Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:26:10.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Julien Riel-Salvatore  and
C. Michael Barton
Julien Riel-Salvatore
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Box 872402, Tempe, AZ, 85287-2402; (julienrs@asu.edu), (cmbarton@asu.edu)
C. Michael Barton
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Box 872402, Tempe, AZ, 85287-2402; (julienrs@asu.edu), (cmbarton@asu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a new methodology to study prehistoric lithic assemblages in an attempt to derive from that facet of prehistoric behavior the greater technoeconomic system in which it was embedded. By using volumetric artifact density and the frequency of retouched pieces within a given lithic assemblage, it becomes possible to identify whether these stone tools were created by residentially mobile or logistically organized foragers. The linking factor between assemblage composition 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 southeastern Italy to detect changes in adaptation during the Late Pleistocene. We compare and contrast Mousterian, Uluzzian, proto-Aurignacian and Epigravettian assemblages, and argue that the first three industries overlap considerably in terms of their technoeconomic flexibility. Epigravettian assemblages, 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. While we discuss the implications of these patterns in the context of modern human origins, we argue that the methodology can help identify land-use patterns in other locales and periods.

Resumen

Resumen

Nous proposons une nouvelle approche pour l'étude des ensembles lithiques permettant d'identifier les systèmes techno-économiques dans lesquels ils s'insèrent. Utilisant comme paramètres analytiques la densité volumétrique d'artèfacts et le rapport outils/débitage, il devient possible d'attribuer un ensemble lithique préhistorique à un mode d'organisation « logistique » ou « à mobilité résidentielle ». Le degré de « conservation ë au sein d'un ensemble lithique, interprété comme l'expression variable d'une attitude économe vis-à-vis de la matière première, constitue le lien entre la composition d'un ensemble lithique et un mode préférentiel d'exploitation du territoire. Nous appliquons notre méthodologie à l'étude de huit sites de l'Italie méridionale remontant au Pléistocène supérieur. En comparant les résultats tirés d'ensembles moustériens, uluzziens, proto-aurignaciens et épigravettiens, nous constatons que les trois premières industries semblent caractérisées par une similarité marquée en ce qui a trait à leur flexibilité techno-économique alors que l'Épigravettien apparaît défini par un modèle distinct d'exploitation du territoire, représentant vraisemblablement une adaptation aux climats plus rudes du dernier maximum glaciaire. Nous interprétons les résultats de cette approche dans le contexte de l'origine de l'homme moderne, mais soulignons que cette méthodologie peut aussi permettre d'identifier les modèles d'exploitation du territoire dans les sites stratifiés d'autres périodes et régions.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 257 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ahler, S.A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, Donald O. and Odell, George H., pp.85–118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 1. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–43.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. (editor) 2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38–50.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56:216–234. ’Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2002 High-Tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Great Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16:55–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Bleed, Peter 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by Michael Barton, C. and Clark, Geoffrey A., pp. 109–140. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael 1988 Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior: New Evidence from the Iberian Peninsula. BAR International Series 408. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Google Scholar
Amsden, Diana 1990a Stone Tools and Paleolithic Settlement in the Iberian Peninsula. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56:15–32.Google Scholar
Amsden, Diana 1990b Beyond Style and Function: A View from the Middle Paleolithic. American Anthropologist 92:57–72.Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael 1991 Retouched Tools, Fact or Fiction? Paradigms for Interpreting Paleolithic Chipped Stone. In Perspectives on the Past, edited by Clark, Geoffrey A., pp. 143–163. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, C. Michael 1997 Stone Tools, Style, and Social Identity: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Archaeological Record. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by Michael Barton, C. and Clark, Geoffrey A., pp. 141–156. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael 1998 Looking Back from the World's End: Paleolithic Settlement and Mobility at Gibraltar. In Las Culturas del Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucía, edited by Sanchidrián Torti, José L. and Simon Vallejo, Maria D., pp. 13–22. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, Cordoba.Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, Bernabeu, Joan, Emili Aura, J., Garcia, Oreto, and La Roca, Neus 2002 Dynamic Landscapes, Artifact Taphonomy, and Landuse Modeling in the Western Mediterranean. Geoarchaeotogy 17:155–190.Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, and A. Clark, Geoffrey 1993 Cultural and Natural Formation Processes in Late Quaternary Cave and Rocksheiter Sites of Western Europe and the Near East. In Formation Processes in Archaeological Context, edited by Goldberg, Paul, Nash, David T., and Petraglia, Michael D., pp. 33–52. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, A. Clark, Geoffrey, and E. Cohen, Allison 1994 Art as Information: Upper Palaeolithic Art in Western Europe. World Archaeology 26:185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, and P. Neeley, Michael 1996 Phantom Cultures of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Antiquity 70:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, C. Michael, I. Olszewski, Deborah, and R. Coinman, Nancy 1996 Beyond the Graver: Reconsidering Burin Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Pilbeam, David (editors) 2000 The Geography of Neandertals and Modem Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 8. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Beyries, Sylvie 1987 Variabilité de l’Industrie Lithique au Moustérien: Approche Fonctionnelle sur Quelques Gisements Français. BAR International Series 328. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bietti, Amilcare 1990 The Late Upper Paleolithic in Italy: An Overview. Journal of World Prehistory 4:95–155.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability- The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–273.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow's Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68:238–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Binford, Sally R. 1969 Stone Tools and Human Behavior. Scientific American 220:70–84.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., and Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1982 Paradigms, Systematics and Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38:137–153.Google Scholar
Bisson, Michael S. 2000 Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory ; 8:1–48.Google Scholar
Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability? American Antiquity 51:737–747.Google Scholar
Bleed, Peter 2001 Trees or Chains, Links or Branches: Conceptual Alternatives for the Consideration of Stone Tool production and other Sequential Activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8:101–127.Google Scholar
Boëda, Eric 1994 Le Concept Levallois : Variabilité des Méthodes. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. Google Scholar
Boëda, Eric 1995 Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, Methods, a Technique. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Dibble, Harold L. and Bar-Yosef, Ofer, pp. 41–68. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Boëda, Eric, Geneste, Jean-Michel, and Meignen, Liliane 1990 Identification de Chaînes Opératoires Lithiques du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Paléo 2:43–79.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1953 Essai de Classification des Industries “Moustériennes.” Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50:457–466.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1969 Reflections on Typology and Techniques in the Paleolithic. Arctic Anthropology 6:1–29.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1973 On the Chronology and Contemporaneity of Different Palaeolithic Cultures in France. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Renfrew, Colin, pp. 217–226. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Bordes, François 1981 Vingt-Cinq Ans Après: Le Complexe Moustérien Revisité. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 78:77–87.Google Scholar
Bordes, François, and de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise 1970 Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 2:61–73.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1963 Grotta di Uluzzo. Campagna di Scavi 1963. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18:75–89.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1964 Grotta di Uluzzo. (Campagna di Scavi 1964). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 19:41–52.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1965 Grotta-Riparo di Uluzzo C. (Campagna di Scavi 1964). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 20:1–31.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1966 Alcuni Aspetti del Musteriano nel Salento. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21:203–287.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1970 Prima Campagna di Scavi nella Grotta “Mario Bernardini” (Nardò, Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 25:89–125.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstern, Edoardo 1971 Seconda Campagna di Scavi nella Grotta “Mario Bernardini” (Nardò, Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 26:31–62.Google Scholar
Borzatti von Löwenstem, Edoardo, and Magaldi, Daria 1967 Ultime Ricerche nella Grotta dell’Alto (S. Caterina, Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 22:205–250.Google Scholar
Campetti, Stefania 1986 II Musteriano della Grotta Serra Cicoara A nell’Ambito dell’Evoluzione del Paleolitico nel Salento. Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 8:85–115.Google Scholar
