a
addressquestionsof prehistoricforagerland-use. directrelationshipbetween an assemblage'srela-
tive frequencyof retouchedpieces and its artifact
volumetric density that holds constant the rela-
Methodology
tionshipbetween threecomponentsof an assem-
Recently,Bartondevelopeda simple approachto blage:(1) its absolutesize, (2) its relativefrequency
link assemblage-scalevariabilitywith Late Pleis- of retouchedpieces, and (3) the sedimentaryvol-
tocene behavioralpatternsat sites in Gibraltarand ume in which it was found.Based on the expecta-
easternSpain(Barton1998;Villaverdeet al. 1998). tions aboutlithic technologyoutlinedbelow, if an
Rather than focusing on formal properties of assemblagedoes not to conformto the model, the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.69, No. 2, 2004

Gorham'sCave

100

Curated
A
10-
S AA UpperPaleolithic
0?Middle Paleolithic
A

a 1

r = -.924 Expedient

.1 1 10 100 1000

Artifact VolumetricDensity

Figure 1. Patterns for Paleolithic assemblages from Gorham's Cave, predicting a negative relationship (r = -.924,p = .000,
N = 10) between artifact volumetric density and frequency of retouched pieces, along with associated technological strate-
gies (after Barton 1998).

mostlikely sourceof distortionshouldbe theexca-
vatedvolume of archaeologicalsediment,a factor
thatcanthenbe isolated,therebyhighlightingthose
layers that might have been subjectedto variable
ratesof sedimentdepositionandretention.
Resultsfrom Gorham'sCave andotherIberian
Paleolithicsites (i.e., Barton1998;Villaverdeet al.
1998) display a strong negative relationship
between artifactdensityandrelativefrequencyof
retouched pieces (Figure 1). Assuming that the
overall need for stone tools does not change sig-
nificantlyover time, this relationshipcan serve as
a heuristicdevice to infertechnoeconomicbehav-
ior from archaeologicalassemblages.If we com-
binethetheoreticalframeworkforlithictechnology
discussed above with the long-termevolutionary
tendency for humans to make critical economic
decisions to maximizebenefit/costratioswithina
perceived socioecological context (Winterhalder
and Smith 2000), assemblagecharacteristicswill
be influencedby the propensityto maximizelithic
utility under varying land-use strategies.Under
conditionsof effectivelocal lithic scarcity-con-
trolledas much by humanland-usedecisions and
situationalvariablesasby absoluterawmaterialdis-
tribution-hunter-gatherersare expected to con-
serve lithic resourcesby producingfewer flakes
and extendingthe use-life of flakes that are pro-
ducedthroughregularmaintenance(i.e., retouch).
Under conditions of effective local lithic abun-
dance, on the otherhand,such conservationmea-
suresareunnecessary,leadingforagersto produce
and discardmoreflakeswhile investingcompara-
tivelylittleeffortin extendingtheiruse-lifethrough
repeatedmaintenanceandresharpening.
Giventhese considerations,the two ends of the
curation-expediency continuumdepictedin Figure
1 can be assigned to prevalentsite-use strategies
within a continuum of residential to logistical
mobility (sensu Binford 1979, 1980). Expedient
assemblages are often deposited at the "base
camps"or "centralresidences"of logisticallyorga-
nized hunter-gatherers(Binford 1980; Nelson
1991). In suchcontexts,lithic raw materialis usu-
ally effectivelyabundantdue to directlocal avail-
ability,embeddedprocurement,and/orstockpiling
of materialat the site. This reduces the premium
of preservingraw material,resultingin compara-
tively higher artifactdensities and assemblages
comprised mostly of unretouchedflakes. These
high densitiesarealso theresultof thelongeroccu-
pation spans that characterizesuch sites, which
directlyinfluencethe quantityof lithicproduction
debristhataccumulatesat a site (Morrow1996a).
Coresassociatedwithsuch assemblagestendto be
only minimallyprepared,sinceextractingthemax-
imumnumberof blanksfroma singlenoduleis not
the most importantconsideration. Overall, this

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Riel-Salvatore and Barton] LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY IN SOUTHERN ITALY
modalityof technologicalbehaviorcan be takento
indicatea reducedneed for a portableand versa-
tile lithic toolkitat the base camp,andin Figure1,
it is associatedwithassemblagesfoundin thelower
right-handcorner.
Curatedassemblages, on the other hand, are
expected to be associatedwith residentialmobil-
ity, wherethe centrallocus of activityof a hunter-
gatherer group changes frequently. However,
assemblagesdepositedby task groupson logisti-
cal forays away from a centralresidentialsite can
also be expectedto displaythis pattern,since they
tend to have specifically manufactured,reliable
tools (sensu Bleed 1986) to execute these extrac-
tion tasks.Inbothcases, becausesites areoccupied
only for shortperiodsof time,the stonetool assem-
blages createdby mobileforagerstendto be of low
density and comprise mostly resharpened(i.e.,
retouched)tools,butwhilethecuratedassemblages
of residentially mobile foragers will comprise
mostly exhausted maintainable lithics, those
depositedby logistical task groupswill containa
majorityof reliabletools (Kuhn1989).Coresfound
in curatedassemblagescan be expectedto be pre-
paredcoresthatproducemorecuttingedge pervol-
ume (e.g., discoidalcores,some formsof recurrent
Levallois cores, or prismaticblade cores) and be
fairly "exhausted"at time of discard (see Shott
1996). This patternresultsfrombrief site occupa-
tions by highly mobile foragerswho carry with
them a lightweight,easily maintainedandpolyva-
lent toolkit (Kuhn 1989, 1994, 1996; cf. Morrow
1996b).This mobility strategy,in turn,createsan
effectiverawmaterialscarcitythatelicits conserv-
ing behaviorfrom those who rely on it. As such,
curated assemblages representrisk-minimizing
strategiesthataim to providea constantsupplyof
functionaltools in times or placeswherethey can-
not be manufactureddue to eitherlack of suitable
materialor preparationtime (Bamforthand Bleed
1997). In Figure 1, this strategyis associatedwith
sites found in the upperleft-handcomer.
Thereis, of course,a large amountof variabil-
ity thatis expectedalongthebehavioralcontinuum
linkingcurationandexpediency(see Barton1998:
Figure 1; Villaverdeet al. 1998: Figure 5). There
areseveralpotentialcausesforthisvariability,none
of which is mutuallyexclusive.One is variationin
land-use patterns,as suggested above, which in
tumrn affects effectiveraw materialavailabilityand
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
261
tool design considerations(Bleed 1986; Nelson
1991). Anotheris that given assemblagesusually
representpalimpsestsof multipleoccupationsof a
site by groupsthatmay rely on differentland-use
and technoeconomic strategies. As mentioned
above, variablesedimentationratesaffectingarti-
fact volumetricdensityrepresentanotherpotential
factorcontributingto thelocationof anassemblage
on the graph.Low sedimentationrateswill shiftan
assemblage'spositiontowardtheupperright-hand
comer,whilehighsedimentationrateswill havethe
oppositeeffect, draggingassemblagestowardthe
lower left. In termsof creatinginterpretiveambi-
guity,theimpactof high sedimentationrateswould
be most severefor assemblagesdepositedat logis-
tical base camps. Low sedimentationrateswould
mostsignificantlydistortpatternsforhighlycurated
assemblages deposited by residentially mobile
hunter-gatherers or by the taskgroupsof logistical
collectors.Alternatively,assemblagesin the upper
right-handcomermightrepresenta completelydif-
ferent technological strategyakin to the "snow-
bound Neanderthal"model proposedby Rolland
(1981), where a site is occupied for long periods
even thoughraw materialis effectively scarce.
A significantadvantageof this whole assem-
blagemethodwithregardsto comparingprehistoric
stonetool assemblagesis thatit canbe used across
traditionallyassigned geographic and temporal
typologicaldivisions.Forinstance,fortheEurasian
Paleolithic,two distincttypologicalsystems have
been used to describethe morphologicalvariabil-
ity of Middle and Upper Paleolithic stone tools
(Bordes1953, 1961;de SonnevilleandPerrot1953,
1954, 1955, 1956). Since most interpretationsof
Paleolithicbehavioralvariationare based on pat-
terns in the distribution of stone tools, this
dichotomyeffectivelyestablishes(andreinforces)
a de facto behavioraldistinctionbetween the two
periods (Marks et al. 2001; Riel-Salvatore and
Clark2001). However,Graysonand Cole (1998)
have recently suggested that the alleged greater
numberanddiversityof tools in earlyUpperPale-
olithic assemblagesis essentially a side-effect of
largerassemblagesizes as opposedto a qualitative
shift in the mentalcapabilitiesof LatePleistocene
humans(cf. Harrold1989),therebyhighlightingthe
limited heuristic potential of typological
approachesto assess andexplaininter-assemblage
variability.As well as avoidingthe issue of non-
262 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
comparable classificatory systematics, a whole
assemblageanalysisapproachcaneasilybe applied
to a wide numberof assemblagesreportedin the
archaeologicalliterature.It simply requirescount
data for entireassemblagesalong with retouched
tool counts, and volumetric informationon the
excavation units from which assemblages were
recovered;these dataarecommonlyfoundin pub-
lished accounts.
We proposethis methodologyas an additional
componentof a growing"analyticalarsenal"that
helps archaeologistsreconstructprehistoricbehav-
ior from chippedstone assemblages.While a sin-
gle methodcangeneratesoundinterpretations, one
shouldideallycombinea varietyof methodsoper-
atingat differentscales of resolution(i.e., artifact-
vs. assemblage-based)in orderto obtaina thorough
understandingof technoeconomicbehavior,since
each has advantagesandlimitations.Forinstance,
whilethemethodologyadvocatedin thispaperdoes
not quantitativelyestimatethe degree of curation
of individualartifactswithin an assemblage (cf.
Dibble 1987, 1995; Kuhn1990, 1992), it includes
all retouchedartifactsin its assessmentof general
land-use patternsas opposed to relying only on
certainclasses of retouchedpieces on certainkinds
of blanks to do so (e.g., scraperson flakes). Our
methodcan thus serve both as a heuristicto gen-
erateinterpretations thatcan be complementedby
artifact-basedmethods,and as a potentialconfir-
matory "check"for the results of such analyses
aimingto reconstructpasttechnoeconomicstrate-
gies. However,before the results of artifact-and
assemblage-based measures of curation can be
compared,it is necessaryto develop the method-
ology neededto arriveatanassemblage-based mea-
sureon its own.
Sample Selection
There are, in Paleolithicstudies,few topics more
contentious than the so-called Middle to Upper
Paleolithic transition,and what this entailed in
termsof changes in hominidbehavior(Bar-Yosef
andPilbeam2000;Clark1999;StringerandDavies
2001). Because whole assemblageanalysisoffers
a uniform way to track changes in land-use and
technoeconomic strategies across typologically
definedperiods,we focus this studyon a series of
sites thathave yieldedMiddle,Upper,and"transi-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol.69, No. 2, 2004
tional"Paleolithicassemblages.The selectedsam-
ple compriseseight tightly clusteredsites located
on the Ionian coast of the Salento peninsula,in
southernItaly, near the city of Nard6 (Table 1).
These sites wereexcavatedin the 1960s and 1970s
by teams from the IstitutoItalianodi Preistoriae
Protostoria,the Universityof Siena, and the Uni-
versityof Florence,reportedlyusingmodemrecov-
erytechniques.Mostof theexcavatedassemblages
were describedin their entirety,with retouched
tools, debitage, and cores being describedtypo-
logically andin termsof theirrawmaterial.All the
sites containMiddlePaleolithicdeposits,fourcon-
tainUpperPaleolithicdeposits(proto-Aurignacian
andEpigravettian), andfive containdepositsattrib-
uted to a "transitional"industry,the Uluzzian.
Palma di Cesnola (1993, 2001) describes the
Uluzzianas a uniquelyItaliantransitionalindustry
(but see Koumouzelis, Linter et al. 2001;
Koumouzelis,Kozlowski et al. 2001) character-
ized typologicallyby backedlunatemicrolithsand
pieces esquilldes-or splinteredpieces-(Demars
andLaurent1989:94-95, 98-99), andtechnologi-
cally by a predominantlyflake-basedblank pro-
duction system (see Kuhn and Bietti 2000). It is
quitedifferentfromthe Chitelperronianindustries
of southwesternFrance and northernSpain into
whichsomeresearchersmistakenlyattemptto sub-
sumeit (e.g., Gioia 1988, 1990;Mussi2001). How-
ever, the Uluzzian may well represent a local
manifestationof broadersociodemographicand
evolutionarytrendsoccurringin Eurasiaas a whole
between40,000-30,000 yearsB.P. (d'Erricoet al.
1998;KuhnandBietti 2000). This studyoffersthe
potential to test whether or not the behavior
reflectedin Uluzzianassemblagesis moreclosely
relatedto MiddleorUpperPaleolithicpatterns,and
whethertherearemarkeddifferencesin economic
strategiesthat coincide with the beginningof the
UpperPaleolithic.
It is importantto emphasizethatour sampling
strategy,focused on a set of comparablelocales,
effectively creates a useful setting to study
diachronicchangesin land-usepatternsas it holds
the locationof humanactivitiesconstant.If in that
context the flexibility of technoeconomicstrate-
gies can be shownto varymarkedlythroughtime,
we have clear evidence thatthe area'suse by for-
agersmusthavebeen dictatedby differentfactors
andmotivationsovertime.Thisalsomayhelpinter-
Riel-Salvatore and Barton] LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY IN SOUTHERN ITALY 263

