ARHEOLOGIJA NEANDERTALACA- ČLANCI-SEMINAR

29.03.- DOGANDŽIĆ; THE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC OF THE BALKANS

The Balkans and Middle Paleolithic Occupation Intensity
Neanderthal Distribution:
Neanderthals inhabited large parts of Eurasia, including Europe, southwest Asia, and eastward into Asia,
but their presence in the archaeological record is unevenly distributed.
Regions like southwest France show a continuous and rich Neanderthal presence, while the Balkan
Peninsula lacks continuous evidence.
Factors Influencing Neanderthal Distribution:
Sparse record attributed to less intensive research history and differences in occupational intensity during
the Pleistocene.
Thick loess deposits covering potential Lower Paleolithic sites in parts of eastern Europe may obscure the
Pleistocene record.
Biogeographical Factors:
Variation in population distribution linked to climate, environment, topography, migration routes, etc.,
influencing demographic patterns and spatial occupation records.
Occupational Discontinuities:
Investigated more intensively in central, northern, and northwestern Europe.
Evident in northern areas, indicating migration patterns in response to climatic changes.
Regional Extinctions or Survival:
Debate between regional extinctions or survival in southern regions during glacial periods.
Southern Europe, including the Balkans, considered favorable for habitation during climatic fluctuations.
Middle Paleolithic in the Balkans:
Sparse Middle Paleolithic locations, limited long and securely dated sequences, except for a few known
sites like Krapina, Vindija, Lakonis.
Lack of understanding of Pleistocene hominin adaptations despite favorable conditions.
Research Gaps and Questions:
Need for further research due to the Balkans' large area, unique ecological, and geographical position
within Europe.
Questions about continuous human presence, population densities, correlations between
climate/geography and human presence, and Neanderthal adaptations in the region.
Title: The Balkans and Middle Paleolithic Industrial Variability
Typological Classification:
Initial tool for understanding Middle Paleolithic variability.
Balkan Paleolithic research adopting Western classification with concerns about its applicability.

Technological Interpretations:
Shift from typology to technology-based interpretations.
Emphasis on different tool reduction practices related to occupation intensity and resource utilization in
response to climate and environment changes.

Middle Paleolithic Technological Repertoire:

Diverse methods of blank production such as Levallois, discoidal, bifacial, Quina, and various core-on-
fake methods.
Variability in lithic industries potentially patterned at temporal and regional scales.

Significance of the Balkans:

Transit zone between southwest Asia, Eurasian steppes, and Europe, providing insights into patterns of
dispersals, timing, routes, and hominin interactions.
Questions about Neanderthals' longer persistence, demise, and population replacement by modern humans
from southwest Asia.

Research Overview:
Review of current Middle Paleolithic record from the Balkans with emphasis on technological behavior
and population history.
Patchiness of the record attributed to political attention to science and international connectedness.

Geographic Definition of the Balkans:

Emphasizes a geographic rather than political definition of the region.

Includes areas north of the Danube and Sava, such as Romania, Hungary, and northern parts of Serbia and
Croatia.
Geographically similar to the northern parts of the Balkan Peninsula, including the wide Danube and Sava
valleys.

Approach to Review:
Reviewing the Middle Paleolithic (MP) record chronologically rather than by techno-complex.
Challenges in chronological framing due to a lack of absolute dating for many key sites.
Primarily relying on sites with reliable chronological estimates.
Methodological Considerations:

Many assemblages come from early twentieth-century excavations analyzed with outdated methods.
Inconsistencies in the analysis and reporting of lithic data due to non-standardized methods.
MP sites from the Balkans typically represent evidence of ephemeral occupations with small assemblages.

Geography and Paleoenvironment of the Balkans:

Varied topography and climate divided into three main geographical zones: Mediterranean zone,
mountain chains, and northern lowlands.
Large mountain chains act as natural barriers separating the Mediterranean region from the northern
plains.
Exceptions include the Maritza and Vardar river valleys, providing potential passageways.
Wide valleys of the Danube and Sava rivers serve as major east-west routes across the peninsula.
North of the peninsula characterized by low hills and wide river valleys extending from the Pannonian
Plain.

