Geoarchaeology, Site Formation, and Transitions.

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Oxbow BooksOxford and Oakville

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES

Series EditorsC. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University

DAVID PILBEAM, Harvard UniversityOFER BAR-YOSEF, Harvard University

Editorial BoardSTEVEN L. KUHN, University of Arizona, Tucson

DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN, Harvard UniversityRICHARD H. MEADOW, Harvard University

MARY M. VOIGT, The College of William and MaryHENRY T. WRIGHT, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Publications CoordinatorWREN FOURNIER, Harvard University

The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monographs in Archaeology andPaleoanthropology present a series of documents covering a variety of subjects in the archaeology of theOld World (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania). This series encompasses a broad range of subjects –from the early prehistory to the Neolithic Revolution in the Old World, and beyond including: hunter-gatherers to complex societies; the rise of agriculture; the emergence of urban societies; human physi-cal morphology, evolution and adaptation, as well as; various technologies such as metallurgy, potteryproduction, tool making, and shelter construction. Additionally, the subjects of symbolism, religion, andart will be presented within the context of archaeological studies including mortuary practices and rockart. Volumes may be authored by one investigator, a team of investigators, or may be an edited collec-tion of shorter articles by a number of different specialists working on related topics.

American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Edited by

John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman

www.oxbowbooks.com

Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

© Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2009

ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Shea, John J., 1960–Lieberman, Daniel E., 1964–

Transitions in prehistory : essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef / edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E.Lieberman.

p. cm. -- (American School of Prehistoric Research monograph series)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-84217-340-41. Paleolithic period. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric. 4. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. I.

Shea, John J. II. Lieberman, Daniel, 1964- III. Bar-Yosef, Ofer.GN771.T76 2009930.1'2--dc22

2009002081

TYPESET AND PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

19

GEOARCHAEOLOGY, SITE FORMATION,

AND TRANSITIONS

Paul Goldberg, Liliane Meignen, and Carolina Mallol

AbstractTransitions are significant events in the archaeo-logical record, reflecting various aspects of cultur-al change. The transition from the Middle toUpper Paleolithic, at present receiving consider-able attention for its role in the appearance ofmodern humans, is examined in light of twoapproaches. The first approach involves closescrutiny of the stratigraphy and microstratigraphyin the field, along with laboratory analyses(micromorphology, XRD, FTIR, and SEM); suchstrategies are particularly applicable to recentexcavations. A second approach entails analysis ofthe lithic attributes of assemblages, such as thevertical distribution of refits and/or diagnostictools. This approach can be applied to past exca-vations and often is the only way to evaluate thereality of a transitional industry. Illustrative exam-ples from sites in the Middle East, CentralEurope, and Western Europe demonstrate theimportance of geoarchaeology and contextualanalysis in the study of transitions and in site for-mation processes in general.

IntroductionTransitions in archaeological contexts representmajor events in human history. They can reflectnot only large-scale cultural changes, say fromhunters-gatherers to farmers, but also biologicalchanges with the development of new humanspecies and the extinction of old ones. Produced

by a wide range of possible factors, such as cli-mate change, demographic pressure, resourcecompetition, or social conflict, archaeologicaltransitions represent an avenue to understandingthe lifestyles and adaptive capabilities of particu-lar social groups. The shift from the Middle toUpper Paleolithic is one of several transitions(Bar-Yosef 1982) and one that has been the focusof thought and debate in prehistoric circles forthe past decades, particularly within the last one.

For the most part, transitions in the archaeo-logical record are gauged primarily in terms ofvariation of objects or their attributes in a strati-fied sequence. This variation is reflected mainlyin typological and technological aspects of lithicartifacts for prehistoric periods or of pottery orarchitecture for later time periods. Seldom, how-ever, does the geoarchaeological context of thearchaeological record achieve as much scrutinyas do the objects themselves (although this seemsto be changing; Zilhão 2006a, b), and often, mod-els explaining the chronology and nature of tran-sitions are based on assumptions regarding theprimary positions of the archaeological objectswithin the stratigraphic sequence. Simply witnessthe debate between Zilhão and d’Errico (2003)and Conard and Bolus (2003) to under stand howimportant the geoarchaeological context is foraccurately and precisely establishing the demiseof the Neanderthals in Europe and the arrival ofanatomically modern humans.

