Suchergebnisse

▪ Abstract  The transition from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic is considered one of the major revolutions in the prehistory of humankind. Explanations of the observable archaeological phenomena in Eurasia, or the lack of such evidence in other regions, include biological arguments (the role of Cro-Magnons and the demise of the Neanderthals), as well as cultural-technological, and environmental arguments. The paper discusses issues of terminological ambiguities, chronological and geographical aspects of change, the emergence of what is viewed as the arch-types of modern forager societies, and the hotly debated and loaded issue of modern behavior. Finally, the various causes for the Upper Paleolithic revolution are enumerated, from the biological through the technocultural that relies on the analogy with the Neolithic revolution.

Despite almost a century of research, the Chinese Paleolithic chronocultural sequence still remains incomplete, although the number of well-dated sites is rapidly increasing. The Chinese Paleolithic is marked by the long persistence of core-and-flake and cobble-tool industries, so interpretation of cultural and social behavior of humans in East Asia based solely on comparison with the African and western Eurasian prehistoric sequences becomes problematic, such as in assessing cognitive evolutionary stages. For the Chinese Paleolithic, wood and bamboo likely served as raw materials for the production of daily objects since the arrival of the earliest migrants from western Asia, although poor preservation is a problem. Contrary to the notion of a "Movius Line" with handaxes not present on the China side, China does have a limited distribution of Acheulian bifaces and unifaces. Similarly, Middle Paleolithic assemblages are present in the Chinese sequence. Although the available raw materials have been assumed to have limited applicable knapping techniques in China, this notion is challenged by the appearance of microblade industries in the north in the Upper Paleolithic. In the south, early pottery making by foragers emerged 20,000 years ago, thus preceding the emergence of farming but heralding the long tradition of cooking in China.

Despite the rapid expansion of archaeological knowledge of the Paleolithic over the past several decades, some generalized interpretive frameworks inherited from previous generations of researchers are remarkably tenacious. One of the most persistent of these is the assumed correlation between blade technologies, Upper Paleolithic industries, and anatomically (and behaviorally) modern humans. In this paper, we review some of the evidence for the production of early blade technologies in Eurasia and Africa dating to the late Lower and the Middle Paleolithic. The basic techniques for blade production appeared thousands of years before the Upper Paleolithic, and there is no justification for linking blades per se to any particular aspect of hominid anatomy or to any major change in the behavioral capacities of hominids. It is true that blades came to dominate the archaeological records of western Eurasia and Africa after 40,000 years ago, perhaps as a consequence of increasing reliance on complex composite tools during the Upper Paleolithic. At the same time, evidence from other regions of the world demonstrates that evolutionary trends in Pleistocene Eurasia were historically contingent and not universal. [Middle Paleolithic, Upper Paleolithic, blade technology, human evolution, hominid behavior and capacities]

Anthropological archaeologists have long attempted to develop models that will let them better understand the evolution of human social organization. In our search to understand how chiefdoms and states evolve, and how those societies differ from egalitarian 'bands', we have neglected to develop models that will aid the understanding of the wide range of variability that exists between them. This volume attempts to fill this gap by exploring social organization in tribal - or 'autonomous village' - societies from several different ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological contexts - from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period in the Near East to the contemporary Jivaro of Amazonia