Geographic Features:
The Danube valley and its main tributaries, Velika Morava, and Sava with its tributaries in Bosnia and
Croatia are significant geographical features of the Balkans.
Mountains along the Mediterranean coast rise steeply, leaving no wide valleys inland.
Coastlines, especially along the northern Adriatic, have fluctuated throughout the Pleistocene.
Migration corridors along the Mediterranean coast expanded with landscape changes, including the
formation of a land mass connecting Asia Minor and Greece.

Balkans as a Refugium:
The Balkan peninsula, along with the Iberian and Apennine peninsulas, served as a refugial region during
full glacial conditions.
It was a source of expansion and re-colonization for various flora and fauna species in central and
northern Europe.
Genetic studies suggest that certain species failed to expand from Mediterranean refugia due to
geographical barriers, leading to endemism in these regions.
The survival and persistence of human populations in southern refugia, including the Balkans, during
glacial periods are suggested by phylogeographic studies and archaeological evidence.

Pleistocene Environment and Climate:

The Balkan Peninsula falls in the temperate zone, exhibiting different climatic features across its territory.
The region's climate is influenced by European continental, Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Central Asian
climatic systems.
Extensive research provides reconstructions of Pleistocene climate and environment through pollen
sequences, loess-paleosol deposits, and evidence of glaciations in various regions of the peninsula.
Southern Balkans contain well-known pollen sequences in lacustrine contexts, providing essential
evidence for paleoclimate and paleoenvironment.
The Danube river drainage system in northern regions preserves thick loess-paleosol deposits,
contributing to paleoenvironmental reconstruction.
Mountainous regions across the Balkans bear evidence of glaciations during multiple glacial cycles,
although research outside of Greece is still developing and lacks well-dated sequences.

Late Middle Pleistocene Glacials (MIS 12): Significant glaciation in northwestern Europe and the Alps,
also notable in the Balkans, with ice caps covering a large area in central Montenegro. Glacial evidence in
Dinarid mountains and northern peninsula. Increased loess accumulation rates in southern Pannonia from
MIS 8, leading to more arid conditions.

Penultimate Glacial (MIS 6): Intense unfavorable climate, with dry conditions across the peninsula.
Lesser extent glaciation than MIS 12, with no larger scale glaciations in Dinarid Alps since. Drier
conditions in the interior Balkans due to ice caps in the Dinarides.
Pleistocene Vegetation: Dry and cold climate during Middle Pleistocene glacials, with forest contraction.
Grass vegetation in southern regions, with variations in tree species distribution north-south. Lower sea
levels during glacials, affecting coastal environment, forming large plains and river valleys.

Interglacials: MIS 11 characterized by warm and extensive conditions, with evidence of weaker paleosol
development. Progressive aridization during Middle Pleistocene interglacials. Reduction of
Mediterranean climate influence in central Balkans. Last interglacial (MIS 5e) less warm and humid than
earlier interglacials, indicating shift to more continental climate.

Upper Pleistocene: MIS 5d-5a marked by significant loess accumulation in northern plains. Mild
conditions during early and late Last Glacial, with warmer summer temperatures, higher precipitation,
and humid summers. Contractions of warmth-loving tree populations into southern refugia.

MIS 3: Return of forests with warm and humid climate, marked by Heinrich events and Dansgaard-
Oeschger cycles. Conditions less severe than North Atlantic during HE 5 event. Volcanic eruption (CI
eruption) during HE 4 had significant impact on vegetation and climate.

Geographic and Climatic Zones: Peninsula divided into southern Mediterranean, central mountain chains,
and northern lowlands. Southern regions provided a refugium for flora, while mountain chains
experienced glaciations during glacial periods. Northern plains characterized by open steppe conditions
and sparse trees.

Radiometric Dating: Most sites in the Balkans lack absolute dating, with many having only radiocarbon
ages, which are considered minimal ages. Chronological placement of assemblages often points to a Last
Glacial age. For stratified sites, temporal trends of technological variation can be evaluated.

Early Syntheses: In the 1970s, researchers like M. Gabori, J. K. Kozłowski, and S. Ivanova conducted
early syntheses and classifications of Middle Paleolithic (MP) industries. Notable excavations at sites like
Krapina, Vindija, Crvena stijena, Asprochaliko, Londa, Kamen, Samuilitza, Mouselievo, and Bacho Kiro
formed the basis for evaluating and classifying Balkan MP industries.