4 3 2 Transitions in Prehistory

To do this, we provide some examples ofarchaeological transitions from key sites. We dis-cuss how microstratigraphic analysis of the verti-cal spatial distribution of artifacts can furnishkey contextual information that enables a moreaccurate assessment of the nature of the “transi-tion” and of site formation processes in general.

ApproachesStudy of the transition from the MiddlePaleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic is not new,particularly in the Near East. From a historicalperspective, there has been a noticeable shift inthe way this technological change has been con-ceptualized. Originally, it was viewed as a linearevolution whereby the Upper Paleolithic began asa “transitional phase” (Phase I of Neuville 1934;Emiran of Garrod 1951, 1954, 1955), whichshowed Middle Paleolithic characteristics(Levallois technology) together with UpperPaleolithic elements (blade technology). Later,Copeland (1975) recast Garrod’s notions anddefined the “transition” as an industry composedof Upper Paleolithic tool types produced onMiddle Paleolithic blanks.

This conception of linear evolution as basedon the analysis of industries from the caves ofEmireh and el-Wad (Israel) and Abu-Halka(Lebanon) has been largely debated, but the mix-ture of Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithicelements within the Emiran has raised questionsabout its reality. In this regard, it is interesting tonote that detailed field observations of the stratig-raphy and geology in caves from northern Israelled Bar-Yosef and Vander meersch (1971) tostress the importance of karstic erosional process-es at the end of the Middle Paleolithic and thatsuch actions could explain the mixed characteris-tics of this so-called transitional industry. Theirpaper was one of the first published efforts to

integrate the notion of site formation processes inthe interpretation of transitional assemblages aswell as their role in the understanding of theentire site history, in general. We know now thattransitional industries do exist in favorable strati-graphic settings, such as Boker Tachtit (Marks1983), and that the observations and hesitationsexpressed in Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch(1971) have largely been justified by recent fieldand laboratory research at Kebara Cave (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef 1998;Laville and Goldberg 1989).

Methodologically, two approaches must betaken in order to demonstrate the existence of atrue or veritable transitional industry. First, it isessential to document the homogeneity of thisindustry and the contemporaneity of the differentelements of which it is composed. This documen-tation, in turn, necessitates a thorough grasp ofthe stratigraphy and the contextual integrity ofthe material and its associated site formationprocesses: What are the associated depositionaland postdepositional processes present at thesite? Such understating is accomplished by mak-ing detailed observations in the field and by car-rying out certain analyses in the laboratory. Thelatter include micromorphological analysis,accompanied by microprobe or scanning electronmicroscope (SEM/EDAX) study of thin sectionsmade from undisturbed blocks of sediments(Courty et al. 1989), as well as other mineralogi-cal and elemental analyses, such as x-ray diffrac-tion (XRD) and Fourier Transform InfraredSpectrometry (FTIR) (Goldberg and Macphail2006; Karkanas et al. 2000; Weiner et al. 2002).

A good example that illustrates the impact ofsite formation processes on the integrity ofarchaeological remains is Kebara Cave, situatedalong the coastal plain of Israel (Bar-Yosef et al.1992). The Middle Paleolithic sediments are

433Geoarchaeology, Site Formation, and Transitions

characterized by largely anthropogenic in situdeposits, about 4 m thick, and rich in fireplaces(Figure 19.1). In contrast, the Upper Paleolithicdeposits are markedly less anthropogenic andcomposed of finely bedded silts and aggregates oferoded Middle Paleolithic deposits (Figures19.2–3). This stratification is produced by sheet-flow emanating from the front of the cave, whichtook place during wetter episodes (Goldberg et al.2007) and resulted in the erosion of preexistingMiddle Paleolithic deposits. As a result of this sed-iment reworking, the lithic assemblage from UnitV can be seen to be a combination of reworkedMiddle Paleolithic artifacts and deposits mixedwith Upper Paleolithic elements that were locally

accumulated and also derived from the area clos-er to the entrance. Consequently, there is no tran-sitional assemblage at Kebara Cave (Bar-Yosef1996; Bar-Yosef et al. 1996).

