Innovation and Technological Knowledge in theUpper Paleolithic of Northern EurasiaJOHN F. HOFFECKER

Before the Upper Paleolithic andthe later Middle Stone Age, evidenceof technological change in the arche-ological record is comparatively lim-ited. Some of this may be a conse-quence of the almost complete lack ofpreserved materials such as wood,plant fibers, and hide, but commonlypreserved artifacts of stone exhibit nosignificant change over intervals ofhundreds of thousands of years.Moreover, when a new mode of tech-nology (for example, bifacial tools)appears, it is often associated with theemergence of a new form of Homo.6 Itis only with the advent of Upper Pa-leolithic industries produced by mod-ern humans that spatial and temporal

variation in technology reaches a levelcommensurate with that of recent andliving peoples and indicates a funda-mentally similar capacity for innova-tion, defined broadly in this context toinclude invention, improvements toexisting technology, and the applica-tion of both.7

Despite the fact that the Upper Pa-leolithic, with a time span of morethan 30,000 years, represents thelongest interval of technological cre-ativity in modern human prehistoryand history, it has been all but ignoredby students of innovation. Most suchstudents are historians or economists,who are unfamiliar with the methodsand data of archeology, especially thearcheology of prehistoric foragingpeoples. They have tended to view theUpper Paleolithic as an extension ofthe Lower and Middle Paleolithic—aperiod of slow and limited change inthe basic equipment of hunter-gather-ers.8,9

It has become increasingly appar-ent, however, that the Upper Paleo-lithic was a period of almost constanttechnological change not unlike thelast 12,000 years. Peoples of the UpperPaleolithic invented sewn clothing,portable lamps, and watercraft. Theyalso designed heated shelters, fishingequipment, baking ovens, refrigeratedstorage pits, and artificial memorysystems. Upper Paleolithic folk used

rotary drills, shaped musical instru-ments, mixed chemical compounds,and constructed kilns to fire ceramics.They were the first to create mechan-ical devices, including spear-throwersand bows and arrows, and to domes-ticate another living species.

Archeologists, of course, have al-ways viewed technology as a topic ofcentral concern. In the nineteenthcentury, the study of prehistory wasbuilt on a sequence of stages in theprogressive evolution of technology.10

But archeologists have rarely ad-dressed questions about the patternand context of innovations, the sort ofquestions that historians of technol-ogy ask about the invention of clocks,printing presses, and steam en-gines.11–13 Where and when did majortechnological innovations take placeduring the Upper Paleolithic? Werethese innovations isolated, seeminglyrandom events, or did they appear inclusters? Did they represent primarilynew inventions (radical or discontin-uous innovations)7 or incremental im-provements on existing technologies(continuous innovations)? Did theyarise in the context of larger settle-ments and social networks or insmaller group settings? Were techno-logical innovations associated withchanges in climate and the effects ofthese changes on landscape andbiota?

Technology is a form of knowledgeabout the environment or, as MartinHeidegger wrote, “a way of revealing”the world.14,15 Although some tech-nologies have been abandoned or re-jected by societies,16 the general trendhas been cumulative growth of tech-nological knowledge.9,12,17,18 Histori-ans of technology and some philoso-phers and anthropologists have

John F. Hoffecker is a Fellow of the Insti-tute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Uni-versity of Colorado at Boulder. He re-ceived a Ph.D. from the University ofChicago in 1986, and has conducted re-search on prehistoric sites in Russia andAlaska. He is the author of A Prehistory ofthe North: Human Settlement of theHigher Latitudes (Rutgers UniversityPress, 2005).

Key words: modern humans; technology; inno-vation; Upper Paleolithic; northern Eurasia

© 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.DOI 10.1002/evan.20066Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). y

The technology of modern humans is unique in the animal kingdom with respectto its complexity and capacity for innovation. Evidence of technological complexityand creativity in the archeological record is broadly coincident with and presum-ably related to traces of creativity in art, music, ritual, and other forms of symbol-ism. The pattern of modern human technology is part of a larger package ofbehavior (sometimes referred to as “behavioral modernity”) that emerges with theappearance of industries in Eurasia classified as Upper Paleolithic, but has deeperroots in the African Middle Stone Age.1–5

Evolutionary Anthropology 14:186 –198 (2005)

emphasized the connections betweentechnology and both social organiza-tion and world-view.19–24 Such con-nections are apparent in tribal societ-ies and prehistoric contexts.15,25–27 Towhat extent did innovations duringthe Upper Paleolithic build on existingtechnologies and produce cumulativegrowth of technological knowledge?And did these innovations occur inconjunction with major changes inart, ritual, and other expressions ofworld-view?

Archeologists have been slow to ap-preciate the scope and significance oftechnological innovation in the UpperPaleolithic for several reasons. Therehas been a longstanding focus onwidely recovered items, primarily stoneartifacts, that serve as diagnostic mark-ers of classificatory units such as Aurig-nacian, but that comprise a very limitedspectrum of Upper Paleolithic technol-ogy. Many of the more novel imple-ments and devices were almost cer-tainly constructed from wood, fiber,bone, antler, and other materials thatdo not preserve as well or only in excep-tional circumstances.

Most major Upper Paleolithic inno-vations possess low visibility in thearcheological record and some, suchas domesticated dogs and cooking ov-ens, have come to light only in recentyears.28,29 Late prehistoric middens ofthe arctic coastal zone often containsmall fragments of modified bone,ivory, wood, or other material; thesefragments are isolated but identifiable

components of complex technologysuch as bows and dogsleds.30,31 Al-though a comparable ethnographiccontext is lacking, careful analysis ofsimilar items in Upper Paleolithicsites may also reveal traces of suchtechnology.

This paper is intended to provide aconcise overview of innovation andthe accumulation of technologicalknowledge in the Upper Paleolithic ofnorthern Eurasia. While important in-novations occurred in the lower lati-tudes, Upper Paleolithic sites above40° North, which offer a more man-ageable subset of the global database,are the primary focus. The overview isdesigned to explore briefly the broadpatterns of innovation and their so-cial, economic, and environmentalcontext. Finally, it touches on a ques-tion raised recently outside northernEurasia: To what extent did the accu-mulating technological knowledge ofthe Upper Paleolithic provide the nec-essary foundation for sedentism, agri-culture, and urban life in the postgla-cial epoch?32

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONIN THE EARLY UPPER

PALEOLITHIC

The pattern of complexity and cre-ativity in Upper Paleolithic technol-ogy is part a larger package of behav-ior that is represented in thearcheological record by traces of or-nament, engraving, sculpture, musi-

cal instruments, and other forms ofsymbolism. Additional elements ofthe package include long-distancemovement of raw materials, increasedstandardization of artifacts, and morestructured use of domestic space, allof which may be indirectly linked tosymbolism. The whole complex is pri-marily associated with the evolutionof modern humans (Homo sapiens) inAfrica prior to 100 ka (100,000 yearsago) and sometimes labeled “behav-ioral modernity.”3,4,33–34

Whether behavioral modernityevolved gradually in Africa during 300to 100 ka or rather suddenly at the endof this interval remains a matter of de-bate among paleoanthropologists.3,35

Regardless of the process by which itbecame established among Homo sapi-ens, behavioral modernity appears, af-ter 100 ka, to have reached a thresholdthat permitted modern humans to ex-pand out of Africa and the Near Eastinto a wide range of habitats acrossEurasia and beyond.36–38 The organiza-tional flexibility that language andother forms of symbolism help to effectmay have played a significant role in thedispersal, especially in arid environ-ments where resources are scat-tered,39,40 but the ability of behaviorallymodern humans to create new andcomplex technologies was almost cer-tainly of primary importance.