Methodology: The Bordes' method of classification and the establishment of Mousterian facies in
southwest France were widely embraced across Europe, including the Balkans, even after its peak in
popularity. Balkan MP assessments used indices defined by Bordes along with a general evaluation of
technological and typological features.

Charentian and Typical Mousterian: Two facies of Mousterian from the Bordes classification system, the
Charentian and the Typical Mousterian, are commonly applied to industries in the Balkans. The
Southeastern Charentian, recognized by Gabori, Ivanova, and Kozłowski, refers to assemblages in
Croatia, characterized by high scraper index, low to zero Levallois index, and scrapers with Quina and
demi-Quina retouch. An atypical Charentian is also separated at several sites in Bulgaria. Kozłowski
further separated Levallois Mousterian, Moustero-Levalloisian, and non-Levallois versions based on
technological and typological Levallois indices.

East Balkan Mousterian and Balkan Mousterian: East Balkan Mousterian with bifacial points or
Moustero-Levallois with leaf points are recognized at Bulgarian sites like Mouselievo-Samuilitza and
Kokkinopilos in Greece. Kozłowski included assemblages with high scraper index and average technical
Levallois index into a group termed Balkan Mousterian.

Micromousterian: Defined as a facies consisting of assemblages with comparatively small artifacts,

primarily related to industries in the southern Mediterranean belt. These assemblages have often been
compared to the Pontinian in Italy due to the small size of artifacts and are interpreted as a typical but
diminutive version of Mousterian.

Chronological and Spatial Variation: The 'Levallois generalization' seen in western Europe does not
emerge in an Acheulean context in Southeast Europe. Isolated bifacial handaxes, possibly attributed to the
Lower Paleolithic, have been discovered in southern Croatia, Albania, and northern parts of Greece.

General Assemblage Features: Middle Pleistocene sites in the Balkans display similarities with sites in
central or eastern Europe, such as Vértősszőlős, Bilzingsleben, and Korolevo I. These industries share
characteristics like an absence of bifaces and Levallois production, featuring simple and informal
production processes with cores having one or multiple platforms, simple toolkits on small blanks, and
the presence of choppers.

Pre-Mousterian Industrial Complex: There's a suggestion of defining a pre-Mousterian industrial complex

in the Balkans, synchronous with the Acheulean but outside its geographical range. These industries date
back to at least 400-300 ka, possibly as early as 700 ka, and may have persisted until around 200 ka. A
gradual transition from the Acheulean to Levallois production is unlikely in this region.

Proto-Levallois Technology: Some sites in the Balkans, like the open-air site in Velika Morava valley in
Serbia and Kozarnika, may contain technological elements of a proto-Levallois production system. These
sites have the potential to provide insights into the early appearance of Levallois technology.

New Data from Western Morava Valley: Current research in the Western Morava valley in Serbia could
shed light on the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic in the region. Over 30 locations with surface finds
have been registered, some containing typical Lower Paleolithic technology with many choppers and
chopping tools, while others have proto-Levallois cores on pebbles, Kombewa cores, choppers, and some
Levallois products. Both Lower and Middle Paleolithic technological elements have been encountered.

Levallois Technology as a Hallmark: Levallois technology is commonly regarded as the hallmark of the
Middle Paleolithic (MP) and is roughly concurrent with the emergence of Neanderthals as a taxon. The
dominance of Levallois and other faking systems characteristic of the MP, such as discoidal or Quina,
may mark the beginnings of this period.

Evidence from Velika Balanica Cave: The best evidence for early MP techno-typological elements
predating the appearance of Levallois comes from Velika Balanica cave, chronologically placed in Marine
Isotope Stages (MIS) 9–7. Assemblages from Level 3 of Velika Balanica exhibit characteristics like the
production of asymmetrical, thick and cortical blanks, sometimes with Clactonian platforms and high
interior platform angles, corresponding to the Quina method. These assemblages predate the use of
Levallois in Level 2 of Velika Balanica.

Regional Analogy with Theopetra: A regional analogy can be made with Theopetra Level II1 of at least
MIS 6 age, which also exhibits a similar trend of producing thick and cortical blanks transformed into
Quina-like scrapers before the use of Levallois.