The discussion concerning the dating andnature of the onset of the Upper Paleolithic alsorequires close attention to stratigraphic detailsand site formation processes, both in the field andin the laboratory. A key player in this theater isthe site of Geißenklösterle in southwesternGermany (Conard and Bolus 2003; Conard et al.2004; Zilhão and d’Errico 2003). The visibility ofthe stratigraphic limit between the MiddlePaleolithic and Upper Paleolithic is not obviousin the field, as most of the sediments consist of

Figure 19.1. Southwestern corner of Kebara Cave showing numerous superposed combustion features and the anthropogenic

nature of the Middle Paleolithic deposits.


coarse limestone éboulis within an undifferentiat-ed brown clayey matrix (Figure 19.4).Nevertheless, detailed micromorphological obser-vation of polished blocks and thin sections revealsa clear and sharp erosional contact (Figure 19.5).Furthermore, in some of the thin sections it is pos-sible to observe charcoal fragments resting uponthis erosional contact between the lowermostAurignacian deposits (GH 15/16) and the upper-most Middle Paleolithic deposits (GH 17)(Conard et al. 2006). Such an erosional contactindicates that whereas a piece of charcoal in thiscontext can be precisely dated, its stratigraphic

attribution remains ambiguous, and can be eithera lag of Middle Paleolithic charcoal eroded fromthe substrate, or a fragment that dates from thefirst Upper Paleolithic occupation on this erodedsubstrate. The eroded contact also demonstratesthat there is no layer of mixed sediment betweenof the Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithiclayers (e.g., due to trampling), at least where thesamples were taken.

A second approach complements the previ-ously described geoarchaeological methodologyand focuses on the lithic assemblages themselvesand their spatial and stratigraphic position. Such

Figure 19.2. Part of south profile at Kebara Cave showing principally finely bedded Upper Paleolithic deposits (L) emplaced by

sheetflow emanating from the entrance to the cave at right. Such low-energy deposition can transport finer sediments and

microchips, and leave behind a lag of coarser sediments and lithics. Localized burrows (B) can contain mixed

materials and sediments.


analyses – including refitting studies, rapproche-ments (“second order refits,” Petraglia 1992), ver-tical and horizontal distribution of conjoinedpieces – have been carried out since the 1970s.Such analyses permit an understanding of theintegrity of the assemblage, which can be influ-enced by both geological and biological process-es (Cahen and Moeyersons 1977; Cahen et al.1980; Dibble et al. 1997; Tixier 1978; Villa1982). This methodology has been recentlyimproved with the object of quantifying thedegree of mixing among archaeological levels(Bordes 2000). Similarly, the typo-technologicalcoherence of the assemblage can also be evaluat-ed by documenting the vertical and spatial dis-tribution of diagnostic elements for both periods:for example, an association within the same layerof Levallois blanks with bladelets made with thesoft-hammer technique clearly indicates mixing.

In addition, assessments of mixed componentscan be made by the comparison of edge damageand surface weathering (e.g., patination) of theitems within an assemblage.

In fact, both of the above approaches are nec-essary to evaluate and verify the validity of a par-ticular interpretive model that explains the emer-gence of “behavioral modernity.” Further-more,such scrutiny of the contextual integrity of theartifacts and their associated deposits can resultin complete modification or abandonment of anexplicative model. The above is supported by abrief discussion of a few examples.

At Temnata Cave (Bulgaria), for example,Unit VI on the talus in front of the cave was con-sidered to exhibit a transitional industry betweenthe Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic(Ginter et al 1996). Geological analysis by Ferrierand Laville (1992) indicated a colluvial origin of

Figure 19.3. Drawing of complete south profile at Kebara. The Middle Paleolithic deposits are localized in the right-hand side of

the profile (Units VII and VI). Unit V, on the other hand is a combination of reworked Middle Paleolithic artifacts and deposits

mixed with Upper Paleolithic elements that were reworkfrom closer to the entrance. The fine bedding

above Unit V is a product of sheetwash deposition.


this sloping unit, which, in turn, points to thepossibility of mixing of the artifacts (Ferrier2000). Backplotting of diagnostic MiddlePaleolithic and Upper Paleolithic artifacts(Tsanova 2006) shows the existence of two dis-tinct archaeological levels, with mixing of arti-facts within the upper layers. Therefore, theindustry within Unit VI is not uniform and mustbe considered as a mixture (Tsanova 2006). Itthus cannot be viewed as a transitional assem-blage, contrary to previous publications (e.g.,

Drobniewicz et al. 2000; Koz!owski 2000,2004; Mellars 2006).