Artifact assemblages that may beassigned to the Upper Paleolithic aredated to as early as roughly 45 to 40 kain parts of eastern Europe and south-

Figure 1. Map of northern Eurasia illustrating the locations of early Upper Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text.

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 187

ern Siberia (Fig. 1).41,42 Human skel-etal remains in northern Eurasia thatcan be firmly attributed to modern hu-mans are several thousand yearsyounger, and some of these have re-cently been redated to later periods.43

However, it is widely assumed thatmodern humans produced at leastsome of the earlier assemblages.44,45

The oldest Upper Paleolithic occupa-tions in western Europe (Aurignacianindustry) are younger (�40 ka), andapparently represent delayed settle-ment of a region still heavily popu-lated by Neanderthals (who seem tohave been scarce or absent in manyparts of eastern Europe and Sibe-ria).46,47

Upper Paleolithic sites in northernEurasia that antedate the demise ofthe last Neanderthals (ca. 30 ka) maybe considered early Upper Paleolithic(EUP). These sites were occupied dur-ing later phases of the interstadial thatcorrelates with Marine Isotope Stage3. The EUP represents a protractedinterval during which modern hu-mans dispersed across northern Eur-asia and established themselves as faras 55° to 56° North (and above theArctic Circle at least on a seasonal ba-sis).48,49 The large and complex settle-ments that appear in some areas atthe time of the middle and late Upper

Paleolithic are lacking before 30 ka.The small size of many EUP sites,sometimes deeply buried, constrainsthe analysis of technological changeduring this interval.

The EUP yields evidence of manytechnological innovations that are ab-sent in local Middle Paleolithic indus-tries. Some of this technology seems tohave been developed during the lateMiddle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa andpresumably was imported to Eurasia bymodern humans. At a minimum, thisseems to include polished bone pointsand bone awls, as well as perforatedshells, which are dated to 76 � 5 ka inMSA levels at Blombos Cave (South Af-rica).50,51 On the other hand, barbedharpoons of bone (Katanda, Zaire),which may date to 90 ka and are there-fore tentatively assigned to the MSA,52

are absent in the EUP. This technologydoes not appear in northern Eurasiauntil the later Upper Paleolithic.

Other innovations appear for the firsttime in EUP sites, and at least some ofthem are plausibly tied to the coloniza-tion of higher latitudes. Clothing andshelter technology were probably essen-tial for Homo sapiens settlement ofnorthern Eurasia, especially easternEurope and Siberia, where winter tem-peratures 45 to 30 ka were lower thanthose of today.53 The problem of adjust-

ing to these climates was exacerbatedfor modern humans dispersing out ofAfrica by the retention, until late UpperPaleolithic times, of body dimensionsbetter suited for the tropical zone,54

while the pace of development in cloth-ing and shelter technology may havebeen influenced by the succession ofwarmer and cooler oscillations thattook place during the later phases ofMIS 3 and the subsequent onset of theLast Glacial Maximum.55

Current archeological data suggestthat tailored fur clothing was devel-oped gradually in the north EurasianUpper Paleolithic. Although carvedfigurines from the south Siberian siteof Buret’ dating to ca. 25 ka depicthumans dressed in complete fur suitswith snug-fitting hoods (Fig. 2),56 oc-cupation levels dating to more than 35ka contain only bone awls (presum-ably derived from the African MSA).Indirect evidence of sewn clothing inthe form of eyed needles is reportedfrom Kostenki 15 on the East Euro-pean Plain at ca. 35 to 30 ka.57 Needlesare also reported from Tolbaga(southeast of Lake Baikal) in depositsdated to 35 to 28 ka.58 An eyed needlewas recovered from Layer 11 of Den-isova Cave (Altai region), whichyielded a date of �40 ka, but it may beintrusive from a younger level.59 Inde-pendent dating of tailored clothingmay be provided by analysis of DNAsequences from a global sample ofbody lice, which inhabit modern hu-man clothing, indicating an Africanorigin at ca. 72 ka (�40 k).60

Tailored clothing is one of the mostcomplex forms of technology amongrecent peoples of the Arctic,61 and it isunfortunate that the EUP record doesnot yield more details about its de-sign. If equipped with drawstrings, forexample, it might have been the firstmechanical technology. The presenceof some form of line in the EUP isindicated by microwear on perforatedornaments.62 Subsequent design im-provements might have had a majorimpact on Upper Paleolithic settle-ment,63 but they are invisible in thearcheological record.

Traces of artificial shelters are alsofound in east European and south Si-berian sites that probably were occu-pied by at least 30 ka. As in the case oftailored clothing, there is no convinc-

Figure 2. Figurine from Buret’ (southern Siberia) confirming the existence of completetailored fur suits with hoods by 24 ka. Eyed needles in older sites suggest that this technologymay have been developed as early as 35 ka. (Redrawn from Medvedev 1998:225, Fig. 114).

188 Hoffecker

ing evidence of artificial shelters in theMiddle Paleolithic of northern Eur-asia. They appear to have been an-other major innovation of the EUP.Traces of shelters with interiorhearths lined with rocks are reportedfrom Tolbaga, and also from a level atKulichivka (western Ukraine) datingto ca. 30 ka.58,64 They were oval inplan and surprisingly large (at least 5to 6 meters in diameter). Althoughpost-molds have not been detected,these hearths probably possessed aframework of wooden poles coveredwith hides. Former structures alsomay be present at several central Eu-ropean sites of comparable age, in-cluding Barca II, which exhibits post-molds (Slovakia).65 The absence ofevidence of artificial shelters in sitesolder than 30 ka may simply reflecttheir low archeological visibility dueto the small sample of excavated floorarea and the ephemeral character ofthe structures.

There is no evidence, direct or in-direct, of the use of fire-making de-vices, but their existence is plausiblefor several reasons. A few recenthunter-gatherers were found to lackfire-making technology,66,67 butnone of them inhabited places wheremean winter temperatures fell belowthe freezing point. Moreover, otherlines of evidence indicate that the

earliest EUP people in northern Eur-asia had already developed the req-uisite technology in the form of ahand-operated rotary drill, deducedfrom microwear patterns on drilledstone from Kostenki 17.62 Applied toa piece of dry wood with tinder (forexample, wood meal), this is a sim-ple and effective method of generat-ing a flame.68,69

Much of the food consumed by EUPpeople in northern Eurasia was ob-tained from the same large mammalsas were hunted by the Neanderthals,although the EUP people invented anew technique of hafting for spearpoints with a wedging mechanism inthe form of a split-based antler point,found in sites of western and centralEurope.70 However, a large concen-tration of hare bones in the lowestlevels of the open-air site at Kostenki14 also indicates a significant expan-sion of food resources (Fig. 3).71 Inaddition to hare, there is evidence thatfoxes and wolves were being har-vested at Kostenki during this period,and procurement of these fur-bearingmammals is plausibly linked to theinnovations in tailored clothing pro-duction. Equally significant is the sta-ble-isotope analysis of human bonefrom Layer III at Kostenki 1 (�30 ka),indicating high consumption of fresh-

water aquatic foods (waterfowl and/orfish).72

The expansion of food resources wasalmost certainly achieved with the de-sign of new technologies for catching orkilling animals that were too elusive orinaccessible for Middle Paleolithic peo-ple.73 The new technologies could haveincluded traps, snares, nets, and throw-ing darts, although no direct evidenceof any of them has been identified yet inthe EUP. Traps and snares are “un-tended facilities” and reduce human la-bor costs. A survey of such devicesamong recent hunter-gatherers indi-cates a wide range of design complexi-ty.74 Presumably the earliest formswere of comparatively simple design(for example, the two-to-three-compo-nent snare).