Interregional Comparisons: In southwest France during MIS 4 and MIS 3, Quina technology with
associated Quina scrapers predominated, especially in reindeer hunting contexts. Similar techno-
typological behaviors have been observed at several sites in the same region, dating even earlier than 300
ka.

Chronological and Spatial Relation of Velika Balanica: Velika Balanica is related chronologically and
spatially to similar techno-typological phenomena observed in southwest France, indicating a broader
distribution and temporal range for these behaviors.

Proto-Charentian in Anatolia: Before the prevalent use of Levallois technology at Karain in Turkey
around MIS 9, a predominant Quina-like technological behavior, named Proto-Charentian, is observed.
This technology involves the production of thick and broad blanks often used for scrapers with a distinct
scaled Quina-like retouch.

Interregional Technological Consistency: Industries in Anatolia and the wider region show technological
and typological consistency, indicating potential population movements or transfer of cultural practices.
This early appearance of Middle Paleolithic technological components, other than Levallois, in the
Balkan region suggests a phenomenon of 'Mousterianization' and links with Southwest Asia.
Complex Demographic Processes: Fossil evidence suggests a complex demographic process during this
period. While Neanderthal fossils are present in the later stages, earlier evidence points to a mixture of
modern human and primitive features, indicating early movements of Homo sapiens out of Africa.

Widespread Use of Levallois Method: The unambiguous appearance of Levallois technology is related to
MIS 6 or even MIS 7. It becomes rather frequent during this period, characterized by the production of
larger, elongated blanks through uni- and bidirectional removals. The Levallois method remains a regular
blank production method throughout MIS 5, characterized by the production of elongated blanks often
with radial detachment.

Technological Variation in MIS 5:

Some MIS 5 assemblages show low-to-moderate presence of Levallois blank production alongside
evidence of the production of naturally backed, thick blanks selected for scrapers.
Blanks of this morphology are commonly produced on quartz pebbles using a method corresponding to
the Quina faking method, as seen in Pešturina’s MIS 5 Level 4, where more than half of scrapers have
Quina or demi-Quina retouch.
At Crvena stijena Levels XXII, XX, XVIII (potentially MIS 5 or MIS 4), the production of blanks with
this morphology, named Pontinian, is observed.
Similar phenomenon is seen in SW France during the same period.
North of the peninsula's limits, in MIS 5e at Krapina and Veternica, the frequent use of the core-wedge
method, similar to bipolar, is evident. While Veternica's assemblage is probably associated with MIS 5, it
does not directly compare to the Quina method. However, due to heavy usage of quartz/ite pebbles,
assemblages from Krapina and nearby Vindija and Veternica were grouped into the Charentian-Quina
type.

Examining Separate Reduction Trajectories:

In some MIS 5 industries, Levallois occurs alongside the production of naturally backed blanks for
scrapers.
At Zobište, MIS 5d–a industries show a continuous process starting with Levallois-like unidirectional
exploitation and ending with radial detachments of fakes.
At Crvena stijena and Krapina, diachronic patterns reveal shifts from Levallois to the production of
naturally backed blanks.
Krapina's assemblage during MIS 5e shows variation from Levallois blanks to cortical backed blanks,
potentially representing different faking trajectories or part of the same sequence.

Technological Diversity in MIS 5:

MIS 5 industries exhibit two main blank production methods: Levallois accompanied by volumetric-like
blade production, and the tendency to produce thick cortical blanks.
Both contexts emphasize the production of scrapers, often increasingly resharpened.
Unlike in SW France, where Ferrassie vs. Quina Charentian dichotomy exists, in the Balkans, the two
technological methods co-occur, showing fluctuations in the importance of producing different blank
morphologies.

Scrapers in MIS 5:
Regardless of the blank production method, MIS 5 assemblages are rich in scrapers, differing in tool
production intensity and modification.

Typological Signature of Balkan MP:

Crvena stijena levels (MIS 6 and MIS 5) exhibited Levallois use, various side-scrapers (including double
and convergent forms), bifacially and unifacially retouched scrapers, frequent ventral thinning, and
truncated-facetted pieces.
Similar techno-typological phenomena were observed at contemporaneous sites like Theopetra and
Karain, suggesting a unified culture among Neanderthals.
MIS 5 assemblages show greater technological variability with various blank production methods being
used simultaneously.