Elsewhere, such as in westernmost Europe(France/Iberia), the focus of attention concernsthe interstratification of industries within severalsites. One of the best examples concerns theinterstratification of Châtelperronian andAurignacian levels in the sites of El Pendo inSpain (Bernaldo de Quiros 1982), and Roc deCombe (Bordes and Labrot 1967), Le Piage(Champagne and Espitalié 1981), and Grotte des

Figure 19.4. Profile at the cave of Geißenklösterle, Germany. The plastered blocks are the locations of micromorphology sam-

ples of which 48-259 spans the contact between the Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic levels. In the field, this contact

is scarcely visible – if at all – but is plain in impregnated blocks and thin sections that span the boundary (cf. Figure 19.5).

Otherwise, much of the deposit in this part of the cave consists of reddish clay with limestone éboulis.

437

Fées at Châtelperron (Delporte 1955) in France.These sites were considered to provide the evi-dence for the contemporaneity of theAurignacian (Homo sapiens sapiens) with theChâtelperronian (Neanderthal), thus supportingthe hypothesis of acculturation (Demars 1990;Demars and Hublin 1989; Hublin 1990; Mellars1989, 1996; Mellars and Stringer 1989).

Recent fieldwork and analysis of the strati-graphic and taphonomic aspects of the lithics(vertical distribution of the culturally diagnosticpieces), as well as the distribution of lithic indica-tors of postdepositional processes (e.g., edge dam-age, surface weathering), show that suchinterbedding of industries has no archaeologicalreality (Bordes 2003; Zilhao et al. 2006) as waspreviously thought from older excavations. At LePiage, for example, a localized Châtel perronianlens within the Aurignacian is part of a slopedeposit that has mixed Châtelperronian,Aurignacian, and Mous terian artifacts (Bordes2002, 2003). One sees a similar mixing of depositsat Roc de Combe in the area (in front of the roofcollapse) where the interstratified archeologicalunits, not recognized during the excavations butconstructed post-facto, were supposed to be local-ized (Bordes 2002, 2003). Most recently, the studyof the eponymous site of Châtelperron revealedthat the original contents of Layer B of Delportewere not entirely in situ (Zilhão et al 2006). Theseauthors conclude that at all these sites, the inter-stratification of Aurignacian and Châtel perronianis a result of postdepositional disturbance by natu-ral processes or mistakes made during the originalarchaeological excavations. Thus, close inspectionof the geological and archaeological data and con-text weaken the argument for the classical inter-pretation of acculturation.

Finally, the same approaches must beapplied in order to understand the contextual

setting of the Châtelperronian assemblages,including those that were excavated long ago, oreven that no longer exist. Rigaud (1996) raisedthe issue of the integrity of the Châtelperronianin certain sites, with the presence of MiddlePaleolithic diagnostic pieces possibly being aresult of erosion of underlying Middle Paleolithicdeposits. Such scrutiny now needs to be system-atically applied (Lucas et al. 2003), especially toimportant sites, such as Arcy-sur-Cure and Saint-Césaire, where Neanderthal remains are strati-graphically associated with Châtelperronianremains. The homogeneity of the Saint-Césaire

Geoarchaeology, Site Formation, and Transitions

Figure 19.5. Macroscan in cross-polarized light of thin section

48-259/3.3 from the upper part of the plastered block shown

in Figure 19.4. Visible in this view are the dark phosphatized

clayey sediments of the Middle Paleolithic deposits that are

overlain with sharp contact (indicated by the arrow) at the top

by light colored, fresh, carbonate-rich silty deposits (loess).

Note that there is virtually no mixing of lighter- and darker-

colored sediment. Width of photograph is 90 mm.


Châtelperronian assemblages, which containMousterian tool forms together with backedpoints and blade technology, has been recentlycalled into question (Lucas et al. 2003) based oninformation presented by Guilbaud et al. 1994.According to this report, a spatial segregation ofMousterian and Upper Paleolithic objects hasbeen recognized even if no stratigraphic differen-tiation has been possible in the field. The authorsacknowledged “this view, however, cannot ruleout the possibility that the materials were deposit-ed sequentially in time.” Only fine-scale researchsuch as that described previously (vertical distri-bution of refits, spatial and stratigraphic distribu-tions of culturally diagnostic tools; Bordes 2000)will resolve this kind of problem, especially in thecase of cultural changes taking place in a homo-geneous sediment. Preliminary results have beenrecently presented (Hublin et al. 2006) that con-firm the clear association between Neanderthalremains and the Châtelperronian assemblages inboth Arcy-sur-Cure and Saint-Césaire.