One of the most interesting areas ofinnovation in the Upper Paleolithic isinformation technology. Some evi-dence of notation emerges from Au-rignacian sites (for example, AbriBlanchard, France) as early as 35 to30 ka in the form of bone and ivoryfragments with rows of engravedmarks. Marshack75 interpreted someof these as lunar calendars similar tothe calendar sticks found among var-ious recent hunter-gatherers. Al-though this interpretation has beendisputed,76 scanning electron micro-scopic analysis of engraved piecesfrom various Upper Paleolithic timeperiods indicates that simple notation(or “artificial memory”) systems arepresent in the EUP.77,78

More impressive are the technolo-gies devised to create structures oflight (visible colors) and sound inthe form of paint and musical instru-ments. Direct accelerator mass spec-trometry dating of the Chauvet Cavepaintings, which represent two-di-mensional images rendered withcharcoal and hematite, indicatesthat they are EUP (ca. 35 ka).79 Mu-sical instruments have been recov-ered from EUP levels at two sites inwestern Europe, Geissenklosterle(Germany) and Isturitz (France).80,81

Recently described as “pipes” (not“flutes”), these oldest known instru-ments of bone exhibit a remarkablysophisticated design.78

A major issue in Upper Paleolithictechnology is the time and place ofthe first mechanical innovations.

Figure 3. Excavations at Kostenki 14, one of a group of sites on the Don River in Russia thathave contributed much information to the study of technology and innovation during theearly and middle Upper Paleolithic. Early Upper Paleolithic occupation levels are oftendeeply buried and exposed over relatively small areas. (Photo by author).

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 189

The ability to design mechanicaltools, weapons, and devices, specifi-cally ones composed of movingparts, seems to be a defining differ-ence between the technology ofmodern humans and all other ani-mals.38,82 Some EUP technologies,including tailored clothing, fire-making equipment, and possiblytraps may have been at least partlymechanical. On the other hand, non-mechanical forms of these technolo-gies or, indeed, alternative technolo-gies, may have been used during thisperiod. The oldest known mechani-cal technology is currently confinedto the later Upper Paleolithic.

Although it is logical to assumethat much EUP innovation in north-

ern Eurasia represents modern hu-man responses to higher latitudes(that is, to lower winter tempera-tures and reduced biotic productivi-ty),38 only some of this innovationcan be documented in the earliestoccupations (�40 ka). Many earlyinventions, such as notation and mu-sical instruments, probably were notcritical to modern human survival inthese latitudes. Other innovations,including some that would seem tohave been essential at least duringperiods of cooler climate, such asartificial shelters and tailored cloth-ing, apparently were developed sev-eral millennia after modern humanshad arrived in Europe and Siberia(Fig. 4).

UPPER PALEOLITHICTECHNOLOGY AND THE LAST

GLACIAL MAXIMUM

The Upper Paleolithic of northernEurasia can be subdivided into threephases broadly corresponding tomajor climate intervals. The earlyphase (45 to 30 ka) took place duringthe later part of the lengthy intersta-dial that is often referred to as theMiddle Pleniglacial. The secondphase (30 to 20 ka) spans the intervalbetween the final millennia of theMiddle Pleniglacial and the peakcold of the Last Glacial Maximum.The third phase (20 to 12 ka) beganin the aftermath of the cold peak and

WESTERNEUROPE

YEARS BEFOREPRESENT

10,000

12,000

14,000

16.000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

42,000

44,000

FISH HOOKSLEISTERS

BOW & ARROW

DOMESTICATED DOGPAVED FLOORSHARPOONS

SPEARTHROWERBARBED POINTSHANDLED LAMPSEYED NEEDLES

LUNAR CALENDARS?WIND INSTRUMENTSPAINT COMPOUNDS

SPLIT-BASE POINTS

BONE AWLS

FISH HOOKS

LIGNITE FUELCORDAGEFIRED CERAMICSSTORAGE PITSEYED NEEDLES

SPLIT-BASE POINTS

HARPOONS

THROWING DARTS

[HOODED SUITS]

LIGNITE FUEL

HEATED SHELTERSNEEDLES

BONE AWLSBONE POINTS

TRAPSDOMESTICATED

DOGSBONE HOUSES

CORDAGEFAT LAMPSCOLD STORAGEWINTER HOUSEMATTOCKS

HEATED SHELTERSSHOVELSEYED NEEDLES

BONE POINTSSNARES?ROTARY DRILLFIRE-MAKING DRILL?BONE AWLS

CENTRALEUROPE

EASTERNEUROPE

SOUTHERNSIBERIA

Figure 4. Major innovations of the Upper Paleolithic, showing their approximate spatial and temporal position on the basis of currentarcheological data.

190 Hoffecker

lasted until the end of the Late Gla-cial Interstadial.44,83,84

The second phase, or middle UpperPaleolithic (MUP), witnessed a newburst of innovation, much of whichtook place with the appearance andspread of the Gravettian technocom-plex in Europe (Fig. 5). In contrast tothe EUP, most of the innovationsseem to have occurred within a com-paratively brief span of time, and arelinked to a characteristic array of artand ritual forms. Many of the sites arelarger and more complex than EUPsites, probably indicating an increasein population and resource consump-tion. Although the Gravettian industryis not found outside Europe, at leastsome of the new technology is foundin the MUP of Siberia.

The technological innovations ofthe Gravettian are sometimes attrib-uted to the onset of cold climates atthe end of the Middle Pleniglacial.83

Because a significant correlation hasbeen found between technologicalcomplexity and latitude among recenthunter-gatherers,74 it is logical to as-sume that declining temperatureswould have acted as a stimulus totechnological change. At least some ofthe new Gravettian technology isclearly tied to periglacial environ-ments. It should be noted, however,

that a subsequent series of innova-tions, including some of the most im-pressive technical achievements of theUpper Paleolithic, took place after cli-mates in northern Eurasia began towarm (that is, following the coldestphase of the Last Glacial Maximum).

Improvements in artificial shelterdesign are evident at Gagarino on theDon River (Russia), which yieldedtraces of what appears to be a semi-subterranean winter house dating to25 ka (Fig. 6).85 The apparent scarcityof wood in the area at this time en-couraged use of alternative fuels, andthe interior hearth was filled withburned bone, which requires somebrushwood to generate sufficientlyhigh ignition temperatures.86 Portablelamps fashioned from the femoralheads of mammoths, presumably fu-eled with mammal fat, were found inthe Gravettian level at Kostenki 1,87

while the use of coal was reportedsome years ago at Petrkovice (Mora-via).88 Stone lamps are found in con-temporaneous sites in western Eu-rope.89 Although it is not known iffurther improvements were made intailored clothing design, the clothedfigurines from Siberia mentioned ear-lier date to this interval, during whicheyed needles also appeared in centralEurope for the first time.84,88 Eastern

Gravettian sites such as Avdeevo, inRussia, have yielded isolated exam-ples of needle cases similar to those ofthe Inuit.85,90

Many Gravettian sites contain largepits filled with bone and other debris.These represent the earliest knownstorage devices. They may have beenused primarily during warmermonths for cold storage of food orbone fuel, which must be kept fresh toretain flammability. The pits seem tohave been dug to the base of the activethaw layer to create a naturally refrig-erated chamber similar to the “ice cel-lars” of recent Arctic peoples. The dig-ging implements, according tomicrowear analysis, included largemattocks of mammoth ivory, whichhave been recovered from Zaraisk(Russia)91 and other Eastern Gravet-tian sites. These implements also ex-hibit parallels with Inuit technology.90

The Gravettians improved on earlyUpper Paleolithic hunting technologyby designing beveled spear pointsthat, in contrast to earlier haftedpoints, lacked a bulge at the base.70 Anivory boomerang was found at Obla-zowa (Poland).92 Indeed, there mayhave been significant new develop-ments in the technology of small-game procurement. Large quantitiesof small mammal remains and stable-

Figure 5. Map of Europe, illustrating the location of middle and late Upper Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text.