Late Middle Paleolithic Variability and Regional Differences:

Variability in flaking methods characterizes the late MP, with less standardized Levallois production and
more frequent discoidal and less formal radial faking methods.
Southern coastal zones offer insights into temporal changes, with the Micromousterian facies frequently
assigned to late MP industries.
Sites like Asprochaliko and Crvena stijena exhibit a shift towards less standardized production methods,
marked by decreasing use of Levallois and centripetal faking methods.
Temporal patterns suggest a change to less standardized production methods, indicating situational and
less formal blank production through centripetal and discoidal methods.

Comparison with Northern Regions:

The central and northern Balkans show parallels in lithic variation, with potentially similar trends
observed in late MP assemblages.
Sites like Pešturina and Šalitrena cave exhibit variations in technology, with the Levallois method present
but not dominant.
At sites like Vindija and Temnata Dupka, there's a relative increase in discoidal products and denticulate
tools, suggesting similarities with trends observed in southern regions.

Geographical Variation:

Eastern Peninsula (Bulgaria):

Bacho Kiro and Kozarnika sites show homogeneous industries.
Use of Levallois and discoidal methods.
No sharp techno-typological changes.
Occurrence of bifacial elements in eastern regions.
"East Balkan Mousterian" with bifacial leaf points.
Regional group covering areas east of Carpathian mountains.
Overrepresentation in Bulgarian sites.
Bifacial implements found in several Balkan sites.
Associated with MIS 3 and late Mousterian.
Some evidence of bifacial production even earlier than MIS 3.
Geographic delineation of bifacial production along mountain regions.

Transitional Industries and Upper Paleolithic:

Production of blades and bladelets in late MP.
Potential role in Initial Upper Paleolithic.
Question of whether industries were produced by Neanderthals independently.
Increased elongated blank and blade production in the south.
Examination in the context of transitional Uluzzian industry.
Technological behavior part of MP technological repertoire.
Influence of modern humans unlikely in southern Balkans.

Expediency as a Typological Signature in the Late Middle Paleolithic:

Decreasing frequency of scraper types in late MP.
Increase in denticulates, notches, and simple retouched tools.
Typological character prompted the proposition of Denticulate facies.
Occurrence of denticulate tools not restricted to Mediterranean region.
Increase often coupled with increased occurrence of damaged pieces.
Edge damage likely result of post-depositional processes.
Common in contexts of greater reliance on expedient tool production.

Biogeography of the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Hominins in the Balkans:

Balkans underwent frequent episodes of human depopulation and recolonization.

Partial occupation of certain areas.
Contradictory position for understanding population history.
Refugial character and presence of migration corridors.
Available record implies sporadic human presence.

Genetic Studies on Past Human Demography:

Focus on effective (breeding) population size.

Neanderthal metapopulation considered small.
Experienced several bottlenecks.
Low population density characterized Neanderthal occupation of Europe.
Archaeological perspective relies on parameters related to intensity of occupations.
Difficulty in linking parameters to population estimates.
Balkan sites lack reliable data on find densities.
Staying Warm—No Clear Evidence of a Refugium in MIS 4:

Balkan data shows peak in site abundance in MIS 5 and MIS 3.

Neanderthal occupation related to warm climatic conditions.
Evidence of human occupation during warm periods.
Pattern of more regular use of fire in warm climatic phases.
Paucity in the record of Neanderthal occupation during MIS 4.
Evidence for MIS 4 occupations at Temnata Dupka, Crvena stijena, and Klissoura.
Southern regions more likely to represent refugia for fauna, flora, and humans.
Neanderthal Demise and Homo sapiens into the Balkans:

Intense research on demise of Neanderthals and arrival of Homo sapiens.

Major debates on population replacement, chronology, overlap, contact, etc.
Evidence of temporal overlap and genetic interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Challenges in building a regional model of events for the Balkans.

First Homo sapiens Evidence:

Peștera cu Oase fossils in Romania, radiometrically dated close to 40 ka BP, compatible with
Aurignacian.
Aurignacian technocomplex identified as early H. sapiens archaeological signature in Europe.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) Industries:

Represent first H. sapiens attempts to colonize Eurasia.