Concluding RemarksTransitional industries do exist in a certain num-ber of regions and sites. Nevertheless, in light ofthe above, many so-called transitional levels are,in fact, a result of postdepositional processes, andone is obliged to be cognizant of site formationprocesses in interpreting transitional industries,not only in understanding sites currently beingexcavated but also in reevaluating assemblagesfrom sites previously excavated, which may nolonger exist or can be rechecked.

For sites currently in excavation, all analyti-cal approaches must be taken to comprehendsite formation processes. This includes closescrutiny of the stratigraphy and microstratigra-phy, and lateral and vertical continuity of strati-graphic units to discern both depositional

dynamics, as well as postdepositional processes.Energies and environments of deposition (e.g.,mudflows versus sheetflow) can affect artifactintegrity to different degrees. Similarly, synde-positional processes (trampling by humans andother animals) and postdepositional processes,such as bioturbation, weathering, and diagene-sis, can strongly modify the occurrence and con-text of the archaeological record. Evaluation ofsuch processes must also be undertaken byanalyses in the laboratory (e.g., micromorpholo-gy, mineralogical and elemental analyses usingXRD, FTIR, and microprobe).

These geological analyses allow us to ascer-tain whether the context is favorable or not forpreserving the integrity of a given assemblage.(This also applies to the context of samples usedin dating, which can come from compromisedlocations). In any case, this approach should bean initial step and integral part of any modernexcavation.

Geoarchaeological approaches must be com-plemented with contextual analysis of lithic arti-facts. Unlike geological strategies, which are morepertinent to actual excavations, lithic analyses canbe applied to past excavations and are often theonly means available to evaluate the reality of atransitional industry. Even though they have beenpracticed for a long time, lithic studies, such asthe vertical distribution of refits, are not often car-ried out, because they are time consuming.Nevertheless, the examples cited above demon-strate their indubitable necessity.

AcknowledgmentsWe warmly acknowledge the following individu-als for help and information supplied in thispaper: Ofer Bar-Yosef, Nicholas Conard, andChris Miller.


ReferencesBar-Yosef, O.

1982 Some remarks on the nature of transitions in prehistory. In The Transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the

Origin of Modern Man, edited by A. Ronen, pp. 28–33. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 151,

Oxford.

1996 The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition: A view from the Eastern Mediterranean. In The Last Neandertals, The First

Anatomically Modern Humans: Cultural Change and Human Evolution, The Crisis at 40 ka B.P., edited by E. Carbonell and

M. Vaquero, pp. 79–94. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

Bar-Yosef, O., M. Arnold, N. Mercier, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, R. Housley, H. Laville, L. Meignen, J. C. Vogel, and B.

Vandermeersch

1996 The dating of the Upper Paleolithic Layers in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science

23:297–306.

Bar-Yosef, O., and B. Vandermeersch

1971 The stratigraphical and cultural problems of the passage from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Palestinian caves. In

The Origin of Homo Sapiens, pp. 221–225. Ecology and Conservation 3. UNESCO, Paris.

Bar-Yosef, O., B. Vandermeersch, B. Arensburg, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, L. Meignen, Y. Rak, J. D. Speth, E.

Tchernov, A.-M. Tillier, and S. Weiner

1992 The Excavation in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology 33(5):497–550.

Bernaldo de Quiros, F.

1982 Los Inicios del aleolítico Superior Cantábrico. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Madrid.

Bordes, F., and J. Labrot

1967 La stratigraphie du gisement de Roc-de-Combe et ses implications. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 64,

Etudes et Travaux 1:15–28.

Bordes, J. G.

2000 La séquence aurignacienne de Caminade revisitée: L’apport des raccords d’intérêt stratigraphique. Paléo

12:387–407.

2002 Les interstratifications Chatelperronien/Aurignacien du Roc-de-Combe et du Piage (Lot, France): Analyse

taphonomique des industries lithiques; Implications archéologiques. Doctorat, Université Bordeaux I.

2003 Lithic taphonomy of the Châtelperronian/Aurignacian interstratifications in Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot,

France). In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural

Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico, pp. 223–246. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de

Arqueologia, Lisboa.

Cahen, D., C. Karlin, H. Keeley, and F. Van Noten

1980 Méthodes d’analyse technique, spatiale et fonctionnelle d’ensembles lithiques. Helinium 20:209–259.

Cahen, D., and J. Moeyersons

1977 Subsurface movements of stone artifacts and their implications for the prehistory of Central Africa. Nature

266:812–815.