Churchill, Steven E., and Smith, Fred H. 2000 Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43:61–115.Google Scholar
Clark, Geoffrey A. 1997 The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Europe: An American Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30:25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Geoffrey A. 1999 Modern Human Origins: Highly Visible, Curiously Intangible. Science 283:2029–2032.Google Scholar
Clark, Geoffrey A., and Lindly, John M. 1989 Modern Human Origins in the Levant and Western Asia: The Fossil and Archaeological Evidence. American Anthropologist 91:962–985.Google Scholar
Clark, Geoffrey A., and Lindly, John M. 1991 On Paradigmatic Biases and Paleolithic Research Tra¬ditions. Current Anthropology 32:577–587.Google Scholar
Dantoni, Giampiero, and Nardi, Nicoletta 1980 La Grotta Riparo “Marcello Zei” (Santa Caterina, Nardò). Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 2:97–119.Google Scholar
d’Errico, Francesco, Zilhão, Joao, Julien, Michèle, Baffier, Dominique, and Pelegrin, Jacques 1998 Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Criticai Review of the Evidence and its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39:S1-S44.Google Scholar
DemarsPierre-Yves, , and Laurent, Pierre 1989 Types d’Outils Lithiques du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. Google Scholar
de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise, and Perrot, Jean 1953 Essai d’Adaptation des Méthodes Statistiques au Paléolithique Supérieur. Premiers Résultats. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51:323–333.Google Scholar
DemarsPierre-Yves, , and Laurent, Pierre 1954 Lexique Typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur, Outillage Lithique. 1. Grattoirs. 2. Outils Solutréens. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51:327–335.Google Scholar
DemarsPierre-Yves, , and Laurent, Pierre 1955 Lexique Typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur, Outillage Lithique. 3. Outils Composites, Perçoirs. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 52:76–79.Google Scholar
DemarsPierre-Yves, , and Laurent, Pierre 1956 Lexique Typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur, Outillage Lithique. 4. Burins. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 53:408–412, 547-559.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1984 Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11:431–436.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1987 Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52:109–117.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1988 Typological Aspects of Reduction and Intensity of Utilization of Lithic Resources in the French Mousterian. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by Dibble, Harold L. and Montet-White, Anta, pp. 181–197. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L. 1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrand, William R. 2001 Archaeological Sediments in Rockshelters and Caves. In Sediments in Archaeological Context, edited by Stein, J. K. and Farrand, W. R., pp. 29–66. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Raymond, Anan W. 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603–614.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and J. Wilke, Philip 1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American Anthropologist 91:149–158.Google Scholar
Frison, Geroge C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Clive S. 1999 Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gargett, Robert H. 1999 Middle Palaeolithic Burial Is Not a Dead Issue: The View from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh. Journal of Human Evolution 37:27–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, Patrizia 1988 Problems Related to the Origins of Italian Upper Paleolithic: Uluzzian and Aurignacian. In L’homme de Néandertal, Vol. 8: La mutation, edited by Kozlowsi, Janusz K., pp. 91–102. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 35. ERAUL, Liège.Google Scholar
Gioia, Patrizia 1990 Aspect of the Transition between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Italy: The Uluzzian. In Paléolithique moyen Récent et Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien en Europe. Ruptures et Transitions: Examen Critique des Documents Archéologiques, edited by Farizy, Catherine, pp. 241–250. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France No. 3. Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Ile-de-France, Nemours.Google Scholar
Giusti, Marco 1979 La Grotta di Capelvenere a S. Caterina – Nardò (Campagna di scavo 1974). Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 1:19–40.Google Scholar
Giusti, Marco 1980 La Grotta di Capelvener a S. Caterina – Nardò (Campagna di scavo 1975). Studi per l'Ecologia del Quaternario 2:77–85.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K., and Cole, Stephen C. 1998 Stone Tool Assemblage Richness during the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in France. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:927–938.Google Scholar