Table 1. List of Sites Includedin this Study and Associated ArchaeologicalIndustries.

Site Periods Main references

Gr. Capelvenere Mousterian(10) Giusti 1979, 1980; Patriarchi1980
Gr. del Cavallo Mousterian(n/a) Palmadi Cesnola 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967
Uluzzian (4)
Epigravettian(n/a)
Gr. Marcello Zei Mousterian(3) Dantoni & Nardi 1980
Gr. Mario Bernardini Mousterian(20) Borzattivon L6wenstern 1970, 1971
Uluzzian (4)
Gr. della SerraCicoraA Mousterian(3) Campetti 1986; Spennato 1981
Uluzzian (2)
Proto-Aurignacian(2)
Gr. della Torredell'Alto Mousterian(6) Borzattivon Ldwenstern1966; Borzattivon
L6wenstern& Magaldi 1967
Gr. di Uluzzo Mousterian(n/a) Borzattivon L6wenstern 1963, 1964
Uluzzian (2)
Epigravettian(4)
Gr. di Uluzzo C Mousterian(17) Borzattivon Lowenstern 1965, 1966
Uluzzian (3)
Epigravettian(1)
Note: The numberof assemblagesper industryis in parentheses.

pretthe unevennumberof assemblagesfromeach sideredless importantto describein theirentirety,

periodin our sample(see Table 1), since dramatic
fluctuationin the intensityof occupation(i.e., the
numberof assemblagesper time-unit)is likely to
be relatedto changesin land-usepatterns(see dis-
cussion below).
Results
Artifact volumetric density and frequency of
retouchedpieceswerecomputedforall depositsfor
which the informationwas sufficientto do so, and
the results are plotted graphically in Figure 2.
Despitethe generallygood qualityof information,
it was notalwayspossibleto get thenecessarydata,
evenforallthelayersfroma singlesite.Thismeans,
for instance,thattheMousterianandEpigravettian
layersof Grottadel Cavallo,while unquestionably
present (Palma di Cesnola 1964, 1965; see also
Sartiet al. 2000, 2002), could not be incorporated
in a comparisonwithits Uluzzianlayers,sinceonly
the latterhad reporteddebitagecounts.These dis-
crepanciesin datareportingmight well be due to
the comparatively greater emphasis placed on
describingthe Uluzzianlayersthat,at the time the
site reportswerepublished,documenteda hitherto
unknownPaleolithicindustry.Furthermore,many
Middle Paleolithic sites were already known in
Italy,andas a result,the MiddlePaleolithicassem-
blages from coastal Salento may have been con-
especiallysince detailedtypologicalinventoriesof
theircontentshadbeen given. Despitethese short-
comings, there are still enough data to identify
interestingrelationships.Correlationcoefficients
also werecomputedfor each site (Figure2) to indi-
cate the strengthof relationshipsbetweenretouch
frequencyand artifactdensity across time.2Fol-
lowing Barton(1998;Villaverdeet al. 1998), a log
scale is used for both axes of the graph.As indi-
cated above, time-transgressivepatternsin lithic
variabilitywere analyzedfor eachsite individually
to limit comparingassemblagesdepositedunder
differentsedimentaryenvironments.
While most sites display an overall adherence
to thenegativerelationshippredictedby themodel,
r values are low in many cases-usually due to a
few anomalousassemblages.Some of theseanom-
alous patternscould resultfrom variationin sedi-
mentationrates (e.g., Barton 1998). For instance,
at SerraCicoraA, the low correlationcoefficientis
due to a single Mousterianassemblage with an
anomalouslylow artifactdensityfor its frequency
of retouchedpieces, possibly due to a highersed-
imentationrate during the accumulationof that
assemblage. Unfortunately,available published
datado notallowus to explorethispossibilityhere.
However, another factor seems even more
importantfor the sites underscrutinyhere,namely
the natureof the rawmaterialused to manufacture