Champagne, F., and R. Espitalié

1981 Le Piage, site préhistorique du Lot. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française 15. Société Préhistorique Française,

Paris.


Conard, N. J., and M. Bolus

2003 Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results

and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44: 331–371.

Conard, N., M. Bolus, P. Goldberg, and S. C. Münzel

2006 The last Neanderthals and first Modern Humans in the Swabian Jura. In When Neanderthals and Modern Humans

Met, edited by N. Conard, pp. 305–341. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.

Conard, N. J., G. Dippon, and P. Goldberg

2004 Chronostratigraphy and Archeological Context of the Aurignacian Deposits at Geißenklösterle. In The Chronology of

the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhão

and F. d’Errico, pp. 165–176. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP, Liège.

Copeland, L.

1975 The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria, in the light of recent research. In Problems in Prehistory of

North-Africa and Levant, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Marks, pp. 317–350. Southern Methodist University Press,

Dallas.

Courty, M.-A., P. Goldberg, and R. I. Macphail

1989 Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Delporte, H.

1955 Les fouilles des grottes paléolithiques de Châtelperron (Allier). Gallia 13:79–84.

Demars, P. Y.

1990 Les interstratifications entre Aurignacien et Châtelperronien à Roc-de-Combe et au Piage (Lot): Approvisionnement

en matières premières et position chronologique. In Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en

Europe, edited by C. Farizy, pp. 235–240. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France 3. APRAIF, Nemours.

Demars, P. Y., and J. J. Hublin

1989 La transition Néandertaliens/hommes de type moderne en Europe occidentale: Aspects paléontologiques et cul-

turels. In L’ Homme de Néandertal: L’extinction 7, edited by M. Otte, pp. 23–27. ERAUL, Liège.

Dibble, H., P. Chase, S. McPherron, and A. Tuffreau

1997 Testing the reality of a “living floor” with archaeological data. American Antiquity 62:629–651.

Drobniewicz, B., B. Ginter, B. Kazior, and J. Koz!owski

2000 “Transitional” industry from Layer VI, Trench TD-II., In Temnata Cave: Excavations in Karlukovo Karst Area, Bulgaria,

vol. 2.1, edited by B. Ginter, J. Koz!owski, J.-L. Guadelli, and H. Laville, pp. 243–332. Jagellonian University Press,

Krakow.

Ferrier, C.

2000 Corrélations stratigraphiques des sédiments interpléniglaciaires. In Temnata Cave: Excavations in Karlukovo Karst Area,

Bulgaria, vol. 2.2.1, edited by B. Ginter, J. Koz!owski, J.-L. Guadelli, and H. Laville, pp. 31–36. Jagellonian University,

Krakow.

Ferrier, C., and H. Laville

1992 Stratigraphie des dépôts de la grotte de Temnata. In Temnata Cave. Excavation in Karlukovo Karst Area, Bulgaria, vol.

1.1, edited by B. Ginter, J. Koz!owski, J.-L. Guadelli, and H. Laville, pp. 32–48. Jagellonian Unviversity Press,

Krakow.


Garrod, D.

1951 A transitional industry from the base of the Upper Paleolithic in Palestine and Syria. Journal of Royal Anthropological

Institute 81:121–129.

1954 Excavations at the Mugharet Kebara, Mount Carmel, 1931: The Aurignacian Industries. The Prehistoric Society

6:155–192.

1955 The Mugharet el-Emireh in Lower Galilee: Type-Station of the Emiran Industry. Journal of Royal Anthropological

Institute 85:144–162.

Ginter, B., J. K. Koz!owski, H. Laville, N. Sirakov, and R. E. M. Hedges

1996 Transition in the Balkans: news from the Temnata Cave, Bulgaria. In The Last Neandertals, The First Anatomically

Modern Humans: Cultural Change and Human Evolution, The Crisis at 40 000 BP, edited by E. Carbonell and M.

Vaquero, pp. 169–200. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Goldberg, P., and O. Bar-Yosef

1998 Site formation processes in Kebara and Hayonim Caves and their significance in Levantine prehistoric caves. In

Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, edited by T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 107–125.

Plenum, New York.

Goldberg, P., H. Laville, and L. Meignen

2007 Stratigraphy and geoarchaeological history of Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel. In Kebara Cave, Vo. 2, edited by O. Bar-

Yosef and L. Meignen, pp. 49–89. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Goldberg, P., and R. I. Macphail

2006 Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.