IUP incorporates Middle Paleolithic (MP) features, such as Levallois elements, faceted platforms, with
UP tool repertoire.
Uluzzian and Transitional Industries:

Uluzzian present mainly in southern Balkans, characterized by MP elements and new artifact forms.
Transitional assemblage from Lakonis I in Greece features prismatic blade production, similar to
Bohunician.
Aurignacian Presence:

Earliest Aurignacian in Balkans associated with Kozarnikian assemblage in Kozarnika cave.

Later Aurignacian phases indicated in several sites along the Danube and Romanian Banat.
Population Replacement Scenarios:
Neanderthals' gradual disappearance coincided with arrival of Homo sapiens, potentially due to climate
instability.
Genetic and morphological evidence suggests interaction between the two populations.
Uncertainty exists regarding nature of interactions and exact timing of population replacements.
Spatial Distribution:

IUP sites concentrated in northern Balkans, EUP (Aurignacian) along Danube corridor.
Transitional (Uluzzian) and UP assemblages found in southern coastal route, primarily in Greece.
Future Research Directions:

Focus on intensity of human occupation, geography, topography, and environmental factors in habitat
choice.
Exploration of potential refugia during climatic cycles and examination of regional variation in Middle
Paleolithic industries.
Conclusion:

Balkans offer unique potential for studying MP variability and its correlation with broader European
trends.
Technological fluctuations in MP not necessarily due to innovations but recurring faking methods.
Biogeography study linked to understanding refugial character of Balkans and timing of population
replacements.

SEMINAR 5.04 – CLARK

The author discusses the challenges of making inferences about biological and cultural evolutionary
processes over vast periods of time, such as tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.

Despite the accumulation of radiometric dates and discoveries of human fossils and archaeological sites,
understanding the evolutionary processes and explaining the material remains have been limited.

The author becomes interested in epistemology, specifically the logic of inference underlying research
protocols in Paleolithic archaeology and human paleontology.
Archaeologists are described as diligent "pattern searchers" but often proceed without much concern for
how they conduct their search. They tend to adopt prevailing systematics without explicit examination of
the logic of inference.

The prevalence of "strict empiricists" in archaeology and human paleontology is noted. These individuals
believe that patterns are latent in nature and easily accessible to the prepared mind, often leading to a lack
of critical self-awareness in the discipline.

The underdevelopment of theory in Paleolithic archaeology and the theory-laden nature of "facts" are
highlighted, especially in the context of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition.

The author argues against the idea that "facts speak for themselves" and asserts that patterns or structures
are imposed on nature by humans. They emphasize the role of conceptual frameworks in shaping data
interpretation.

The discussion extends to the differences in research traditions between anglophone and Latin/Central
European scholars, particularly regarding their views on prehistory and the nature of archaeological
inquiry.

The text touches upon metaphysical paradigms underlying research traditions and how they influence
interpretations of the past. There's a distinction between the views of prehistory as a kind of history in
Continental traditions versus anthropological biases in U.S. research traditions.

The author raises the question of replacement or continuity in human origins, highlighting fundamental
differences in interpretation among scholars.

The debate surrounding human origins is framed within ill-defined paradigm-like formulations that
influence how scientists perceive patterns and interpret data. These paradigms determine variables,
methods, and meanings assigned to patterns in different disciplines and research traditions.

The text outlines two main hypotheses regarding human evolution: the "Out of Africa" or "replacement"
theory and the "multiregional evolution" or "continuity" theory.

The "Out of Africa" theory proposes that modern humans originated in Africa around 200,000 years ago
or less and then spread out, replacing other hominids such as Neanderthals. This theory is supported by
researchers like Stringer and Tattersall.
The "multiregional evolution" theory suggests that modern humans evolved from archaic predecessors in
various locations throughout the range originally colonized by Homo erectus. This theory is advocated by
scholars such as Wolpoff and Brace.

By clarifying the tenets of each paradigm, researchers can generate testable implications for patterns in
the archaeological and paleontological records to determine their accuracy.

The text focuses on the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe, which corresponds to the
archaeological transition between Neanderthals and modern humans, dated to around 40,000 years ago.

While there is no consensus on the nature of this transition, there is a dominant view characterized as a
"strong replacement" perspective, which emphasizes a clear shift in stone tool technologies, an increase in
complexity and variety of tools, the appearance of sophisticated art forms, and changes in social and
economic organization.

