What is a transitional industry? The Uluzzian of southern Italy as a case study more

What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study Julien Riel-Salvatore Abstract While the Uluzzian is one of the most widely known ‘transitional’ industries documented at the beginning of the European Upper Paleolithic, little is known about it beyond its typological characteristics. Despite this, it continues to be cited alongside the Szeletian and Chatelperronian indusˆ tries as evidence for the behavior of the last Neanderthals resulting from their acculturation by modern humans bearing Aurignacian technology. This paper presents a comprehensive summary of the available data on the suites of behaviors embodied by the Uluzzian as well as some new data gleaned from key Uluzzian assemblages that permit an empirical assessment of these behaviors. It closes with a discussion of whether this evidence agrees with the meaning of the term ‘transitional industry’ in the context of the debate over Neanderthal acculturation by modern humans. It is concluded that continued use of this term is misleading, as it inappropriately implies the existence of sociocultural processes unlikely to be reflected by the Uluzzian as an industry. Keywords Uluzzian  Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition  Italy  Neanderthals  Modern humans  Transitional industry  Acculturation J. Riel-Salvatore (*) Department of Anthropology, Leacock Building, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Along with the Franco-Cantabrian Chatelperroˆ nian and the Szeletian of Eastern Europe, the Uluzzian is among the best known industries claimed to document an adaptation intermediate between those of the late Middle and early Upper Paleolithic. In no small part, this has to do with the comparatively long history of the Uluzzian as an analytical unit relative to that of many other comparable technocomplexes (Djindjian et al. 2003; Kozlowski 2004). First recognized in the early 1960s at the site of Grotta del Cavallo in the southern Italian region of Puglia (Palma di Cesnola 1966, 1967, 1993), the Uluzzian quickly became one of the ‘big three’ transitional industries, mentioned repeatedly alongside the Chatelperronian and ˆ Szeletian as evidence for the last behavioral manifestations of a Middle Paleolithic mindset and for increasing cultural regionalism at that moment of the Late Pleistocene (d’Errico et al. 1998). Given its relevance to the debate surrounding the disappearance of Mousterian technology (usually taken, by extension, to mean the disappearance of Neanderthals), it is worth examining how much we truly know about the Uluzzian. This is because most of our knowledge is derived from site reports— some close to half a century old—that emphasized typological description of lithic assemblages and gave only nominal attention to contextual data such as absolute chronology, paleoecology, and sedimentary environment. Accepted wisdom on the Uluzzian depicts it as a flake-based industry, with few Upper Paleolithic tools, that was made by Neanderthals acculturated by modern humans bearing proto-Aurignacian technology (e.g., Gioia 1988, 1990; Mussi 1990, 2001; Palma di Cesnola 377 M. Camps, P. Chauhan (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_25, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009 378 J. Riel-Salvatore 1989, 1993, 2004). In reality, the situation is considerably more complex and nuanced (RielSalvatore 2007). The label ‘transitional’ for the multiple lithic industries documented at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic has been argued to be a useful shorthand descriptor for those diverse but roughly contemporaneous industries, one that can be detached from any implicit meaning (Kuhn 2003; Bar-Yosef 2006a, 2006b). However, because industries lumped under the heading ‘transitional’ continue to be taken by some specifically as evidence for the acculturation of Neanderthals by modern humans (e.g., Mellars 2004, 2005, 2006), it is important to critically examine whether they correspond to what an acculturated Neanderthal industry should look like. While there are other definitions of transitional industries (see e.g., papers in Zilhao and d’Errico ˜ [2003] and Brantingham et al. [2004]), this paper focuses explicitly on the notion of a transitional industry as seen from the acculturation perspective (e.g., Mellars 2004, 2005). From this perspective, transitional industries are seen as amalgams of Mousterian and ‘modern human’ (usually taken as meaning Aurignacian) technology created by the last European Neanderthals. Their technological innovations are seen as the result of ‘contact, interaction, copying, or technology transfer between the two populations’ (Mellars 1999, 348). While it nominally acknowledges that culture contact is usually a two-way relationship, however, the acculturation perspective sees information as having flowed one way, from modern humans to Neanderthals—a view allegedly supported by the interactions of Native Americans and Australian Aborigines with European colonists during the Renaissance (Mellars 1989, 1999, 2005). In sum, the acculturation perspective sees transitional industries as fundamentally Epi-Middle Paleolithic phenomena expressing predominantly Mousterian behavioral poses enhanced slightly by a few select ‘modern’ behaviors. The implication of their disappearance in face of the supposedly widely cohesive behavior of modern humans—as exemplified by the Aurignacian (Mellars 2006; cf. Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2005, 2005–2006; Straus 2003, 2007)—is that, despite these minor adjustments, in the long term Neanderthal behavior remained suboptimal relative to that of modern humans, who eventually displaced them through a variety of mechanisms (displacement, competition, genetic swamping, etc.). On a technological level, a relatively straightforward implication from the acculturation perspective on transitional industries is that they should have clear links to that of the regional Mousterian facies that precede them stratigraphically. This has been argued to be the case with the Chatelperronian indusˆ try, which has relatively clear antecedents in the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (e.g., Mellars 1999, 2005), although it is unclear whether its distinctive features can truly be argued to be the result of copying Aurignacian technology (d’Errico et al. 1998; Pelegrin 1995). Regardless, the presence of technological features akin to those documented in the local Mousterian in various transitional industries has been used to make the case that acculturation of Neanderthals by modern humans was a widespread phenomenon during the interval usually referred to as the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition. The Technotypology of the Uluzzian Due to the predominance of the typological substrate in Uluzzian assemblages (Palma di Cesnola 1966, 1967, 1989, 1993), it has been claimed that they display striking similarities with the Late Mousterian of the region, thus paralleling the MTA-Chatelperronian link in southwest France ˆ (Gioia 1988, 1990; Mussi 1990, 2001). However, the classic Levallois technology that dominates the Late Mousterian of Grotta di Castelcivita is altogether absent in the Uluzzian levels that overlay it (Gambassini 1997a), indicating that blank production strategies may differ greatly between the two industries, a fact that typological analysis alone cannot capture. However, a recent reanalysis of the majority of recovered Uluzzian material (i.e., Riel-Salvatore 2007) permits a better understanding of all facets of Uluzzian technological organization and, in turn, an objective assessment of whether the main postulate of the acculturation model is valid for the Uluzzian. As concerns its typology, the Uluzzian has traditionally been defined by a prevalence of Mousterian What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study Fig. 1 Lunates (from Grotta del Cavallo, Level E III). Scale-bar = 5 cm 379 tool types (sidescrapers, denticulates, notches), an abundance of splintered pieces (pie`ces esquille´es in French, or pezzi scagliati in Italian), and small numbers of Upper Paleolithic tools—mainly endscrapers but almost no burins. The fossiles directeurs of the industry are crescent-shaped geometric microliths usually referred to as lunates (semi-lune in Italian), although they are proportionally very scarce relative to all other tool types (Fig. 1). Table 1 summarizes the frequencies of the main artifact classes in Uluzzian assemblages, as represented by the main ‘typological groups’ in the analytical typology of Laplace (1964, 1966), with splintered pieces (i.e., pie`ces esquille´es) added as an extra artifact class (following Palma di Cesnola 1989). These data come only from stratified Uluzzian Table 1 Typological characteristics of stratified Uluzzian assemblages in % Castelcivita RSI PIE RPI RSA Burins Endscrapers Truncations Piercers Backed points Backed blades Backed truncations Geometrics Retouched blades Sidescrapers Abruptly retouched pieces Denticulates Splintered pieces N Cores Debitage 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 30.0 35.0 20 6 85 1.0 3.9 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 28.2 1.0 21.4 35.0 103 4 192 0.0 2.9 1.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.4 0.5 14.3 1.9 19.0 54.8 210 31 926 1.6 3.4 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.2 1.6 13.6 2.5 24.0 49.8 442 35 1160 Cavallo E III 0.5 16.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 33.9 0.6 8.4 35.1 986 nd E II-I 0.1 2.8 1.6 0.5 2.6 3.1 0.4 3.4 1.7 8.0 1.6 4.7 69.4 762 nd E-D 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.0 4.9 2.2 2.2 8.2 7.1 13.7 2.7 9.3 47.5 183 nd D 1.0 4.6 2.0 0.7 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.6 5.9 14.8 2.3 31.9 30.3 304 nd 380 Table 1 (continued) Mario Bernardini A IV A III Burins Endscrapers Truncations Piercers Backed points Backed blades Backed truncations Geometrics Retouched blades Sidescrapers Abruptly retouched pcs. Denticulates Splintered pieces N Cores Debitage 14.9 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 36.2 21.3 0.0 94 13 389 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 38.5 38.5 0.0 13 0 28 A II-I 14.9 19.1 6.4 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.0 2.1 12.8 6.4 6.4 19.1 8.5 47 2 103 Uluzzo C D C 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 12.5 50.0 18.8 0.0 16 35 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 22.2 33.3 0.0 11.1 9 21 Uluzzo N 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 47.1 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 4 247 Serra Cicora A D C 5.0 4.1 3.2 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.3 28.6 0.0 51.6 3.5 343 2 901 J. Riel-Salvatore La Cala 14 3.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.0 29.1 0.0 26.1 33.6 134 21 nd 7.6 8.2 3.