Hublin, J. J.

1990 Les peuplements paléolithiques de l’Europe: Un point de vue paléobiogéographique. In Paléolithique moyen récent et

Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe, vol. 3, Mémoires du Musée de préhistoire d’ Ile-de-France, edited by C. Farizy, pp.

29–37. APRAIF, Nemours.

Hublin, J. J., M. Soressi, and S. E. Bailey

2006 Spatial analysis of human remains from the Châtelperronian layers at Arcy-sur-Cure and Saint-Césaire (France).

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Abstracts of the

Paleoanthropology Society Meetings. Journal of the Paleoanthropology Society April:A98.

Karkanas, P., O. Bar-Yosef, P. Goldberg, and S. Weiner

2000 Diagenesis in prehistoric caves: The use of minerals that form in situ to assess the completeness of the archaeologi-

cal record. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:915–929.

Koz!owski, J.

2000 The problem of cultural continuity between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic in central and eastern Europe. In

The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and

D. Pilbeam, pp. 77–105. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University, Cambridge.

2004 Early Upper Paleolithic Levallois-derived industries in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin. Anthropologie

12(3):263–280.


Laville, H., and P. Goldberg

1989 The collapse of the Mousterian regime and the beginnings of the Upper Palaeolithic in Kebara Cave, Mount

Carmel. In Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 75–95.

British Archaeological Reports, International Series 497, Oxford.

Lucas, G., J. P. Rigaud, J. F. Simek, and M. Soressi

2003 The Châtelperronian of Grotte XVI, Cénac-et-Saint-Julien (Dordogne, France). In The Chronology of the Aurignacian

and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico,

pp. 289–300. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

Marks, A. E.

1983 The sites of Boker Tachtit and Boker: A brief introduction. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,

Israel, edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 15–37. Department of Anthropology, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man,

Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Mellars, P.

1989 Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. Current Anthropology 30(3):349–385.

1996 Models for the dispersal of anatomically modern populations across Europe: Theoretical and archaeological per-

spectives. In The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, edited by O. Bar-Yosef, L. Cavalli-Sforza, R. March, and M. Piperno,

pp. 225–235. Abaco Edizioni, Forli.

2006 Neandertals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432:461–465.

Mellars, P., and C. Stringer

1989 The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University

Press, Edinburgh.

Neuville, R.

1934 Le Préhistorique de Palestine. Revue Biblique 43:237–259.

Petraglia, M. D.

1992 Stone artefact refitting and formation processes at the abri Dufaure, an Upper Palaeolithic site in south-west

France. In Piecing Together the Past: Application of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J. L. Hofman and J. G.

Enloe, pp. 163–178. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 578, Oxford.

Rigaud, J. P.

1996 L’émergence du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe occidentale. Le rôle du Castelperronien. In The Origin of Modern

Man (colloquium X), XIII° Congress of UISPP, edited by O. Bar-Yosef, L. Cavalli-Sforza, R. March, and M. Piperno, pp.

219–223. ABACO Edizioni, Forli.

Tixier, J.

1978 Notice sur les travaux scientifiques. Doctoral Thesis, Université Paris X.

Tsanova, T.

2006 Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans les Balkans. Réflexion à partir des études taphonomiques et techno-

économiques des ensembles lithiques des sites de Bacho-Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couche VI et couche 4) et

Kozarnika (niveau VII). Doctoral Thesis, Université Bordeaux I.

Villa, P.

1982 Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47:276–290.


Weiner, S., P. Goldberg, and O. Bar-Yosef

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.

Zilhão, J.

2006a Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenea: Revista de

Prehistoria i Antiguitat de la Mediterrania Occidental, Journal of Western Mediterranean Prehistory and Antiquity 37:7–84.

2006b Aurignacian, behavior, modern. Issues of definition in modern human origins research. In Towards a Definition of

the Aurignacian, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilhao, pp. 53–69. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of

Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Zilhao, J., and F. d’Errico

2003 The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In The Chronology of the

Aurignacian and Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F.

d’Errico, pp. 313–349. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

Zilhao, J., F. d’Errico, J. G. Bordes, A. Lenoble, A. Texier, and J. P. Rigaud

2006 Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the Chatelperronian-type site and implications for the behavioral

modernity of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103:12643–12648.

Geoarchaeology, Site Formation, and Transitions.

Documents

Transcript of Geoarchaeology, Site Formation, and Transitions.