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 191

isotope data from human bone indi-cate that the Gravettians and theircounterparts in southern Siberia con-sumed a broad array of terrestrial andfreshwater foods.72 Although netswere postulated as one possiblemeans of obtaining small game dur-ing the EUP, they are documented inGravettian sites for the first time,

along with the major new technologyof cordage.88,93 Weaving and net-mak-ing implements of bone and ivoryhave been tentatively identified at sev-eral localities, including Pavlov I(Moravia) and Kostenki 4 (Russia).94

The most impressive Gravettian in-novation was in the field of pyrotech-nology. It is now clear that the fired

clay objects recovered from their sitesfor many decades were not alwayshaphazard creations, but at timeswere produced in specially designedkilns heated to 500 to 800°C (identi-fied at Dolni Vestonice I, Moravia)(Fig. 7).95 As is often the case withmajor innovations in modern humantechnology (for example, weight-driven clocks, originally designed forthe timing of prayers19), its value canbe defined only within the context ofmyth and ritual. The fired clay objects,chiefly figurines, had no identifiableutilitarian function.96

Some Gravettian sites in centraland eastern Europe contain occupa-tion floors of unprecedented size andcomplexity (for example, Kostenki 1)that apparently reflect at least tempo-rary aggregations of large numbers ofpeople.90 These gatherings were pre-sumably used to reinforce social ties,but they might have had some eco-nomic significance as well (for exam-ple, communal hunts).88 It is the largesites that suggest that a major in-crease in population density and re-source consumption had taken placeduring the MUP. This may have beenprimarily a consequence of the richloess-steppe habitat that emerged inthese regions after 28 ka,84 which theGravettians effectively exploited withtechnology inherited from the EUP aswell as their own innovations.

Last Glacial Maximum climatesreached their coldest phase at ca. 24to 21 ka with severe effects on UpperPaleolithic settlement. Portions ofnorthern Europe, the central East Eu-ropean Plain, and much of Siberiaseem to have been abandoned at thistime.1,44,45 This may reflect the limita-tions of MUP technology for cold pro-tection, but it might also be at leastpartly a function of the inheritedwarm-climate morphology still re-tained by the Gravettians.38 Peoplecontinued to occupy southwest Eu-rope, although there is evidence ofpopulation stress and the appearanceof a new local industry (the So-lutrean).97

Several technological developmentsof the Solutrean are worth noting. Forthe first time, eyed needles and, byimplication, sewn tailored clothing,were produced in western Europe.83 Itis not known whether this technology

Figure 6. Plan of a semi-subterranean house, possibly occupied during winter months,excavated at Gagarino on the Don River in Russia. (Modified after Tarasov 1979:54, Fig. 27).

192 Hoffecker

was invented locally or adopted frompeoples in central and eastern Europe.Self-barbed points of antler, appar-ently designed for spearing fish, wereused in some coastal sites, amongthem La Riera (Spain).98 During thelate Solutrean (ca. 21 ka), the firstspear-throwers, which represent thefirst confirmed mechanical technol-ogy, appeared in the archeologicalrecord at, for example, Combe-Sauni-ere I (France) (Fig. 8).99

LATE UPPER PALEOLITHICINNOVATION

In the wake of the Last Glacial Max-imum cold peak (24 to 21 ka), peoplesin many regions of northern Eurasiaestablished long-term settlementssupported by highly efficient technol-ogies for harvesting and sometimesstoring a wide array of food sources.The same pattern is evident even ear-lier in some lower latitude regions.29

The technologies may have reached acritical threshold for the establish-ment of sedentary farming villages inthe postglacial epoch.

Above latitude 40° North, easternEurope contains the most impressiveevidence of long-term settlements inthe 18 to 14 ka interval (Epi-Gravet-tian): groups of up to four housescomposed of mammoth bone andtusk. These occur at several sites, in-

cluding Mezhirich (Ukraine) andYudinovo (Russia).100,101 The housesare circular or oval, at least 3.5 metersin diameter, and associated with deep

storage pits and enormous quantitiesof occupation debris. Assuming thatthey were occupied simultaneously,which can be demonstrated in at leastone case, the Epi-Gravettian “villages”probably represent encampments of25 to 50 people for periods of severalweeks and perhaps even severalmonths (Fig. 9).102

Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) sitesin western Europe (Magdalenian),such as those at Pincevent (France)and Gonnersdorf (Germany) also con-tain traces of multiple structures.103,104

These include sites with the remainsof rectangular structures up to 4 � 6meters in area marked by rock pave-ment floors as at, for example, PlateauParrain and Le Cerisier (France).105 AtSolvieux (France), the structures con-tain handled lamps and are associatedwith possible stone boiling pits.106 Bycontrast, the Siberian sites appear torepresent small short-term occupa-tions, probably reflecting a signifi-cantly less productive habitat.38,44

The innovative use of bone and rockfor constructing the walls and floors

Figure 7. Reconstructed kiln at Dolni Vestonice I (Moravia). (Redrawn from Soffer et al.1993:271, Fig. 4B).

Figure 8. Reassembled fragments of worked antler recovered from Combe-Sauniere I insouthwest France. These apparently represent the earliest known spear-thrower. (Redrawnfrom Cattelain 1989:214, Fig. 2).

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 193

of dwellings is less important than thebroader implications of long-term set-tlements like Mezhirich and PlateauParrain for the increased efficiency offood-getting technology. The varietyand complexity of the latter can beinferred from the large quantities ofsmall-mammal, bird, and freshwater-fish remains recovered from many ofthese sites. In maritime areas of west-ern Europe, some sites contain the re-mains of marine resources, includingshellfish, fish, and sometimes seamammals.83,97 The gradual increasein the numbers of smaller vertebratesand marine taxa suggests that the in-ventions and improvements in tech-nology that facilitated their harvestingtook place over an extended time.