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.69, No. 2, 2004

Gr. di Capelvenere Gr. Mario Bernardini

1001 100

+ O
+
+ ++ +

r0=.074,NN= 4•
r= 9.074, r= -.647, N 24

1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000

Artifact Volumetric Density Artifact Volumetic Density

Gr. del Cavallo Gr. della Serra Cicora A

100- 100-

0 0

S IIo
r -.199, N=4 r = -.182, N = 7

1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 10 100 10000

Artifact Volumetric Density Artifact Volumetric Density

Gr. Marcello Zei Gr. della Torre dell'Alto

100100

+ +
+
10- ++++++
10 +

r =.979, N = 3 r = -.307, N = 6

1 10 100oo 100ooo 10000oooo 1 10 100 1000 1oooo

Artifact Volumetric Density Artifat VolumetricDensity

Gr. di Uluzzo Gr. di Uluzo C

100- 100-

000

0 +
10- + +
S10-

.777, N=6 t r =.241, N =20

1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10o 1oo00 1000 10000

Artifact Volumetric Density Artifact Volumetrie Density

Figure 2. Graphs showing the relationship between absolute artifact density and frequency of retouched pieces, for indi-
vidual assemblages from the eight sites included in this study. Symbols: + = Mousterian; LI = Uluzzian; 0 = proto-
Aurignacian; O = Epigravettian.

the lithic assemblages.While many documented ity of lithic artifactsmade on flint, chert and/or
Paleolithicindustriesfrom westernEurasiawere quartzite(Palmadi Cesnola 1996; Peretto 1992).
made on high-quality, fine-grained cryptocrys- Interestingly,in his studyof the assemblagesfrom
talline materialsuch as flint or varietiesof chert, Gorham'sCave, Barton(1998:15) also notes that
almostallMiddlePaleolithicandEarlyUpperPale- flint-which is not readilyavailablelocally-was
olithic assemblagesfrom coastal Salento contain the most intensively curatedraw materialwhile
substantialproportionsof tools, cores, and deb- locally abundantquartzitepebbles were used to
itage made on locally available, poor-quality manufacturemostly expedient,lightly retouched
siliceous limestoneof variouskinds and a minor- implements.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY
LATEPLEISTOCENE 265

As mentionedabove,artifactassemblagesprob-
Gr. di Capelvenere
ablyrepresentpalimpsestsof multipleoccupations
in most cases, due to the often slow accumulation 1oo00
of depositsin cave androcksheltersites,regardless
of the care takenin excavation(Bartonand Clark
1993; Bartonet al. 2002). Underthese conditions, I to
thereareatleastthreescenariosthroughwhichlocal
andexoticrawmaterialscanbecomeamalgamated r=-.688,N=19
withina singleassemblage.First,logisticalhunter- 0.1 10 100 1000 0000

gatherersoccupyinga given site simply may have ArtifactVolumetricDensity

acquiredanduseda varietyof rawmaterialsin pro-

portionto their availabilitywithin a given range Gr. Mario Bemardini
from the site. In this case, all materialswould be
100- O O
curatedand modifiedto a more or less equivalent
0 0
degree, controlledby the land-useconsiderations P L1

outlinedabove. Second, hunter-gatherers coming o*m a

from elsewhereand occupying a given site for a
periodof timemighthavediscardedexhaustedarti- r= -.681, N=47
facts madeon distantraw materialat thatsite, and
0.1 10 100 1000 10000
usedlocalrawmaterialto executetasksduringtheir ArtifactVolumetricDensity

occupationof the site as well as to "gearup" in

expectationof their next peregrinationacross the
landscape. Third, within a single depositional Gr. della TorredelAlto

episode, groupswith differingland-usestrategies

and associatedraw materialconsumptionregimes 10 0
could have occupieda given site sequentially,dis-
cardingdistinctlithicproductiondebristhatbecame
mixedpostdepositionally. Inthelattertwocases,dif-
ferentrawmaterialscoulddisplaydifferentdegrees r= -.802, N=12
1-I
of curation-relatedmaintenance (i.e., retouch). 0.1 1 1o 100 1000 10000

These explanationsare not mutuallyexclusive,of ArtifactVoluemtricDensity

course,andit is in factlikely thattheycombinedto

createthepatternsof artifactdiscarddetectedin the Gr. di UluzzoC
archaeologicalrecord.Thissuggestsit couldbe use- 100- 0
ful to furthersubdivideprehistoriclithic assem-
blages-in thiscasethosefromcoastalSalento--on
the basis of raw materialsto help us betterdistin-
guish amongtechnologicalbehaviors.
The informationcontainedin the publishedsite
r = -.612, N = 37
reportsallowsus to recalculateartifactdensitiesand
retouchedtool frequencies,with assemblagessub- 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
ArtifactVolumetricDensity
dividedby raw materialclass, at four of the eight
Salentosites.Aftersubdividingby rawmaterial,all
Figure 3. Graphs showing the relationship between
fourof thesesitesdisplayverystrongnegativerela- absolute artifact density and frequency of retouched
tionships,also indicatedby their r values (Figure pieces after differentiating between flint (i.e., high-quality
raw material) and limestone (i.e., low-quality raw mater-
3).3Thisunderscoresthenotsurprisingimportance ial) sub-assemblages, for the four sites for which adequate
of accountingforrawmaterialdifferencesin whole information is available. Symbols: 0 = Mousterian (poor
assemblage analyses of prehistoric materials quality raw material); L = Mousterian (good quality raw
material); = -Uluzzian (poor quality raw material); O =
(Andrefsky 1994). However, we cannot simply . raw material); = Epigravettian
Uluzzian (good quality
assumethatfinecryptocrystalline materialsalways (good raw material).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.69, No. 2, 2004

will be highly curatedand poorerqualitymateri- olithictransitionandtheoriginsof modernhumans.

als will be used in an expedientmanner.Forexam-An importantfeatureof the patternsseen in both
ple, all theEpigravettian Figures2 and3 is thatartifactcuration,andby impli-
assemblagesin oursample
containtools madeexclusivelyon flintandyet fallcationtechnoeconomicstrategies,do not varysys-
towardthe expedientend of the continuum. tematically according to time. That is, Middle
We also can make somewhatmore subjective Paleolithic,Uluzzian,andUpperPaleolithicassem-
assessments for several sites that lack sufficient
blages all appearto be distributedacrossthe spec-
published informationto subdivideassemblages trumof technologicalbehaviorsrepresentedhere.
by rawmaterial.Althoughprecisecountsaremiss- This is also the case for Gibraltar,wheretechnoe-
ing, the Middle Paleolithicand Uluzzian assem- conomicbehaviorsandinferredland-usestrategies
blagesfromMarcelloZei, Cavallo,SerraCicoraA, seem moreclosely tied to environmentalvariation
andUluzzo aredescribedas containingsignificant thanto archaeologicallydefined"cultures"(Barton
proportionsof artifactsmade on siliceous lime- 1998). This has ramificationsfor our understand-
stone (Borzattivon LOwenstern1963, 1964;Dan- ing of LatePleistocenehominidbehaviorin south-
toniandNardi1980;Palmadi Cesnola1964, 1965, ernItalyandalso, moregenerally,forourconstrual
1966, 1967). However, a recent review of the of the natureof the so-calledMiddle-UpperPale-
assemblagesfrom the Salentodocumentsa more olithictransition.In termsof the ItalianPaleolithic
or less gradualdecrease in limestone utilization
sequence,this studysuggeststhatin those locales
duringthe course of the Uluzzian,althoughlime- whereassemblagesof bothMiddleandEarlyUpper
stone implements never completely disappear Paleolithicmaterialscanbe comparedusinga com-
(Palmadi Cesnola 1993:81-115). It is only with monanalyticalframework,thereis no markedqual-
the much later Epigravettian(assumedto date to itativeeconomicshiftbetweenthetwo periods.The
after ca. 20,000 B.P.)-represented at Cavallo, kinds of exploitedraw materialsand the rangeof
Uluzzo, andUluzzo C by severalRomanellianand technoeconomicorganizationremainstableacross
Epi-Romanellianlayers-that limestonebecomes this analyticboundary.Duringthe variousMous-
so scarcethatits influenceon patternsoflithic vari-
terian,Uluzzian, and proto-Aurignacianoccupa-
abilitybecomes negligible.Given this, it is likely
tions of the coastal Salento sites, flint often was
that at least the Middle Paleolithicand Uluzzian
highly curatedand, by extension,was likely con-
layersof thefoursitesmentionedabovewouldgen- sidereda finite and highly valued resourceto be
eratepatternsthatconformto expectationsif suf- managedcarefully.Thiskindof behavioris usually
ficientinformationon raw materialwas available.takenfor granted-and rarelydemonstrated-for
At SerraCicoraA, the early UpperPaleolithicthe modemhumanpopulationsof the UpperPale-
assemblages studied separately display an olithic, but its presencein the Middle Paleolithic
extremelystrongadherenceto thepatternpredicted contrastssharplywithviewsof Neanderthals asqual-
by the model (r= -.991,p = .009, N= 4) even with-
itativelydifferentfromus behaviorally(e.g., Gam-
out raw materialdifferentiation.Spennato(1981) ble 1999;Gargett1999;White2000). In fact,what
reportsthatlimestoneis abundantin boththeUluzz-the datasuggestis thatflintonly becameeffectively
ian and proto-Aurignacianlayers,but thatit onlyabundantto foragersin the Salentoduringthe Late
dominatesthe assemblagein layer D, the lower- Upper Paleolithic, while it remainedeffectively
mostUluzzianlevel. Despitethis,layerD is tightly
scarcepriorto thattime.
clusteredwiththeproto-Aurignacian layers(A and To furtherevaluatethis, we comparethe lithic
B), while the more "flinty"Uluzzian assemblage evidence for technoeconomic behavior among
of layerC haslowerrelativefrequenciesof retouch,
archaeologicallydefinedchronotypological assem-
indicatingan overallmoreexpedientstrategythan blage groups: Mousterian,Uluzzian, Protoauri-
thatof layerD. gnacian (early Upper Paleolithic), and
Epigravettian(late Upper Paleolithic).Given the
Discussion very strongcorrelationbetweenretouchfrequency
andartifactdensity,we use retouchfrequencyalone
Theresultsof thisstudyhaveimportant
implications as a simpleproxymeasureof the curation-expedi-
for our understandingof the Middle-UpperPale- ency spectrum.As seen in Figure4, this not only