Harrold, Francis B. 1989 Mousterian, Châtelperronian and Early Aurignacian in Western Europe: Continuity or Discontinuity? In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives in the Origins of Modem Humans, edited by Mellars, Paul and Stinger, Chris, pp. 677–713. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter 1996 Transformations of Upper Palaeolithic Implements in the Dabba Industry from Haua Fteah (Libya). Antiquity 70:657–664.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter 2002 Quantifying the Size of Artefact Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:251–258.Google Scholar
Hiscock, Peter, and Attenbrow, Val 2003 Early Australian Implement Variation: A Reduction Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, C. Marshall 1985 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis, edited by Carr, Christopher, pp. 566–612. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffith, edited by Cleland, Charles E., pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1988 Technology, Typology, and Culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by Dibble, Harold L. and Montet-White, Anta, pp. 199–212. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Karkanas, Panagiotis, Bar-Yosef, Ofer, Goldberg, Paul, and Weiner, Steve 2000 Diagenesis in Prehistoric Caves: The Use of Minerals that Form In Situ to Assess the Completeness of the Archaeological Record. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:915–929.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H., and Toth, Nicholas 1981 Microwear Polishes on Early Stone Tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Nature 293:464–465.Google Scholar
Koumouzelis, M., Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J.K., Pawlikowski, M., Bar-Yosef, O., Albert, R.M., M. Litynska-Zajac, Stworzewicz, E., Wojtal, P., Lipecki, G., Tomek, T., Bochenski, Z.M., and Pazdur, A. 2001 The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Klisoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:515–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koumouzelis, Margarita, Kozlowski, Janusz K., Escutenaire, Catherine, Sitlivy, Valery, Sobczyk, Krzysztof, Valladas, Helene, Tisnerat-Laborde, Nadine, Wojtal, Piotr, and Ginter, Boleslaw 2001 La Fin du Paléolithique Moyen et le Début du Paléolithique Supérieur en Grèce: La séquence de la Grotte 1 de Klissoura. L’Anthropologie 105:469–504.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1989 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Organization and Strategies of Artifact Replacement and Discard. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, Daniel S. and Mauldin, Raymond P., pp. 33–48. BAR International Series, 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:583–593.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1991 Unpacking Reduction: Lithic Raw-Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1992 On Planning and Curated Technologies in the Mid-dle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48:185–214.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Per¬spective. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1996 The Trouble with Ham Steaks: A Reply to Morrow. American Antiquity 61:591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 2002 Pioneers of Microlithization: The “Proto-Aurignacian” of Southern Europe. In Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, edited by Elston, Robert G. and Kuhn, Steven L., pp. 83-94. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 12. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L., and Bietti, Amilcare 2000 The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Italy. In The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean, edited by Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Pilbeam, David, pp. 49–76. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 8. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lemonnier, Pierre 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Marks, Anthony E., Hietala, Harold J., and Williams, John K. 2001 Tool Standardization in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: A Closer Look. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:17–44.Google Scholar
Mellars, Paul 1996 The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Messeri, Patrizia, and di Cesnola, Arturo Palma 1976 Contemporaneità di Paleantropi e Fanerantropi sulle Coste dell’Italia Meridionale. Zephyrus 26-27:7–30.Google Scholar
Amsden, Diana 1996a Lithic Refitting and Archaeological Site Formation Processes: A Case Study from the Twin Ditch site, Greene County, Illinois. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George H., pp. 345–373. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Amsden, Diana 1996b Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn's Formal Approach to Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 61: 581–590.Google Scholar
Mussi, Margherita 2001 Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Kluwer, New York.Google Scholar