At least some of this food-gettingtechnology is represented directly inthe archeological record. Fishing im-plements in the form of barbed har-poon heads are common in later Mag-

dalenian sites and present in someyounger sites of eastern Europe andsouthern Siberia. The earliest knownfish hooks and pronged leisters appearin very late occupations such as thatat Courbet (France).107 Thousands offox bones were recovered at Eliseevi-chi (Russia),71 suggesting expandeduse or improved design of traps andsnares, and Mezhirich contains somepossible trap components (Fig. 10).100

As noted, the earliest mechanicalhunting technology is documented inthe late Solutrean, but spear-throwersbecame more common in Magdalen-ian sites, while remaining unknown ineast European and Siberian sites.108

LUP spear-throwers may reflect an in-creasing command of design mechan-ics in terms of length and weight-ing.109 Ptarmigan, grouse, and otherbirds may have been hunted withsmall darts propelled with the use ofthrowing boards, and some dart

points are reported from Mezhir-ich.100

The production of bows and arrowsis firmly documented only by 14 ka,by, for example, wooden arrow shaftsand foreshafts from Stellmoor (Ger-many),110 but is often inferred fromthe profusion of backed microliths—possible arrow tips—in earlier Mag-dalenian and Epi-Gravettian sites.35

As in the case of artificial shelters ofthe earliest Upper Paleolithic, it is un-clear if the lack of firmly documentedexamples simply reflects reduced visi-bility in the older archeologicalrecord. (Microblades are also com-mon in Siberian sites after 21 ka, butthey were almost certainly insertedinto large bone and antler spearpoints.44) The design and productionof bows is especially complicated, andthis technology was still undergoingprogressive improvement during theNeolithic and Bronze Age.111

Information technology seems tohave been improved by LUP times,especially in western Europe. Bonefragments engraved with marks forprobable use as artificial memory sys-tems have been recovered from sev-eral Magdalenian sites, includingLaugerie Basse (France) and Tossal dela Roca (Spain).112 These fragmentsexhibit more organized storage oflarger bodies of information than dosimilar artifacts found in MUP and,particularly, EUP contexts.77 It re-mains unclear, however, what sorts ofinformation were recorded by thesesystems.

Perhaps the most formidableachievement of the LUP lies in therealm of biotechnology. Although theidentification of the remains of do-mesticated dogs in Epi-Gravettiansites has been considered problem-atic, such remains now have been doc-umented at Eliseevichi28 and in thesomewhat younger occupation atBonn-Oberkassel (Germany).113 Vari-ation in mtDNA sequences amongmodern dogs also suggests an LUP or-igin, possibly in East Asia.114 Thepresence of dogs further reinforcesthe perceived pattern of semi-seden-tary settlements, which would seem tobe a prerequisite for the domestica-tion process. The combination ofbow-and-arrow technology and hunt-

Figure 9. A group of mammoth-bone houses with associated pits, hearths, and debrisscatters (activity areas) mapped at Dobranichevka (Ukraine). (Modified after Shovkoplyas1972:178, Fig. 1).

194 Hoffecker

ing dogs may have been especially ef-fective.97

Cave art reached its highest level interms of both quantity and diversityduring the LUP of western Europe,and there is technology associatedwith it. At Lascaux (France), there isevidence of scaffolding comprising awooden platform supported by hori-zontal poles inserted with clay adhe-sive into holes in the cave wall andbound with twine. Carved-handlestone lamps, probably with lichenwicks, provided artificial light.89 Theanalysis of paint compounds reveals asophisticated chemical technologythat may represent a significant im-provement over the EUP. Paints ofvarious colors were mixed with plantmaterials and mineral pigments, andapplied with a hard water CaCO3-richbinding agent.115,116

The large and apparently long-term

settlements of the European LUP sug-gest, as compared to the EUP, a sig-nificant increase in population den-sity. Several variables might haveinfluenced population growth duringthe Upper Paleolithic. The absence ofthe Neanderthals after 30 ka wouldhave reduced competition for re-sources in regions they had continuedto inhabit during EUP times. Bioticproductivity in northern Eurasia musthave varied between the later MiddlePleniglacial and Late Glacial, al-though it is not clear that there was amajor increase in available resourcesduring the latter period. The in-creased variety and efficiency of LUPtechnology, by expanding the range ofavailable resources and improvingper-capita energy intake, probablyhad raised human carrying capacityrelative to the EUP. By the final mil-lennia of the Pleistocene, modern hu-

man technology reflected a cumula-tive growth of knowledge inheritedfrom the EUP and MUP (for example,notation, lamps, and storage pits).This growth of knowledge also in-cluded radical innovations such asbows-and-arrows and domesticateddogs, as well as improvements such asspear-throwers, fishing harpoons, andpaint compounds.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The Upper Paleolithic record ofHomo sapiens in northern Eurasia ex-hibits a pattern of technologicalchange that is fundamentally differentfrom those of earlier periods. Both therapid pace of innovation and the com-plexity of artifact design are unprece-dented, and traces of mechanicaltechnology appear in the archeologi-cal record for the first time. A similarpattern is evident in other parts of theworld and both have deeper roots inthe African MSA.

Modern human technological abil-ity seems to be an integral part of awider package of behavior (“behav-ioral modernity”) that developed inthe context of the African MSA before50 ka.3,35 Modern human technologyexhibits many of the characteristics,most notably the creativity and struc-tural complexity, of art, music, orna-ment, and other forms of symbolism(including, by implication, syntacticallanguage) that are elements of behav-ioral modernity. Modern humans, asthey dispersed out of Africa after 100ka, adapted quickly to a wide range ofhabitats in Eurasia with the help ofnovel technologies designed duringthe late African MSA or created in re-sponse to local conditions.36–38

The EUP of northern Eurasia,which spans the interval ca. 45 to 30ka, represents the most unusual andinteresting of the three major periods.It is also the least known of the threeperiods with respect to technologicalinnovation, probably owing to greatertime depth and smaller sample size.The most striking feature of the EUPis the technical sophistication of thesculptures, cave paintings, and musi-cal instruments, which leads many tosuspect a substantial prior history ofdevelopment.47,78 Technology relatedto symbolism appears comparable tothat of recent foraging peoples, and

Figure 10. Possible trap components recovered from a mammoth-bone house at Mezhirich(Ukraine). (Drawn from a photograph in Pidoplichko 1976:164, Fig. 61).

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 195

much of it probably was created in theAfrican MSA.

By contrast, at least some EUP tech-nology related to clothing, shelter, andfood-getting activities may beuniquely primitive in comparison tothat of recent foraging peoples andlater periods of the Upper Paleolithic.Traces of artificial shelters and sewingneedles have not been found in theoldest north Eurasian EUP sites,which may reflect belated develop-ment of these technologies some mil-lennia after modern humans first col-onized higher latitudes. Alternatively,their absence could be a function oflow archeological visibility. Evidenceof the harvesting of small mammals,presumably through the use of noveldevices such as snares, is documentedin the earliest EUP occupations.38 Butevidence of exploitation of freshwateraquatic foods, which would have re-quired another set of innovations, isso far confined to the end of theEUP.72,73

Some view the EUP as a “transi-tional” phase between the Middle Pa-leolithic and the later Upper Paleo-lithic.83,117 Implicit in this view is asignificant degree of local continuityand at least some noncompetitive in-teraction between Neanderthals andmodern humans. Recent research onearly EUP cave paintings, sculptures,and music has underscored their com-plexity78,79 and the discontinuity insymbolism with the Middle Paleo-lithic of northern Eurasia.35 It is in therealm of technology and economicsthat the EUP seems to occupy an in-termediate position between the Mid-dle Paleolithic and the later Upper Pa-leolithic.

The pattern is plausibly ascribed tothe less developed technology andcomparatively limited technologicalknowledge of EUP people. As inven-tions and improvements accumulateduring the later EUP and early MUP,corresponding increases in occupa-tion area, site features, quantity andvariety of food debris, and other mea-sures of economic success provide asharp contrast with the Middle Paleo-lithic. Like the art and music, the doc-umented capacity for technologicalinnovation in the EUP represents asignificant discontinuity with the Mid-dle Paleolithic.