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY
LATEPLEISTOCENE 267

Mousterian

Uluzzian

Proto-Aurignacian

Epigravettian

I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequencyof retouchedpieces

S ? Mousterian

Uluzzian
Epigravettian

0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequencyof retouchedpieces

Figure 4. Box-plots of the frequency of retouched pieces for Mousterian, Early Upper Paleolithic (Uluzzian, proto-
Aurignacian), and Late Upper Paleolithic (Epigravettian) assemblages (top), and for assemblages for which raw mater-
ial information is available (bottom).

supportsthe equivalenceof the rangeof technoe- We haveverylittle evidenceof who mighthave

conomic behaviorfromthe Middleto UpperPale-
olithicin the Salentosites, butalso revealsan even
more strikingpattern.Thereis virtuallyno change
in the range or distributionof technoeconomic
behaviorsexpressedin these assemblagesfromthe
MousterianthroughtheearlyUpperPaleolithic,be
it theUluzzianortheproto-Aurignacian. However,
the late UpperPaleolithicis distinctivein thatit is
characterizedonly by a narrowrangeof lithictech-
nology at the expedientend of the broaderLate
Pleistocenebehavioralspectrum.
been responsiblefor creatingand depositingthe
industriesfoundin the eight sites analyzedin this
study.The only humanfossils are two deciduous
molarsfrom Cavallo,LayerE, an Uluzzianlayer.
Messeri and Palma di Cesnola (1976; see also
Palmadi CenolaandMesseri1967)originallyclas-
sifiedone of the teeth as anatomicallymodernand
the otheras Neanderthal.However,a recentreex-
aminationby ChurchillandSmith(2000) assigned
both to Neanderthalindividuals.Based on these
data, and despite the acknowledgedproblemsof

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.69, No. 2, 2004

Table 2. Relative Representationof Assemblages for Each Industry.

Total no. of Estimated duration Assemblages/

Periods assemblages (in thousandyears) thousandyears
Mousterian 59 90 .66
Uluzzian 15 10 1.50
Proto-Aurignacian 2 6 .33
Epigravettian 5 10 .50

linking hominidsto kinds of stone tools (see dis-
cussionin Riel-SalvatoreandClark2001), it is pos-
sible that the Uluzzian was a purelyNeanderthal
industry (Kuhn and Bietti 2000). Given this, it
shouldperhapsnot come as a surprisethatthe eco-
nomic patternsit displayssharestrongsimilarities
to those extractedfromthe MiddlePaleolithiclay-
ers of the sites from coastal Salento.Whatis sur-
prising, however, is that the proto-Aurignacian
industriesfromSerraCicoraA displaysimilartech-
noeconomicbehavioras those observedin Uluzz-
ian assemblages, patternsthat are quite distinct
fromtheEpigravettian patterns,despitetheassump-
tion that both technocomplexes were made by
anatomicallymodernhumans.
In light of these ratherdistinctpatternsof land-
use, interestinginterpretiveinsights can also be
gleanedfromtheunevennumberof sitesfromeach
period,especiallyas this relatesto the Epigravett-
ian.As seen in Table2, absoluteandrelativenum-
bersof assemblagesarenotdirectlycorrelated;4 for
example, the more numerous Mousterian assem-
blagesarenonethelessless relativelyabundantthan
Uluzzian assemblagesin our area.Table2 shows
that,if we exceptthetwoproto-Aurignacian assem-
blages,Epigravettian assemblages relativelythe
are
least abundantin oursample,being noticeablyless
frequentthanassemblagesfromthe previousperi-
ods. In otherwords,in additionto showinga land-
use patterndistinctfromthoseof earlieroccupants
of the Salento coast, the makersof Epigravettian
industriesappearto have occupied the area less
intensivelythanmost of theirforebears.Thus, the
relativelylow numberof Epigravettian assemblages
in our sampleconstitutesa corroborating threadof
evidence indicatingthat ratherdifferentland-use
strategieswerein placeforthisareapriorto andfol-
lowing the Last GlacialMaximum(LGM).
Thesecomplementary resultssuggestthat,while
human land-use strategiesrangedfrom logistical
to residentialmobilityovermuchof theLatePleis-
tocene atthese sites, theybecamestronglyfocused
on logistical strategiesin the Epigravettianof the
LGM.Admittedly,we aredealingherewith a sam-
ple of twoproto-Aurignacian layers,andwe should
be cautiousaboutgeneralizing.However,a simi-
larpatternis seen at Gibraltar(Barton1998). Fur-
thermore,in otherstudiesin whicha singlemethod
of measuringvariabilityhasbeenappliedto archae-
ological dataacrossthe Middle-UpperPaleolithic
transition,changesin lithictechnologydo not cor-
respond with the traditionaldistinctionbetween
the Middle and Upper Paleolithic (Graysonand
Cole 1998; Kuhn 1995; Simek and Price 1990).
This leads us to suspectthatan important(maybe
the most important) archaeological distinction
betweenthe MiddleandUpperPaleolithicin west-
em Eurasiamay be an artifactof the use of very
differentMiddleandUpperPaleolithictypologies
to characterizelithicvariation(Clark1997;Hiscock
1996). This does not discount the existence or
importance changein materialcultureandasso-
of
ciated behaviors through the Late Pleistocene.
However,the most importantchanges may well
not correspondwith the Middle-UpperPaleolithic
boundaryas traditionallyenvisioned (Clark and
Lindly 1989, 1991; Straus1997). For example,in
the technoeconomicbehaviorsand inferredland-
use strategiesinvestigatedhere, the most signifi-
cant change seems to correspondwith the LGM
(see Bartonet al. 1994 for a comparableargument
based on Paleolithicart).Similarly,a recentstudy
of burialpracticessuggestedmore or less contin-
uous, gradualchangethroughthe LatePleistocene
thatculminatedin recognizablymodernbehaviors
by the LGM (Riel-Salvatore2001).
Theseresultsholdthepotentialfor significantly
reframingthe currentdebateaboutmodemhuman
origins. Most discussion today is focused on the
natureof the biological transitionfrom archaicto
modernHomo sapiens. It is probablysafe to say
that sometimebetween 40,000 and 25,000 years
ago Neanderthalsdisappearedfrom westernEur-
rasia.Whetherby extinction,gene flow, or in situ

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY
LATEPLEISTOCENE 269

morpho-geneticchange, it is likely that selection in two previouspapers(Barton1998;Villaverdeet