Neeley, Michael P., and Michael Barton, C.. 1994 A New Approach to Interpreting Late Pleistocene Microlith Industries in Southwest Asia. Antiquity 68:275–288.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:57–100.Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1964 Prima Campagna di Scavi nella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina (Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18:41–74.Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1965 Seconda Campagna di Scavi nella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina (Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 19:23–39.Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1966 Il Paleolitico Superiore Arcaico (Facies Uluzziana) della Grotta del Cavallo, Lecce. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 20:33–62.Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1967 Il Paleolitico Superiore Arcaico (Facies Uluzziana) della Grotta del Cavallo, Lecce. (Continuazione). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21:3–59 Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1993 Il Paleolitico Superiore in Italia: Introduzione allo Studio. Garlatti e Razzai Editori, Florence. Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 1996 Le Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen en Italie. Jérôme Million, Grenoble. Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo 2001 Le Paléolithique Supérieur en Italie. Jérôme Millon, Grenoble. Google Scholar
Palma di Cesnola, Arturo, and Messeri, Patrizia 1967 Quatre Dents Humaines Paléolithiques Trouvées dans des Cavernes de l’Italie Méridionale. L’Anthropologie 71:249–262.Google Scholar
Patriarchi, Gabriele 1980 Studio Sedimentologico e Geochemico del Paleosuolo della Grotta di Capelvenere (Nardò – Lecce). Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 2:87–96.Google Scholar
Peretto, Carlo 1992 Il Paleolitico Medio. In Italia Preistorica, edited by Guidi, Alessandro and Piperno, Marcello, pp. 170–197. Editori Laterza, Bari.Google Scholar
Riel-Salvatore, Julien 2001 A Criticai Reevaluation of the Evidence for Intentional Eurasian Paleolithic Burial. Unpublished Master's thesis. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Riel-Salvatore, Julien, and Clark, Geoffrey A. 2001 Grave Markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research. Current Anthropology 42:449–481.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicolas 1977 New Aspects of Middle Palaeolithic Variability in Western Europe. Nature 266:251–252.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicolas 1981 The Interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic Variability. Man (n.s.) 16:15–42.Google Scholar
Rolland, Nicolas, and Harold L., Dibble 1990 A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability. American Antiquity 55:480–499.Google Scholar
Sarti, Lucia, Boscato, Paolo, and Lo Monaco, M. 2000 Il Musteriano Finale di Grotta del Cavallo nel Salento: Studio Preliminare. Origini 22:45–109.Google Scholar
Sarti, Lucia, Boscato, Paolo, Martini, Fabio and Spagnoletti, Anna Paola 2002 Il Musteriano di Grotta del Cavallo—Strati H e I: Studio Preliminare. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 52:21–109.Google Scholar
Schlanger, Nathan 1994 Mindful Technology: Unleashing the Chaîne Opératoire for an Archaeology of Mind. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, Colin and Zubrow, Ezra B.W., pp. 143–151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sellet, Frédéric 1993 Chaîne Opératoire: The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic Technology 18:106–112.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:259–280.Google Scholar
Simek, Jan F., and Price, Heather A. 1990 Chronological Change in Périgord Lithic Assemblages. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by Mellars, Paul A., pp. 243–261. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Spennato, Antonio G. 1981 I Livelli Protoaurignaziani della Grotta di Serra Cicora (Nardò, Lecce). Studi per l'Ecologia del Quaternario 3:61–76.Google Scholar
Stein, Julie K., Deo, Jennie N., and Phillips, Laura S. 2003 Big Sites—Short Time: Accumulation Rates in Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:297–316.Google Scholar
Straus, Lawrence G. 1997 The Iberian Situation between 40,000 and 30,000 B .P. in Light of European Models of Migration and Convergence. In Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, edited by Clark, Geoffrey A. and Willermet, Catherine A., pp. 235–252. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Stringer, Christopher, and Davies, William 2001 Those Elusive Neanderthals. Nature 413:791–792.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Alan P, III, and Rozen, Kenneth C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villaverde, Valentìn, Emili Aura, J., and Michael Barton, C. 1998 The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: A Review of Current Evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 12:121–198.Google Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn J. 2002 On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67:731–744.Google Scholar
Weiner, Steve, Goldberg, Paul, and Bar-Yosef., Ofer 2002 Three-dimensional Distribution of Minerals in the Sediments of Hayonim Cave, Israel: Diagenetic Processes and Archaeological Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1289–1308.Google Scholar
White, Randall 2000 Un Big Bang Socioculturel. La Recherche Hors-Série 4:10–16.Google Scholar
Wilke, Philip J., and Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1991 Missing the Point: Rebuttal to Bettinger, O’Connell, and Thomas. American Anthropologist 93:172–173:Google Scholar
Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A., Smith 2000 Analysing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:51–72.Google Scholar
Young, Donald, and Douglas B., Bamforth 1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antiquity 55:403–409.Google Scholar