If the EUP represents a uniquelyprimitive stage of technological devel-opment relative to the later Upper Pa-leolithic—and to recent foraging peo-ples who used technologies not foundin the EUP—it raises the interestingpossibility that EUP people also cre-ated a world-view that was unique.EUP people would have interpretedtheir world, or “constructed” it sym-bolically, on the basis of a particularlylimited technological knowledge ofthat world in comparison to later Up-per Paleolithic and post-Paleolithicpeoples. Such a world-view, presum-ably reflected in art and traces of rit-ual recovered from the archeologicalrecord, might have slowed the pace ofinnovation during the EUP relative tolater periods.

The middle Upper Paleolithic orMUP (ca. 30 to 20 ka) is characterizedby a major wave of innovation thatentailed both radical inventions andimprovements on EUP technology.Striking changes in organization, art,and ritual are evident as well. Al-though some technological innova-tions probably were responses tocolder climates and their effects onbiota in northern Eurasia, other ma-jor innovations such as fired ceramicsseem to have little or no relation toclimate change. A significant expan-sion in occupation area and the diver-sity and quantity of food debris is ap-parent in many MUP sites incomparison to the preceding era. Asnoted, the expanding economy andpopulation may be largely due to theimproved technology of the MUP,which facilitated efficient harvestingof a variety of terrestrial and freshwa-ter aquatic vertebrates. A contributingfactor could have been an increasedlevel of consumable foods in regionswhere climates of the Last GlacialMaximum favored loess-steppe floraand high mammalian biomass.

One of the more intriguing hypo-thetical questions of prehistory is:What if the Upper Paleolithic had be-gun at the end of the Pleistocenerather than 40,000 to 30,000 years ear-lier? Would EUP peoples such as theAhmarians and Aurignacians have de-veloped sedentary villages and agri-culture under the same conditionsthat confronted the Natufians at 15ka?118 Or did the many millennia of

Upper Paleolithic innovation and ac-cumulated technological knowledgecreate the essential foundation for vil-lage agriculture and, within a fewthousand years, urban civilization?Would we still be living in the lateUpper Paleolithic today?

During the LUP (20 to 12 ka), moreradical innovations and improve-ments in technology took place innorthern Eurasia. The former in-cluded the first confirmed examples ofmechanical technology and domesti-cation of other living organisms(canids). The major innovations of theLUP, unlike those of the preceding pe-riods, seem to have been spaced outover an extended period. LUP sites innorthern Eurasia appear to reflectlong-term occupations by relativelylarge groups, and the pattern is likelytied to the expanded complexity andimproved efficiency of technology re-lated to the getting, storing, and pre-paring of food.

In the Near East, where sedentismand agriculture developed quicklyduring the postglacial epoch, UpperPaleolithic innovations almost cer-tainly laid the technological founda-tions of village settlement. At the re-markable site of Ohalo II (Israel),long-term occupations dating from23.5 to 22.5 ka are linked to noveltechnologies for preparing plant foods(for example, possible baking ov-ens).29 By LUP times, people in partsof northern Eurasia and also at lowerlatitudes had acquired considerableknowledge about their environmentthrough a rapidly expanding and in-creasingly complex body of technol-ogy. The accumulation of technologi-cal knowledge must have had asignificant influence on how LUP peo-ple interpreted their world. This, inturn, probably affected further devel-opments in technology. The evolvingLUP worldview may have been as crit-ical to the origins of sedentism andagriculture as its technological legacy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank John G. Fleagle for invitingme to contribute this paper to Evolu-tionary Anthropology, and severalanonymous reviewers for their com-ments on two drafts. I am also grate-ful to Steve Holen, Art Joyce, MichaelLightner, Steve Lekson, Bob Levin,

196 Hoffecker

and Paola Villa for their commentsand suggestions. Research at Kostenkihas contributed significantly to thestudy of Upper Paleolithic technolog-ical innovation, and I am grateful tomy colleagues M. V. Anikovich, A. A.Sinitsyn, V. V. Popov, V. T. Holliday,G. M. Levkovskaya, and others withwhom I worked at these sites from2001 to 2004, with support from theNational Science Foundation (BCS-0132553) and the Leakey Foundation.Figures 2, 7, 8, and 10 were preparedby Ian Torao Hoffecker.

REFERENCES

1 Gamble C. 1986. The Palaeolithic settlementof Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

2 Mellars P. 1989. Major issues in the emer-gence of modern humans. Curr Anthropol 30:349–385.

3 McBrearty S, Brooks AS. 2000. The revolu-tion that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the ori-gin of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol 39:453–563.

4 d’Errico F. 2003. The invisible frontier: amultiple species model for the origin of behav-ioral modernity. Evol Anthropol 12:188–202.

5 Bar-Yosef O. 2003. The Upper Paleolithicrevolution. Ann Rev Anthropol 31:363–393.

6 Foley R, Lahr MM. 2003. On stony ground:lithic technology, human evolution, and theemergence of culture. Evol Anthropol 12:109–122.

7 Herbig PA. 1994. The innovation matrix: cul-ture and structure prerequisites to innovation.Westport: Quorum Books.

8 Buchanan RA. 1992. The power of the ma-chine: the impact of technology from 1700 to thepresent. London: Penguin.

9 Cardwell D. 1995. The Norton history oftechnology. New York: Norton.10 Trigger BG. 1989. A history of archaeological

thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.11 Mumford L. 1970. The myth of the machine:

the pentagon of power. New York: Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovich.12 Mokyr J. 1990. The lever of riches: techno-

logical creativity and economic progress. NewYork: Oxford University Press.13 Landes D. 2003. The unbound Prometheus:

technological change and industrial developmentin Western Europe from 1750 to the present, 2nd

ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.14 Heidegger M. 1977. The question concerning

technology and other essays. New York: Harper& Row. p 12.15 Dobres MA. 2000. Technology and social

agency: outlining a practice framework for ar-chaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.16 Henrich J. 2004. Demography and cultural

evolution: how adaptive cultural processes canproduce maladaptive losses—the Tasmaniancase. Am Antiquity 69:197–214.17 Childe VG. 1956. Society and knowledge.

New York: Harper & Brothers.18 Pacey A. 1990. Technology in world civiliza-

tion. Cambridge: MIT Press.

19 Mumford L. 1934. Technics and civilization.New York: Harcourt Brace.

20 White L. 1978. Medieval religion and tech-nology: collected essays. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

21 Mitcham C, Mackay R, editors. 1983. Philos-ophy and technology: readings in the philosoph-ical problems of technology. New York: FreePress.

22 Lemonnier P. 1986. The study of materialculture: towards an anthropology of technicalsystems. J Anthropol Archaeol 5:147–186.

23 Pfaffenberger B. 1988. Fetished objects andhumanized nature: towards an anthropology oftechnology. Man 23:236–252.

24 Mitcham C. 1994. Thinking through technol-ogy: the path between engineering and philoso-phy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

25 McGhee R. 1977. Ivory for the sea woman:the symbolic attributes of a prehistoric technol-ogy. Can J Archaeol 1:141–149.

26 Dobres MA, Hoffman CR, editors. 1999. Thesocial dynamics of technology: practice, politics,and world views. Washington: Smithsonian In-stitution Press.

27 Schiffer MB, editor. 2001. Anthropologicalperspectives on technology. Dragoon: AmerindFoundation.

28 Sablin MV, Khlopachev GA. 2002. The earli-est Ice Age dogs: evidence from Eliseevichi I.Curr Anthropol 43:795–799.

29 Piperno DR, Weiss E, Holst I, Nadel D. 2004.Processing of wild cereal grains in the UpperPaleolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Na-ture 430:670–673.