However, the author critiques this perspective, noting that the logic of inference underlying these
generalizations is problematic due to a lack of explicit concern with arriving at secure inferences and
assessing the adequacy of conceptual frameworks.

The text highlights specific criteria used to define the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition, including
changes in stone tool technologies, the appearance of complex artifacts, increased regional diversification,
the emergence of personal ornaments, the development of representational art, and shifts in social and
economic organization.
The European approach to Paleolithic assemblage variability has heavily relied on a typological
systematics focused on retouched tools. Changes in retouched tool components are often used to
demarcate cultural transitions, with the assumption that stone tools represent quasi-historical, stylistic
microtraditions transmitted through culture.

There's an implicit assumption that the distribution of stone tools corresponds to the boundaries of social
units, leading to interpretations of social learning and historical identity based on modes of retouch and
edge configurations.

However, this reasoning overlooks issues related to the spatial extent and temporal persistence of
hypothetical social units.
Interpretations of changes in retouched stone tools during transitions have been approached in various
ways, including:

Some see the transition as an in situ phenomenon with continuity between late Middle Paleolithic (LMP)
and early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) assemblages.
Others argue that certain EUP industries represent adaptive responses by Neanderthals to the arrival of
modern humans, producing assemblages with mixed characteristics.
Another perspective suggests that intermediate industries exist, and when late Middle and early Upper
Paleolithic assemblages coexist, the EUP must be intrusive.
The "indigenous" model proposes that typologically discrete industries are "hominid specific," with
Neanderthals undergoing a separate and earlier Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition.
Some focus on transitional industries, exhibiting characteristics of neither the Middle nor Upper
Paleolithic as traditionally defined, suggesting they may have been produced by Neanderthals or represent
separate transition intervals.
The "modern synthesis" on the Mousterian typology is credited to François Bordes, who created four
Mousterian "facies" based on the percentage of type groups with similar morphological characteristics.
Bordes aimed to impose order on artifact assemblages for detailed analysis.

Bordes's typology was successful and widely accepted in Western Europe, later diffusing into Central
Europe. It provided a systematic and replicable procedure for comparing assemblages graphically and
statistically, bringing order to a previously confusing situation marked by competing regional typologies.

The Bordes typology is primarily based on types identified by the location and shape of retouched or
modified edges, regardless of the overall form of the piece or temporal considerations.

However, critiques of the Bordes typology have emerged, noting limitations and shortcomings. For
instance, it has become evident that late Acheulean assemblages differ little from Mousterian ones,
highlighting the arbitrary nature of analytical units. Additionally, the facies are not as discrete as
originally thought, and important patterns of internal covariation are obscured if the facies are taken at
face value.

Mousterian systematics are recognized as needing an overhaul, with dissatisfaction expressed by various
scholars. Suggestions for improvement include transitioning to a more behaviorally oriented, attribute-
based system, avoiding untested assumptions about the cognitive abilities of Middle Paleolithic hominids.
Recently, Bisson proposed a method that translates Bordesian types into artifact descriptions containing
more behaviorally significant information. This approach retains the utility of Bordes's typology while
addressing its limitations and biases.

The Upper Paleolithic typology, developed by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, was successful in
partitioning Upper Paleolithic industries before the widespread availability of radiocarbon dates. It relied
on an index fossil-based system of time-sensitive "stylistic" marker types. However, recent scrutiny has
revealed problems with its chronological order and highlighted its reliance on certain index fossils, which
may obscure other assemblage characteristics.

Archaeologists now recognize that there is significant variability within and between Upper Paleolithic
analytical units, challenging the notion of clear-cut divisions between them. Some scholars suggest that
functional explanations may account for this variability within conventionally defined units like the
Perigordian and the Aurignacian.

It's important to note that Middle and Upper Paleolithic technologies do not necessarily monitor
technology in a direct linear progression, as assumed by some. Typology and technology can vary
independently of each other.

Upper Paleolithic typological variation often displays a high degree of formal variation, with types not
segregating clearly and unambiguously. Assemblages frequently show intergradation between types,
suggesting a continuum of technological variation rather than distinct categories.