was the cause of this pervasiveevolutionaryevent. al. 1998)is a usefulmethodfordistinguishingvary-
However,the availablearchaeologicalevidencefor ing degreesof curationand expediencyin archae-
criticaleconomicbehaviorsthatcouldbestaccount ologicallithicassemblages.Itspotentialto evaluate
forthereplacementof "archaic-ness" with"moder- variabilityin technoeconomicbehaviorsoverlong
nity" in human populationsindicatesthatthe most time spanswas demonstratedin its applicationto
important behavioral changes took place assemblagesspanningthe entireLate Pleistocene
10,000-20,000 years after the biological appear- at GibraltarandeasternSpanishsites. Successfully
ance of modem skeletalforms, but closely corre- applyingthis approachto generateuseful insights
sponding to worldwideenvironmentalchange in intothebehavioraladaptationsandland-usestrate-
the Late Pleistocene.In ourview, the most impor- gies of LatePleistocenehominidsin southernItaly
tantquestionthenbecomes, "Whatwere the selec- furtherdemonstratesits applicability across an
tive forces driving the evolutionary spread of extensivegeographicregion.We also highlightthe
'modernity'?"ratherthan"Whatwas the detailed importanceof differentiatingamongdifferentraw
process of this spread?"Given the apparentlarge materialsin analyzingPaleolithicassemblagesin
temporaldisjunctionbetween evidence for bio- this way (see also, e.g., Andrefsky1994).
logical andbehavioralchange,this questionlooms As a potentiallyinterestingaside thatdeserves
very largein understandingour origins. furtherstudy,if the kindof patterningbetweenthe
Finally,this studypresentsanalternativeway to variablesused here provesto be consistentacross
evaluatethe meaningof "transitional" lithicindus-more prehistoricassemblages,this kind of whole
tries like the Uluzzian and Chdtelperonianin the assemblage analysis potentially can help distin-
Late Pleistocene.When we examinethem from a guish variationin sedimentationrates at deeply
perspectiveotherthana purelytypologicalone, the stratifiedsites. Giventhe ease and accessibilityof
Early Upper Paleolithic industriesfrom coastal this method,it could help in addressinga seriesof
Salentoappearto articulatequitewell withtherange deposition-relatedquestionsrangingfromsite for-
of adaptationsrepresentedby Middle and Upper mationprocessesto temporalchange.Becausewe
Paleolithicassemblages."Transitional" industries
aredealingwith lithicsthatareusuallymuchmore
suchastheUluzzianmaynot,in fact,havebeentran- resistantto sedimentarydiageneticprocesses,the
sitionalin any sense of the word,butrathersimply characteristicsof any given assemblage (i.e., its
one of manydifferenttypologicalexpressionsof the overallsize andits frequencyof retouchedpieces)
same range of technologicalvariabilitythat char- should not be impactedby sedimentaryvagaries,
acterizedhominidsin the northernMediterranean keepingin mindthattheyrepresenttime-averaged
probablyatleastsincetheendof thelastinterglacial. picturesof long-termbehavioraltrends.Thismeans
Thus,on behavioralgrounds,it is hardto arguefor that assemblagesderivedfrom unusualsedimen-
a revolution of any kind coinciding with such tarycontexts(relativeto the overallpatternof sed-
archaeologicallydefined "cultures."Researchers imentdepositionandretentionwithina given site)
may gainmoreusefulinterpretiveinsightsby high- should be easily visible on a graph.For instance,
lightingbehavioralmacro-patterns withincomplete an assemblagehaving lost 50 percentof its sedi-
lithic assemblages(i.e., comprisingtools and deb- mentaryvolume shouldbe immediatelyapparent
itage)throughtheuse of approachessuchas theone because, insteadof falling on the line dictatedby
developedin this paper,ratherthanlosing the for- the overall rate of sedimentaryintegrityof a site
est for the treesby limitingtheirinterpretationsto(the regressionline), it would fall clearlybelow it,
the minutia of typological analysis and chaine indicatingan anomalyin its sedimentarycontext.
opdratoirereconstruction. Conversely,layersandassemblagesaccumulating
underunusuallyfast depositionregimes and suf-
Conclusions fering little subsequentdeflationshouldfall above
the generalpattern.In this way, the methodology
Theresultsof thisstudyprovidea numberof impor- we advocatenot only offers the potentialto high-
tantinsights.On a methodologicallevel, it appears light significantaspects of prehistoricbehavioral
thatthe approachdescribedandemployedhereand variability,but also to tentativelyidentify which