30 Ford JA. 1959. Eskimo prehistory in the vi-cinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Anthropol PapAm Museum Nat Hist 47, Pt. 1.

31 Giddings JL. 1964. The archeology of CapeDenbigh. Providence: Brown University Press.

32 Weiss E, Wetterstrom W, Nadel D, Bar-YosefO. 2004. The broad spectrum revisited: evidencefrom plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 101:9551–9555.

33 Stringer C, Gamble C. 1993. In search of theNeanderthals: solving the puzzle of human ori-gins. New York: Thames and Hudson.

34 Klein RG. 2000. Archeology and the evolu-tion of human behavior. Evol Anthropol 9:17–36.

35 Klein RG. 1999. The human career: humanbiological and cultural origins, 2nd ed. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

36 Fagan BM. 1990. The journey from Eden: thepeopling of our world. London: Thames & Hud-son.

37 Stringer C, McKie R. 1996. African exodus:the origins of modern humanity. New York:Henry Holt.

38 Hoffecker JF. 2005. A prehistory of theNorth: human settlement of the higher latitudes.New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

39 Whallon R. 1989. Elements of culturalchange in the later Paleolithic. In: Mellars P,Stringer C, editors. The human revolution.Princeton: Princeton University Press. p433–454.

40 Gamble C. 1994. Timewalkers: the prehis-tory of global colonization. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

41 Anikovich MV. 2003. The early Upper Paleo-lithic in Eastern Europe. Archaeol Ethnol An-thropol Eurasia 2:15–29.

42 Goebel T, Derevianko AP, Petrin VT. 1993.Dating the Middle-to-Upper-Paleolithic transi-tion at Kara-Bom. Curr Anthropol 34:452–458.

43 Conard NJ, Grootes PM, Smith FH. 2004.

Unexpectedly recent dates for human remainsfrom Vogelherd. Nature 430:198–201.

44 Goebel T. 1999. Pleistocene human coloniza-tion of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: anecological approach. Evol Anthropol 8:208–227.

45 Hoffecker JF. 2002. Desolate landscapes: Ice-Age settlement in Eastern Europe. New Bruns-wick: Rutgers University Press.

46 Bocquet-Appel JP, Demars PY. 2000. Nean-derthal contraction and modern human coloni-zation of Europe. Antiquity 74:544–552.

47 Mellars P. 2004. Neanderthals and the mod-ern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432:461–465.

48 Pavlov P, Svendsen JI, Indrelid S. 2001. Hu-man presence in the European Arctic nearly40,000 years ago. Nature 413:64–67.

49 Pitulko VV, Nikolsky PA, Girya EY, BasilyanAE, Tumskoy VE, Koulakov SA, Astakhov SN,Pavlova EY, Anisimov MA. 2004. The Yana RHSsite: humans in the Arctic before the Last GlacialMaximum. Science 303:52–56.

50 Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Marean C, MiloR, Yates R. 2002. An early bone tool industryfrom the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave,South Africa: implications for the origins of mod-ern human behaviour, symbolism, and language.J Hum Evol 41:631–678.

51 Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Vanhaeren M,van Niekerk K, Jacobs Z. 2004. Middle Stone Ageshell beads from South Africa. Science 304:404.

52 Yellen JE, Brooks AS, Cornelissen E, Mehl-man MJ, Stewart K. 1995. A Middle Stone Ageworked bone industry from Katanda, UpperSemliki Valley, Zaire. Science 268:553–556.

53 Velichko AA, Bogucki AB, Morozova TD,Udartsev VP, Khalcheva TA, Tsatkin AI. 1984.Periglacial landscapes of the East EuropeanPlain. In: Velichko AA, editor. Late Quaternaryenvironments of the Soviet Union. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. p 94–118.

54 Trinkaus E. 1981. Neanderthal limb propor-tions and cold adaptation. In: Stringer C, editor.Aspects of human evolution. London: Taylor andFrancis. p 187–224.

55 Grootes PM, Stuiver M, White JWC, JohnsenS, Jouzel J. 1993. Comparison of oxygen isotoperecords from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland icecores. Nature 366:552–554.

56 Medvedev G. 1998. Upper Paleolithic sites insouth-central Siberia. In: Derevianko AP, editor.The Palaeolithic of Siberia: new discoveries andinterpretations. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress. p 122–132.

57 Rogachev AN, Sinitsyn AA. 1982. Kostenki15 (Gorodtsovkaya stoyanka). In: Praslov ND,Rogachev AN, editors. Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo raiona na Donu 1879–1979.Leningrad: Nauka. p 162–171.

58 Vasil’ev SA, Kuznetsov OV, Meshcherin MN.1987. Poselenie Tolbaga (novyi etap issledova-nii). In: Prirodnaya sreda i drevnii chelovek vpozdnem antropogene. Ulan-Ude: Nauka. p 109–121.

59 Derevianko AP. 1998. Arkheologiya, ge-ologiya i paleogeografiya pleistotsena i golotsenaGornogo Altaya. Novosibirsk: Russian Academyof Sciences.

60 Kittler R, Kayser M, Stoneking M. 2003. Mo-lecular evolution of Pediculus humanus and theorigin of clothing. Curr Biol 13:1414–1417.

61 Oswalt WH. 1987. Technological complexity:the Polar Eskimos and the Tareumiut. Arctic An-thropol 24:82–98.

62 Semenov SA. 1964. Prehistoric technology.New York: Barnes & Noble.

63 Hoffecker JF, Elias SA. 2003. Environment

Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia 197

and archeology in Beringia. Evol Anthropol 12:34–49.

64 Savich VP. 1975. Pozdnepaleoliticheskayaposeleniya na gore Kulichivka v g. Krements(Ternopol’skaya oblast’ USSR). Byulleten’ komis-siipo izucheniyuchetvertichnogoperioda47:121–127.

65 Banesz L. 1976. Les structures d’habitat aupaleolithique superieur en Europe centrale. In:Leroi-Gourhan A, editor. Les structures d’habitatau paleolithique superieur. Nice: CNRS. p 8–53.

66 Radcliffe-Brown AR. 1964. The Andaman is-landers. Glencoe: Free Press. p 472.

67 Turnbull CM. 1962. The forest people: astudy of the Pygmies of the Congo. p 58.

68 Mason OT. 1895. The origins of invention: astudy of industry among primitive peoples. Lon-don: Walter Scott.

69 Wescott D, editor. 1999. Primitive technol-ogy: a book of earth skills. Salt Lake City: GibbsSmith.

70 Knecht H. 1993. Splits and wedges: the tech-niques and technology of early Aurignacian ant-ler working. In: Knecht H, Pike-Tay A, White R,editors. Before Lascaux: the complex record ofthe early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton: CRCPress. p 137–162.

71 Vereshchagin NK, Kuz’mina IE. 1977. Os-tatki mlekopitayushchikh iz paleoliticheskikhstoyanok na Donu i Verkhnei Desne. Trudy ZIN72:77–110.

72 Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Stiner MC,Trinkaus E. 2001. Stable isotope evidence forincreasing dietary breadth in the European mid-Upper Paleolithic. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 98:6528–6532.

73 Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA, Tcher-nov E, Bar-Yosef O. Paleolithic populationgrowth pulses evidenced by small animal exploi-tation. Science 283:190–194.