Like Mousterian tools, Upper Paleolithic tools were likely heavily modified throughout their use lives,
undergoing continual formal transformation rather than strict adherence to specific designs. Equifinality
in tool forms, as proposed by Dibble, may apply to various Upper Paleolithic tool types.

Despite the large number of types recognized in conventional Bordesian Upper Paleolithic typologies,
most sites contain relatively few discrete types. This suggests that perceived discrete types often represent
successive stages in the modification of a single tool, rather than distinct tool categories.

The conventional wisdom in European Paleolithic archaeology distinguishes Middle Paleolithic

assemblages as primarily manufactured on flakes, while Upper Paleolithic ones are made on blades.
However, this notion is not entirely accurate. Surveys of blade and flake counts at various Upper
Paleolithic sites in central and eastern Europe show that the debitage component from most of these sites
is heavily dominated by flakes. This challenges the emphasis placed on blade technology as a significant
aspect of Upper Paleolithic technology.
Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) assemblages, postdating 20 kyr BP, also do not uniformly feature laminar
technologies, and techniques of blank production within LUP industries are not standardized. Blades
appeared tens of thousands of years before the Upper Paleolithic, with no empirical justification for
linking them to any particular hominid taxon or behavioral change.

Variability in raw material procurement, reduction, and use has been highlighted in recent explanations of
Paleolithic assemblage differences. This variability is influenced by factors such as resource distributions,
mobility patterns, and site use intensity.

In areas where raw material remained constant over time due to geographic restrictions, overall
assemblage characteristics tended to remain stable over the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition.
Examples include northern Spain and the Pontinian region in Latium, Italy.

The perception of pattern in organic technologies and "art" over the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition
and within the Upper Paleolithic itself is influenced by preconceptions about the cognitive abilities of the
hominids involved. There is variability in bone and antler technologies across Upper Paleolithic
assemblages, with a documented increase in the size and diversity of bone and antler industries,
ornaments, and portable art objects over time within the Upper Paleolithic. However, these developments
appear to have been relatively gradual and not sudden imports from elsewhere.
Continuity in Subsistence Practices: The text highlights the continuity of certain subsistence practices and
the persistence of specific ungulate species across the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic
periods. It mentions the presence of red deer, reindeer, aurochs, bison, and other ungulates in Middle
Paleolithic sites, which continue to occur in Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, and Perigordian contexts in
southwest Europe. This continuity suggests that foragers were conservative in their subsistence strategies
and only made significant changes under extreme circumstances.

Accelerated Change after 20,000 Years Ago: The text notes a shift in subsistence practices and faunal
exploitation after about 20,000 years ago, especially in the Franco-Cantabrian refugium. This period is
characterized by accelerated change, marked by increased diversification and intensification in regional
diets. The intensification is attributed to factors such as increased population density, particularly in
topographically constrained areas, leading to heightened efforts to obtain food despite the challenges
associated with adding low-yield or labor-intensive species to the diet.

Shift in Archaeological Approaches: There is a discussion on the evolving approaches to studying

subsistence practices, with a transition from conventional archaeofaunal analysis to a community ecology
approach grounded in evolutionary ecology. This new approach rejects ethnographic models and instead
considers Paleolithic foragers as members of social carnivore guilds. Ecological niche theory is utilized to
analyze hunting, scavenging, and foraging behaviors, which are then contrasted and compared with the
behaviors of other large predators living in the region at the time.
Challenge to Previous Interpretations: The text challenges previous interpretations, particularly regarding
Neandertal behaviors and capabilities. It questions the notion of Neandertals as obligate scavengers and
suggests that the pattern of faunal assemblages may not support this interpretation. The community
ecology approach reframes questions about subsistence practices and requires new kinds of data to
answer them, challenging traditional views and interpretations.

Conclusion on Population Replacement: The conclusion drawn from the evidence presented is that there
is weak support for large-scale population replacement in Europe during the transition from the Middle to
Upper Paleolithic periods. Instead, the evidence suggests gradual change leading to the development of a
fully modern behavioral repertoire around the beginning of the late Upper Paleolithic. This challenges
previous assumptions about abrupt transitions and highlights the complexity of human adaptation over
time.

These details provide a comprehensive understanding of the text's discussion on subsistence practices,
archaeological approaches, and interpretations of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic
periods.