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
layers of a site were subjectto unusualsedimen-
tary processes and, thus, where it might be most
informativeto conductin-depthgeoarchaeological
analyses.
The easy applicability of the methodology
describedabovepotentiallyalso makesit useful to
tackle problemsrelatedto patternsin lithic tech-
nology in otherplaces and/orperiods.While we
have thus far only tested it on Late Pleistocene
assemblagesfrom southernEurope,it should be
emphasizedthat its applicabilityis by no means
limitedto thosecontexts.All archaeologicalassem-
blages comprisinga chippedstonecomponentare
amenableto a study of technoeconomicpatterns
based on the methodology presented here. For
instance,one canreadilysee howit couldbe applied
to Paleoindianassemblagesto addresssome of the
issues relatedto land-usepatternsrecentlyraised
by Bamforth(2002) by allowingresearchersto bet-
ter identify which assemblagesrepresentexpedi-
ent or curatedtechnologicalstrategies.
This paperhad two principalgoals: (1) to test
the utilityof a methodof whole assemblageanaly-
sis proposedby Bartonandcolleaguesto studypre-
historicforagerbehaviorin differentregions, and
(2) to assess variabilityin technoeconomicbehav-
iors in hominid groups across the Middle-Upper
Paleolithictransitionusing this uniformmethod-
ological tool. By generatinginterpretablepatterns
based on additionaldata,we demonstratethatthe
methodis potentiallyapplicableto a wide rangeof
contexts providedraw materialis given due con-
sideration.It would be interestingto apply it to
contexts other than Mediterraneancoastal Pale-
olithic sites and in other periods, althoughsuch
studies are beyond the scope of this paper.Ulti-
mately,however,this researchmakes it clear that
lithic assemblagesare betteranalyzedas wholes
andthatexclusivelyrelyingon studiesof retouched
stone implementsseverely handicapsour under-
standingof prehistorictechnoeconomicstrategies.
Debitage,cores, andotherlithic elementsall need
to be included.
Withrespectto the secondgoal, this studysug-
gests that Late Pleistocene lithic technology in
southeasternItalywas gearedtoward,or organized
accordingto, a flexible rangeof economic strate-
gies. These wouldhavebalancedthe need to move
about the landscapeto obtainsufficientfood and
raw material with the prolonged occupation of
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 69, No. 2, 2004
given areaswhere one or both of these resources
are more easily procured.Ourevidence indicates
thatthis patternwas in place by the Middle Pale-
olithicin southernIberiaandsouthernItaly,andthat
the appearanceof theAurignacianandof allegedly
modernhumansdid not fundamentallychangethe
way people moved aboutand exploitedthe land-
scape.OnlywiththeLastGlacialMaximumdo we
see a significantchange,withhumansspecializing
in a narrowsubsetof the strategiesthatcharacter-
ized the LatePleistoceneas a whole.
This study enrichesthe growing set of critical
frameworks that archaeologists can usefully
employ to translatematerialremainsinto increas-
ingly secure inference about prehistoriclife. We
believe thatalternativemethodologiessuch as the
one proposedhere can serve as stepping stones
from which renewedstudies of lithic technology
and associatedaspectsof prehistoricbehaviorcan
be undertaken.
Acknowledgments.Margaret Nelson generously took the
time to make extensive suggestions that helped tighten and
clarify the argumentspresentedhere, and overall make this a
better piece of work. Geoffrey Clark and Francis Harrold
also provided useful commentaryon the methodology used
in this study,applied in anotherpaper presentedat the 2002
SAA meetings. Thanksare also due to Steven Schmich for a
critical reading of a previous draftand for many useful edi-
torial suggestions. Peter Bleed, Peter Hiscock and two
anonymousreviewers also offered valuable suggestions and
constructive criticism that helped strengthen the paper.
Despite the importantinputof these colleagues, we alone are
responsiblefor any errorsof fact and/orlogic includedin this
study. Support for Riel-Salvatoreduring this research was
provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada.
References Cited
Ahler,S.A.
1989 Mass Analysis of FlakingDebris:Studyingthe For-
est RatherThan the Tree. In AlternativeApproachesto
LithicAnalysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George
H. Odell, pp.85-118. ArchaeologicalPapersof theAmer-
icanAnthropological AssociationNo 1. AmericanAnthro-
pologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.
Andrefsky,WilliamJr.
1994 Raw-MaterialAvailabilityand the Organizationof
Technology.AmericanAntiquity59:21-43.
Andrefsky,WilliamJr.(editor)
2001 LithicDebitage: Context,Form,Meaning.The Uni-
versityof Utah Press,Salt Lake City.
Bamforth,Douglas B.
1986 TechnologicalEfficiencyand Tool Curation.Ameri-
can Antiquity 51:38-50.
1991 Technological Organizationand Hunter-Gatherer
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] LATEPLEISTOCENE INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY
Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity
56:216-234.
2002 High-TechForagers?Folsom and LaterPaleoindian
Technologyon the GreatPlains.Journalof WorldPrehis-
tory 16:55-98.
Bamforth,Douglas B., and PeterBleed
1997 Technology,FlakedStone Technology,and Risk. In
RediscoveringDarwin:EvolutionaryTheoryin Archaeo-
logical Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and
GeoffreyA. Clark,pp. 109-140. ArchaeologicalPapersof
the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationNo. 7. Ameri-
can AnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.
Barton,C. Michael
1988 Lithic Variabilityand MiddlePaleolithicBehavior:
New Evidencefrom the Iberian Peninsula. BAR Inter-
national Series 408. British Archaeological Reports,
Oxford.
Barton,C. Michael
1990a Stone Tools and PaleolithicSettlementin the Iber-
ian Peninsula. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
56:15-32.
1990b Beyond Style andFunction:A View from the Mid-
dle Paleolithic.AmericanAnthropologist92:57-72.
1991 RetouchedTools,FactorFiction?ParadigmsforInter-
pretingPaleolithicChippedStone. In Perspectiveson the
Past, edited by GeoffreyA. Clark,pp. 143-163. Univer-
sity of PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
1997 Stone Tools, Style, and Social Identity:An Evolu-
tionary Perspective on the Archaeological Record. In
RediscoveringDarwin:EvolutionaryTheoryin Archaeo-
logical Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and
GeoffreyA. Clark,pp.141-156. ArchaeologicalPapersof
the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationNo. 7. Ameri-
can AnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.
1998 LookingBack fromtheWorld'sEnd:PaleolithicSet-
tlement and Mobility at Gibraltar.In Las Culturasdel
Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucia, edited by Jose L.
Sanchidritin TortiandMariaD. Sim6nVallejo,pp. 13-22.
Patronatode la Cuevade Nerja,Cordoba.
Barton,C. Michael,JoanBernabeu,J. Emili Aura,OretoGar-
cia, andNeus La Roca
2002 DynamicLandscapes,ArtifactTaphonomy,andLan-
duse Modeling in the WesternMediterranean.Geoar-
chaeology 17:155-190.
Barton,C. Michael,and GeoffreyA. Clark
1993 Culturaland NaturalFormationProcesses in Late
Quaternary CaveandRockshelterSites of WesternEurope
and the Near East. In FormationProcesses in Archaeo-
logical Context,editedby PaulGoldberg,DavidT. Nash,
and Michael D. Petraglia,pp. 33-52. PrehistoryPress,
Madison,Wisconsin.
Barton,C. Michael,GeoffreyA. Clark,andAllison E. Cohen
1994 Art as Information:UpperPalaeolithicArt in West-
ern Europe.WorldArchaeology26:185-207.
Barton,C. Michael,andMichaelP Neeley
1996 PhantomCulturesof the LevantineEpipalaeolithic.
Antiquity70:139-147.
Barton,C. Michael,DeborahI. Olszewski,andNancyR. Coin-
man
1996 Beyond the Graver:ReconsideringBurin Function.
Journalof FieldArchaeology23:111-125.
Bar-Yosef,Ofer,andDavid Pilbeam(editors)
2000 TheGeographyof NeandertalsandModernHumans
in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody
MuseumBulletinNo. 8. PeabodyMuseumof Archaeol-
ogy andEthnology,Cambridge.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
271
Beyries, Sylvie
1987 Variabilitede l'IndustrieLithique au Moustdrien:
ApprocheFonctionnellesur QuelquesGisementsFrangais.
BAR InternationalSeries 328. British Archaeological
Reports,Oxford.
Bietti,Amilcare
1990 The Late Upper Paleolithic in Italy:An Overview.
Journalof WorldPrehistory4:95-155.
Binford,Lewis R.
1973 Interassemblage Variability- The Mousterianandthe
"Functional"Argument.In The Explanationof Culture
Change, edited by Colin Renfrew,pp. 227-254. Duck-
worth,London.
1979 Organizationand FormationProcesses:Looking at
Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research35:255-273.
1980 Willow's Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer
SettlementSystems and ArchaeologicalSite Formation.
AmericanAntiquity45:4-20.
Binford,Lewis R., and Sally R. Binford
1966 A PreliminaryAnalysis of FunctionalVariabilityin
the Mousterianof LevalloisFacies.AmericanAnthropol-
ogist 68:238-295.
1969 Stone Tools and HumanBehavior.ScientificAmeri-
can 220:70-84.
Binford,Lewis R., andJeremyA. Sabloff
1982 Paradigms,SystematicsandArchaeology.Journalof
AnthropologicalResearch38:137-153.
Bisson, Michael S.
2000 NineteenthCenturyTools for Twenty-FirstCentury
Archaeology?WhytheTypologyof FranqoisBordesMust
Be Replaced.JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand The-