74 Oswalt WH. 1976. An anthropological anal-ysis of food-getting technology. New York: JohnWiley.

75 Marshack A. 1972. Upper Paleolithic nota-tion and symbol. Science 178:817–828.

76 d’Errico F. 1989. Palaeolithic lunar calen-dars: a case of wishful thinking? Curr Anthropol30:117–118.

77 d’Errico F. 1998. Palaeolithic origins of arti-ficial memory systems: an evolutionary perspec-tive. In: Renfrew C, Scarre C, editors. Cognitionand material culture: the archaeology of sym-bolic storage. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute.p 19–50.

78 d’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G, Van-haeren M, Tillier A-M, Soressi M, Bresson F,Maureille B, Nowell A, Lakarra J, Backwell L,Julien M. 2003. Archaeological evidence for theemergence of language, symbolism, and music:an alternative multidisciplinary perspective. JWorld Prehist 17:1–70.

79 Chauvet JM, Deschamps EB, Hillaire C.1996. Dawn of art: the Chauvet Cave: the oldestknown paintings in the world. New York: HarryN. Abrams.

80 Buisson D. 1991. Les flutes paleolithiques

d’Isturitz (Pyrenees Atlantiques). Soc PrehistFrancaise 87:420–433.81 Hahn J, Munzel S. 1995. Knochenfloten aus

dem Aurignacien des Geissenklosterle beiBlaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundberichte ausBaden-Wurttemberg 20:1–12.82 Childe VG. 1936. Man makes himself. Lon-

don: Watts.83 Straus LG. 1995. The Upper Paleolithic of

Europe: an overview. Evol Anthropol 4:4–16.84 Svoboda J, Lozek V, Vlcek E. 1996. Hunters

between east and west: the Paleolithic of Mora-via. New York: Plenum Press.85 Tarasov LM. 1979. Gagarinskaya stoyanka i

ee mesto v paleolite Evropy. Leningrad: Nauka.86 Thery-Parisot I. 2001. Economie des com-

bustibles au Paleolithique. Paris: CNRS.87 Rogachev AN, Praslov ND, Anikovich MV,

Belyaeva VI, Dmitrieva TN. 1982. Kostenki 1. In:Praslov ND, Rogachev AN, editors. Paleolit Ko-stenkovsko-Borshchevskogo raiona na Donu1879–1979. Leningrad: Nauka. p 42–66.88 Soffer O. 2000. Gravettian technologies in

social contexts. In: Roebroeks W, Mussi M, Svo-boda J, Fennema K, editors. Hunters of thegolden age: the mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia30,000–20,000 BP. Leiden: University of Leiden.p 59–75.89 de Beaune S, White R. 1993. Ice age lamps.

Sci Am 268:108–113.90 Hoffecker JF. 2002. The Eastern Gravettian

“Kostenki Culture” as an arctic adaptation. An-thropol Pap University of Alaska, NS 2:115–136.91 Amirkhanov KA. 2000. Zaraiskaya stoyanka.

Moscow: Nauchnyi Mir.92 Valde-Nowak P, Nadachowski A, Wolsan M.

1987. Upper Paleolithic boomerang made of amammoth tusk in south Poland. Nature 329:436–438.93 Soffer O, Adovasio JM, Hyland DC. 2000.

The “Venus” figurines: textiles, basketry, gender,and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Curr An-thropol 41:511–537.94 Soffer O. 2004. Recovering perishable tech-

nologies through use wear on tools: preliminaryevidence for Upper Paleolithic weaving and netmaking. Curr Anthropol 45:407–413.95 Vandiver P, Soffer O, Klima B, Svoboda J.

1989. The origins of ceramic technology at DolniVestonice, Czechoslovakia. Science 246:1002–1008.96 Soffer O, Vandiver P, Klima B, Svoboda J.

1993. The pyrotechnology of performance art:Moravian Venuses and wolverines. In: Knecht H,Pike-Tay A, White R, editors. Before Lascaux: thecomplex record of the early Upper Paleolithic.Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 259–275.97 Jochim M. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic. In:

Milisauskas S, editor. European prehistory: asurvey. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. p 55–113.98 Pokines J, Krupa M. 1997. Self-barbed antler

spearpoints and evidence of fishing in the lateUpper Paleolithic of Cantabrian Spain. In:Knecht H, editor. Projectile technology. NewYork: Plenum Press. p 241–262.99 Cattelain P. 1989. Un crochet de propulseur

Solutreen de la Grotte de Combe-Sauniere I

(Dordogne). Bull Soc Prehist Francaise 86:213–216.100 Pidoplichko IG. 1976. Mezhirichskie zhilish-cha iz kostei mamonta. Kiev: Naukova dumka.101 Abramova Z. 1993. Two examples of termi-nal Paleolithic adaptations. In: Soffer O, PraslovND, editors. From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Pa-leolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations. New York:Plenum Press. p 85–100.102 Soffer O. 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of thecentral Russian Plain. San Diego: AcademicPress.103 Leroi-Gourhan A, Brezillon M. 1972.Fouilles de Pincevent: essai d’analyse eth-nographique d’un habitat Magdalenien (la sec-tion 36). Gallia Prehistoire suppl 7. Paris: CNRS.104 Bosinski G. 1979. Die Ausgrabungen in Gon-nersdorf 1968–1976 und die siedlungsbefundeder grabung 1968. Wiesbaden: Franz SteinerGMBH.105 Gaussen J. 1980. Le paleolithique superieurde plein air en Perigord. Gallia Prehist suppl 14.Paris: CNRS.106 Sackett JR. 1988. The Neuvic group: UpperPaleolithic open-air sites in the Perigord. In: Dib-ble HL, Montet-White A, editors. Upper Pleisto-cene prehistory of western Eurasia. Philadelphia:University Museum. p 61–84.107 Julien M. 1982. Les harpons magdaleniens.Paris: CNRS.108 Cattelain P. 1997. Hunting during the UpperPaleolithic: bow, spearthrower, or both? In:Knecht H, editor. Projectile technology. NewYork: Plenum Press. p 213–240.109 Guthrie RD. 2002. Paleolithic atlatl weightsand their decoration: how function affects fancy.Anthropol Pap University Alaska, NS 2:137–154.110 Rust A. 1943. Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitli-chen funde von Stellmoor. Neumunster: KarlWachholtz.111 Clark JGD. 1963. Neolithic bows from Som-erset, England and the prehistory of archery innorth-west Europe. Proc Prehist Soc 29:50–98.112 d’Errico F, Cacho C. 1994. Notation versusdecoration in the Upper Paleolithic: a case-studyfrom Tossal de la Roca, Alicante, Spain. J Ar-chaeol Sci 21:185–200.113 Benecke N. 1987. Studies on early dog re-mains from northern Europe. J Archaeol Sci 14:31–49.114 Savolainen P, Zhang Y, Luo J, Lundeberg J,Leitner T. 2002. Genetic evidence for an EastAsian origin for domesticated dogs. Science 298:1610–1613.115 Leroi-Gourhan A, Allain J, editors. 1979.Lascaux inconnu. XIIth Supplement Gallia Pre-hist. Paris: CNRS.116 Couraud C. 1988. Pigments utilizes en pre-histoire, provenance, preparation, moded’utilisation. L’Anthropologie 92:17–28.117 Lindly JM, Clark GA. 1990. Symbolism andmodern human origins. Curr Anthropol 31:233–261.118 Bar-Yosef O. 1998. The Natufian culture inthe Levant, threshold to the origins of agricul-ture. Evol Anthropol 6:159–177.

© 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

198 Hoffecker