ory 8:1-48.
Bleed, Peter
1986 The OptimalDesign of HuntingWeapons:Maintain-
abilityor Reliability?AmericanAntiquity51:737-747.
2001 TreesorChains,LinksorBranches:ConceptualAlter-
nativesfortheConsiderationof StoneToolproductionand
other SequentialActivities. Journal of Archaeological
Methodand Theory8:101-127.
Bohda,Eric
1994 Le ConceptLevallois: Variabilitjdes Mdthodes.Edi-
tions du CNRS, Paris.
1995 Levallois: A VolumetricConstruction,Methods, a
Technique.In TheDefinitionand Interpretationof Leval-
lois Technology,editedby HaroldL. DibbleandOferBar-
Yosef,pp.41-68. Monographsin WorldArchaeologyNo.
23. PrehistoryPress,Madison,Wisconsin.
Bohda,Eric, Jean-MichelGeneste,andLilianeMeignen
1990 Identificationde Chaines Op6ratoiresLithiquesdu
PaldolithiqueAncien et Moyen. Paldo 2:43-79.
Bordes,Franqois
1953 Essai de Classification des Industries "Moust6ri-
ennes."Bulletin de la SocidtdPrdhistoriqueFrangaise
50:457-466.
1961 Typologiedu PaldolithiqueInfirieur et Moyen.Edi-
tions du CNRS, Paris.
1969 Reflectionson TypologyandTechniquesin the Pale-
olithic.ArcticAnthropology6:1-29.
1973 On the Chronologyand Contemporaneityof Differ-
ent PalaeolithicCulturesin France.In TheExplanationof
CultureChange,edited by Colin Renfrew,pp. 217-226.
Duckworth,London.
1981 Vingt-CinqAns Aprbs: Le Complexe Moust6rien
Revisith.Bulletin de la SocidtdPrdhistoriqueFrangaise
78:77-87.
272 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Bordes,Frangois,andDenise de Sonneville-Bordes
1970 Significance of Variabilityin PalaeolithicAssem-
blages. WorldArchaeology2:61-73.
Borzattivon Lbwenstern,Edoardo
1963 Grottadi Uluzzo. Campagnadi Scavi 1963. Rivista
di ScienzePreistoriche18:75-89.
1964 Grottadi Uluzzo. (Campagnadi Scavi 1964).Rivista
di ScienzePreistoriche19:41-52.
1965 Grotta-Riparodi Uluzzo C. (Campagnadi Scavi
1964). Rivistadi ScienzePreistoriche20:1-31.
1966 AlcuniAspettidel Musterianonel Salento.Rivistadi
ScienzePreistoriche21:203-287.
1970 PrimaCampagnadi ScavinellaGrotta"MarioBernar-
dini" (Nard6, Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche
25:89-125.
1971 Seconda Campagnadi Scavi nella Grotta "Mario
Bernardini" (Nardb,Lecce).RivistadiScienzePreistoriche
26:31-62.
Borzattivon L6wenstern,Edoardo,andDariaMagaldi
1967 Ultime Ricerchenella Grottadell'Alto (S. Caterina,
Lecce). Rivistadi ScienzePreistoriche22:205-250.
Campetti,Stefania
1986 I1Musterianodella GrottaSerraCicoaraA nell'Am-
bito dell'Evoluzionedel Paleoliticonel Salento.Studiper
l'Ecologia del Quaternario8:85-115.
Churchill,StevenE., andFredH. Smith
2000 Makersof theEarlyAurignacianof Europe.Yearbook
of PhysicalAnthropology43:61-115.
Clark,GeoffreyA.
1997 The Middle-UpperPaleolithicTransitionin Europe:
An American Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological
Review30:25-53.
1999 ModernHumanOrigins:Highly Visible, Curiously
Intangible.Science 283:2029-2032.
Clark,GeoffreyA., andJohnM. Lindly
1989 Modem HumanOriginsin the Levantand Western
Asia:The Fossil andArchaeologicalEvidence.American
Anthropologist91:962-985.
1991 OnParadigmatic BiasesandPaleolithicResearchTra-
ditions. CurrentAnthropology32:577-587.
Dantoni,Giampiero,andNicolettaNardi
1980 La GrottaRiparo "MarcelloZei" (Santa Caterina,
Nard6).Studiper l'Ecologia del Quaternario2:97-119.
d'Errico,Francesco,Joao Zilhio, MichbleJulien,Dominique
Baffler,andJacquesPelegrin
1998 NeanderthalAcculturation inWesternEurope?A Crit-
ical Review of the Evidence and its Interpretation.Cur-
rentAnthropology39:S1-S44.
Demars,Pierre-Yves,andPierreLaurent
1989 Typesd'OutilsLithiquesdu PaldolithiqueSupdrieur
en Europe.Editionsdu CNRS, Paris.
de Sonneville-Bordes,Denise, andJeanPerrot
1953 Essai d'Adaptationdes M6thodes Statistiques au
Pal6olithiqueSup6rieur.PremiersR6sultats.Bulletinde la
SocidtdPrdhistoriqueFrangaise51:323-333.
1954 LexiqueTypologiqueduPaleolithiqueSup6rieur, Out-
illage Lithique.1. Grattoirs.2. OutilsSolutrdens.Bulletin
de la Socie't PrehistoriqueFrangaise51:327-335.
1955 LexiqueTypologiqueduPal6olithiqueSup6rieur, Out-
illage Lithique.3. OutilsComposites,Perqoirs.Bulletinde
la SocidtePrdhistoriqueFrangaise52:76-79.
1956 LexiqueTypologiqueduPaldolithique Sup6rieur,Out-
illage Lithique.4. Burins.Bulletinde la Socidtde Prdhis-
toriqueFrangaise53:408-412, 547-559.
Dibble, HaroldL.
1984 InterpretingTypologicalVariationof Middle Pale-
olithic Scrapers:Function,Style, or Sequenceof Reduc-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 69, No. 2, 2004
tion?Journalof FieldArchaeology11:431-436.
1987 Interpretationof Middle Paleolithic ScraperMor-
phology.AmericanAntiquity52:109-117.
1988 TypologicalAspects of Reductionand Intensityof
Utilizationof LithicResourcesin the FrenchMousterian.
In UpperPleistocenePrehistoryofWesternEurasia,edited
by HaroldL. DibbleandAntaMontet-White,pp. 181-197.
Universityof PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia.
1995 Middle PaleolithicScraperReduction:Background,
Clarification,and Review of the Evidenceto Date. Jour-
nal ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory2:299-368.
Farrand,WilliamR.
2001 ArchaeologicalSedimentsin RocksheltersandCaves.
In Sedimentsin ArchaeologicalContext,edited by J. K.
SteinandW.R. Farrand,pp.29-66. TheUniversityof Utah
Press, Salt LakeCity.
Flenniken,J. Jeffrey,andAnanW. Raymond
1986 MorphologicalProjectilePoint Typology:Replica-
tion ExperimentationandTechnologicalAnalysis.Amer-
ican Antiquity51:603-614.
Flenniken,J. Jeffrey,andPhilipJ. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great
Basin DartPoints.AmericanAnthropologist91:149-158.
Frison,GerogeC.
1968 A FunctionalAnalysis of Certain Chipped Stone
Tools.AmericanAntiquity33:149-155.
Gamble,Clive S.
1999 PalaeolithicSocietiesof Europe.CambridgeUniver-
sity Press,Cambridge.
Gargett,RobertH.
1999 Middle PalaeolithicBurialIs Not a Dead Issue:The
View from Qafzeh, Saint-C6saire,Kebara,Amud, and
Dederiyeh.Journalof HumanEvolution37:27-90.
Gioia, Patrizia
1988 ProblemsRelatedto the Originsof ItalianUpperPale-
olithic:UluzzianandAurignacian.In L'hommede Nian-
dertal,Vol.8: La mutation,editedby JanuszK. Kozlowsi,
pp. 91-102. Etudeset RecherchesArchdologiquesde l'U-
niversit6de Liege 35. ERAUL,Liege.
1990 Aspect of the TransitionbetweenMiddle and Upper
Palaeolithicin Italy:TheUluzzian.InPaldolithiquemoyen
Rdcentet PaldolithiqueSupe'rieurAncien en Europe.Rup-
tures et Transitions:Examen Critique des Documents
Archeologiques,editedby CatherineFarizy,pp.241-250.
M6moiresduMus6ede Pr6histoired'Ile-de-FranceNo. 3.
Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche
Archeologiqueen Ile-de-France,Nemours.
Giusti,Marco
1979 LaGrottadi Capelvenerea S. Caterina-Nardb(Cam-
pagnadi scavo1974).Studiperl'Ecologiadel Quaternario
1:19-40.
1980 La Grottadi Capelvenera S. Caterina- Nard6(Cam-
pagnadi scavo1975).Studiperl'Ecologiadel Quaternario
2:77-85.
Grayson,DonaldK., and StephenC. Cole
1998 Stone ToolAssemblageRichnessduringthe Middle
andEarlyUpperPalaeolithicin France.JournalofArchae-
ological Science 25:927-938.
Harrold,FrancisB.
1989 Mousterian,Chitelperronianand EarlyAurignacian
in WesternEurope:Continuityor Discontinuity?In The
HumanRevolution:Behaviouraland Biological Perspec-
tivesin theOriginsofModernHumans,editedby PaulMel-
larsandChrisStinger,pp. 677-713. PrincetonUniversity
Press,Princeton.
Hiscock,Peter
1996 Transformationsof Upper PalaeolithicImplements
Riel-Salvatoreand Barton] LATEPLEISTOCENE INSOUTHERNITALY
TECHNOLOGY
in the DabbaIndustryfromHauaFteah(Libya).Antiquity
70:657-664.
2002 Quantifyingthe Size of ArtefactAssemblages.Jour-
nal ofArchaeologicalScience 29:251-258.
Hiscock, Peter,andValAttenbrow
2003 EarlyAustralianImplementVariation:A Reduction
Model. JournalofArchaeologicalScience 30:239-249.
Hoffman,C. Marshall
1985 ProjectilePoint MaintenanceandTypology:Assess-
ment with FactorAnalysis and CanonicalCorrelation.In
For Concordancein ArchaeologicalAnalysis, edited by
ChristopherCarr,pp. 566-612. WavelandPress,Prospect
Heights,Illinois.
Jelinek,ArthurJ.
1976 Form,Function,and Style in LithicAnalysis.In Cul-
tural Changeand Continuity:Essays in Honor of James
BennettGriffith,editedby CharlesE. Cleland,pp. 19-33.
AcademicPress,New York.
1988 Technology,Typology, and Culture in the Middle
Paleolithic.In Upper Pleistocene Prehistoryof Western
Eurasia, edited by HaroldL. Dibble and Anta Montet-
White, pp. 199-212. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,
Philadelphia.
Karkanas,Panagiotis,OferBar-Yosef,PaulGoldberg,andSteve
Weiner
2000 Diagenesis in PrehistoricCaves:The Use of Miner-
als that Form In Situ to Assess the Completenessof the
ArchaeologicalRecord. Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence 27:915-929.
Keeley,LawrenceH., and NicholasToth
1981 MicrowearPolisheson EarlyStoneToolsfromKoobi
Fora,Kenya.Nature293:464-465.
Koumouzelis,M., B. Ginter,J.K. Kozlowski,M. Pawlikowski,
O. Bar-Yosef, R.M. Albert, M. Litynska-Zajac, E.
Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z.M.
Bochenski,andA. Pazdur
2001 The EarlyUpper Palaeolithicin Greece:The Exca-
vationsin KlisouraCave. Journalof ArchaeologicalSci-
ence 28:515-539.
Koumouzelis, Margarita,Janusz K. Kozlowski, Catherine
Escutenaire,Valery Sitlivy, Krzysztof Sobczyk, Helene
Valladas, Nadine Tisnerat-Laborde,Piotr Wojtal, and
Boleslaw Ginter
2001 La Fin du Paleolithique Moyen et le Debut du
PaleolithiqueSup6rieuren Grbce:La sequencede la Grotte
1 de Klissoura.L'Anthropologie105:469-504.
Kuhn,StevenL.
1989 Hunter-Gatherer ForagingOrganizationandStrategies
of ArtifactReplacementand Discard.In Experimentsin
Lithic Technology,edited by Daniel S. Amick and Ray-
mond P. Mauldin,pp. 33-48. BAR InternationalSeries,
528. BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
1990 A GeometricIndexof Reductionfor UnifacialStone
Tools. JournalofArchaeologicalScience 17:583-593.
1991 Unpacking Reduction:Lithic Raw-MaterialEcon-
omy in the Mousterianof West-CentralItaly.Journalof
AnthropologicalArchaeology 10:76-106.
1992 On Planningand CuratedTechnologiesin the Mid-
dle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research
48:185-214.
1994 A FormalApproachto the Design andAssembly of
Mobile Toolkits.AmericanAntiquity59:426-442.
1995 MousterianLithic Technology:An Ecological Per-
spective.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton.
1996 The Troublewith Ham Steaks:A Reply to Morrow.
AmericanAntiquity61:591-595.
2002 Pioneers of Microlithization:The "Proto-Aurigna-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
273
cian"of SouthernEurope.In ThinkingSmall:GlobalPer-
spectives on Microlithization,editedbyRobertG. Elston
and Steven L. Kuhn,pp. 83-94. ArcheologicalPapersof
the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationNo 12.Amer-
ican AnthropologicalAssociation,Washington,D.C.
Kuhn,StevenL., andAmilcareBietti
2000 The LateMiddleandEarlyUpperPaleolithicin Italy.
In The Geographyof Neandertalsand ModernHumans
in Europeand the GreaterMediterranean,editedby Ofer
Bar-Yosef and David Pilbeam, pp. 49-76. Peabody
MuseumBulletin No. 8. PeabodyMuseum of Archaeol-
ogy and Ethnology,Cambridge.
Lemonnier,Pierre
1992 Elementsfor an Anthropologyof Technology.Uni-
versityof MichiganMuseumofAnthropology,AnnArbor.
Marks,AnthonyE., HaroldJ. Hietala,andJohnK. Williams
2001 Tool Standardizationin the Middle and UpperPale-
olithic:A Closer Look. CambridgeArchaeologicalJour-
nal 11:17-44.
Mellars,Paul
1996 TheNeanderthalLegacy.PrincetonUniversityPress,
Princeton.
Messeri,Patrizia,andArturoPalmadi Cesnola
1976 Contemporaneith di Paleantropie Fanerantropisulle
Coste dell'ItaliaMeridionale.Zephyrus26-27:7-30.
Morrow,TobyA.
1996a LithicRefittingandArchaeologicalSite Formation
Processes:A CaseStudyfromthe TwinDitch site, Greene
County,Illinois. In Stone Tools:TheoreticalInsightsinto
Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp.
345-373. PlenumPress,New York.
1996b Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn's Formal
Approach to Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity61:
581-590.
Mussi, Margherita
2001 EarliestItaly:An Overviewof the ItalianPaleolithic
and Mesolithic.Kluwer,New York.
Neeley, MichaelP., andC. MichaelBarton.
1994 A New Approachto InterpretingLate Pleistocene
Microlith Industries in Southwest Asia. Antiquity
68:275-288.
Nelson, MargaretC.
1991 The Study of TechnologicalOrganization.Archaeo-
logical Methodand Theory3:57-100.
Palmadi Cesnola,Arturo
1964 PrimaCampagnadi Scavi nella Grottadel Cavallo
presso Santa Caterina(Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preis-
toriche 18:41-74.
1965 SecondaCampagnadi Scavi nellaGrottadel Cavallo
presso Santa Caterina(Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preis-
toriche 19:23-39.
1966 Il Paleolitico SuperioreArcaico (Facies Uluzziana)
della Grottadel Cavallo,Lecce. Rivistadi ScienzePreis-
toriche20:33-62.
1967 Il Paleolitico SuperioreArcaico (Facies Uluzziana)
della Grottadel Cavallo,Lecce. (Continuazione).Rivista
di ScienzePreistoriche21:3-59
1993 I1PaleoliticoSuperiore inItalia:IntroduzionealloStu-
dio. Garlattie RazzaiEditori,Florence.
1996 Le PaldolithiqueInfdrieuret Moyenen Italie.J6r8me
Million, Grenoble.
2001 Le PaldolithiqueSupdrieuren Italie. J6r8meMillon,
Grenoble.
Palmadi Cesnola,Arturo,and PatriziaMesseri
1967 QuatreDentsHumainesPaldolithiques Trouv6esdans
des Cavernes de l'Italie M6ridionale.L'Anthropologie
71:249-262.
274 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Patriarchi,Gabriele
1980 Studio Sedimentologico e Geochemico del Paleo-
suolo della Grottadi Capelvenere(Nardb- Lecce). Studi
per l'Ecologia del Quaternario2:87-96.
Peretto,Carlo
1992 Il PaleoliticoMedio. In Italia Preistorica,editedby
Alessandro Guidi and Marcello Piperno,pp. 170-197.
EditoriLaterza,Bari.
Riel-Salvatore,Julien
2001 A CriticalReevaluationof theEvidenceforIntentional
EurasianPaleolithicBurial.UnpublishedMaster'sthesis.
Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University,
Tempe.
Riel-Salvatore,Julien,andGeoffreyA. Clark
2001 GraveMarkers:Middle andEarlyUpperPaleolithic
Burialsand the Use of Chronotypologyin Contemporary
PaleolithicResearch.CurrentAnthropology42:449-481.
RollandNicolas
1977 New Aspects of Middle PalaeolithicVariabilityin
WesternEurope.Nature266:251-252.
1981 The Interpretation of MiddlePalaeolithicVariability.
Man (n.s.) 16:15-42.
Rolland,Nicolas, and HaroldL. Dibble
1990 A New Synthesis of Middle PaleolithicVariability.
AmericanAntiquity55:480-499.
Sarti,Lucia,Paolo Boscato, andM. Lo Monaco
2000 I1MusterianoFinaledi Grottadel Cavallonel Salento:
Studio Preliminare.Origini22:45-109.
Sarti, Lucia, Paolo Boscato, Fabio Martiniand Anna Paola
Spagnoletti
2002 Il Musterianodi Grottadel Cavallo--StratiH e I: Stu-
dio Preliminare.Rivistadi ScienzePreistoriche52:21-109.
Schlanger,Nathan
1994 MindfulTechnology:Unleashingthe ChaineOpera-
toire for an Archaeologyof Mind. In TheAncientMind:
Elementsof CognitiveArchaeology,editedby Colin Ren-
frew and Ezra B.W. Zubrow,pp. 143-151. Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Sellet, Fr6deric
TheConceptandItsApplications.
1993 ChaineOp6ratoire:
LithicTechnology18:106-112.
Shott,MichaelJ.
1989 OnTool-ClassUse LivesandtheFormationof Archae-
ological Assemblages.AmericanAntiquity54:9-30.
1996 An Exegesis of the CurationConcept. Journal of
AnthropologicalResearch52:259-280.
Simek, JanE, andHeatherA. Price
1990 Chronological Change in P6rigordLithic Assem-
blages.In TheEmergenceofModernHumans:AnArchae-
ological Perspective, edited by Paul A. Mellars, pp.
243-261. EdinburghUniversityPress,Edinburgh.
Spennato,AntonioG.
1981 I LivelliProtoaurignaziani dellaGrottadiSerraCicora
(Nard6, Lecce). Studi per l'Ecologia del Quaternario
3:61-76.
Stein, Julie K., JennieN. Deo, andLauraS. Phillips
2003 Big Sites-Short Time: Accumulation Rates in
ArchaeologicalSites. Journalof ArchaeologicalScience
30:297-316.
Straus,LawrenceG.
1997 TheIberianSituationbetween40,000 and30,000 B.P.
in Light of EuropeanModels of Migrationand Conver-
gence. In ConceptualIssues in ModernHumanOrigins
Research,edited by GeoffreyA. Clarkand CatherineA.
Willermet,pp. 235-252. Aldine de Gruyter,New York.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:42:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 69, No. 2, 2004]
Stringer,Christopher,andWilliamDavies
2001 Those ElusiveNeanderthals.Nature413:791-792.
Sullivan,Alan P, III,and KennethC. Rozen
1985 DebitageAnalysisandArchaeologicalInterpretation.
AmericanAntiquity50:755-779.
Villaverde,Valentin,J. EmiliAura,and C. MichaelBarton
1998 The Upper Paleolithic in MediterraneanSpain: A
Review of CurrentEvidence.Journalof WorldPrehistory
12:121-198.
Weedman,KathrynJ.
2002 On the Spurof theMoment:Effectsof Age andExpe-
rience on Hafted Stone ScraperMorphology.American
Antiquity67:731-744.
Weiner,Steve, PaulGoldberg,andOferBar-Yosef.
2002 Three-dimensionalDistributionof Minerals in the
Sedimentsof HayonimCave,Israel:DiageneticProcesses
andArchaeologicalImplications.JournalofArchaeolog-
ical Science 29:1289-1308.
White,Randall
2000 Un Big BangSocioculturel.LaRechercheHors-Serie
4:10-16.
Wilke, PhilipJ., and J. JeffreyFlenniken
1991 Missing the Point:Rebuttalto Bettinger,O'Connell,
andThomas.AmericanAnthropologist93:172-173.
Winterhalder, Bruce,andEricA. Smith
2000 Analysing Adaptive Strategies:Human Behavioral
Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology
9:51-72.
Young,Donald,and DouglasB. Bamforth
1990 On the MacroscopicIdentificationof Used Flakes.
AmericanAntiquity55:403-409.
Notes
1. This refersto the patterningandprocess of changeover
time, not to the lack of intentionalityin humanbehavior
2. The p values for the correlation coefficients are:
Capelvenere, .838; Cavallo, .801; M. Zei, .131; M.
Bernardini,.001; SerraCicoraA, .696; Torredell'Alto, .554;
Uluzzo, .069; Uluzzo C, .306. Thus, while the data usually
matchthe expectedpattern,it appearsthatthey are generally
not statisticallysignificantbefore accountingfor rawmaterial
(see below).
3. The p values for the correlation coefficients are:
Capelvenere,.001; M. Bernardini,.000; Torredell'Alto, .002;
Uluzzo C, .000. This suggests that the relationshipsoutlined
by taking raw materialinto considerationare not only very
strong,but also very unlikely to be random.
4. Estimated durations derived from the following
sources: 90,000 years for the Salento Mousterian(Palma di
Cesnola 1996); 10,000 years for the Uluzzian (Kuhn and
Bietti 2000); 6,000 years for the proto-Aurignacian(Kuhn
2002); and 10,000 yearsfor the Epigravettian(Bietti 1990). It
shouldbe mentionedthat 10,000 years is probablyan overes-
timationof the durationof the Uluzzian,andthat90,000 years
likely is an underestimationof the durationof the Mousterian,
althoughthis is hard to ascertaingiven the lack of absolute
dates for most assemblagesassignedto thatindustry.
ReceivedMay 20, 2003; RevisedSeptember29, 2003;
Accepted October2, 2003.