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 29.7 0.0 38.0 4.4 158 10 602 assemblages whose stratigraphic context is secure (see discussion in Riel-Salvatore 2007). Technologically, the Uluzzian has been described as a flake-based industry based on ad hoc core preparation (Gambassini 1997a; Palma di Cesnola 1989, 1993). There is also a high incidence of bipolar reduction in Uluzzian assemblages, as demonstrated by the presence of numerous splintered pieces and ‘anvil’ stones bearing characteristic pitted depressions in the center (Le Brun-Ricalens 1989) (Fig. 2). A recent reanalysis of extant Uluzzian collections suggest that splintered pieces have been systematically underreported in the assemblages from Grotta Mario Bernardini and Grotta di Uluzzo, where they account for 23–61% of retouched pieces of those comparatively small lithic assemblages, despite having published frequencies of 0–11% (Riel-Salvatore 2007, 42, Table 2.4). This reanalysis was undertaken after the assemblages from Grotta del Cavallo had been studied (and where splintered piece frequencies match those from published accounts), ensuring that the same criteria were used to identify splintered pieces across all assemblages. Since the assemblages from Uluzzo and Mario Bernardini were analyzed by the same team that analyzed the collections from Serra Cicora A and Uluzzo C (Borzatti von Lowenstern, ¨ 1965, 1966; Spennato 1981), it is likely that splintered piece frequencies are underestimated in those assemblages as well. In sum, it appears that splintered pieces account for an important fraction of all Uluzzian assemblages, and that denticulates, sidescrapers, and miscellaneous retouched pieces account for the bulk of the rest of the ‘tools’ associated with the industry (Palma di Cesnola 1989; Riel-Salvatore 2007). This Fig. 2 Splintered pieces from Grotta del Cavallo. Scale-bar = 5 cm What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 381 is an important observation in that it establishes that stratified Uluzzian assemblages are defined by an important dependence on bipolar technology, a feature that clearly distinguishes them from both the Mousterian and the proto-Aurignacian (Palma di Cesnola 1993). Most discussions of the technological significance of splintered pieces have revolved around whether they were used as wedges to groove/splinter hard tissue (e.g., bone, antler, wood) or as a reduction method to maximize the utility of raw material packages (Hayden 1980; Le Brun-Ricalens 1989; Shott 1999). As concerns the Uluzzian, there have been no experimental studies to determine the way in which these implements were produced, although Mussi (2001, 169–170) hypothesizes that they most likely represent ‘the outcome of indirect percussion of bone or wood’ (i.e., wedges). While it is difficult to test the ‘wedge’ hypothesis without use-wear studies (cf. Villa et al. 2005), the ‘exhausted core’ hypothesis is more amenable to testing based on splintered piece frequency. If splintered pieces were employed to extract the greatest possible amount of blanks from nodules of prized raw material, the frequency of such lithotypes should be correlated to the incidence of splintered pieces in an assemblage. In such a context, it can further be assumed that fine-grained lithotypes will be the most prized ones. The frequency of splintered pieces and the importance of fine-grained lithotypes in the assemblages from Castelcivita, Cavallo, Mario Bernardini, and Uluzzo are presented in Table 2. There are only weak and statistically insignificant relationships between the frequency of splintered pieces and the incidence of finegrained raw material used to manufacture retouched pieces (r = –0.29, N = 12, p = 0.37) and that of splintered pieces (r = 0.29, N = 12, p = 0.35). In contrast, there is a significant relationship between the frequency of splintered pieces and the incidence of fine-grained raw material in Uluzzian assemblage as a whole (r = 0.74, N = 8, p = 0.04). This leads to an apparent paradox: One the one hand, this pattern might be interpreted as showing that, in the Uluzzian, bipolar reduction was used to produce a maximum number of blanks from nodules of fine-grained raw materials. On the other, the fact that the incidence of splintered pieces is not correlated with the frequency of fine-grained raw material in retouched pieces might be taken to imply that curation of that resource did not necessarily follow from the desire to produce as many blanks as possible from it. That is, in some contexts, Uluzzian toolmakers seem to have wanted to produce many blanks of fine-grained raw material without in turn curating them very heavily, if at all. These apparently contradictory conclusions can be reconciled by an approach to bipolar technology that eschews the ‘wedge vs. core’ perspective and that is based on the archaeology and early ethnographic record of Australian Aborigines. In some of these contexts, bipolar technology was used to produce small, sharp pieces of stone of unstandardized morphology that were hafted as ad hoc armatures in weapons termed ‘death spears’ that could be used in both hunting and warfare (Mitchell 1959, 197; Table 2 Frequencies of splintered pieces within retouched stone tool assemblages relative to the frequency of fine-grained raw material in various categories of chipped stone Site Level % splintered pcs % FG whole % FG tools FG splintered pcs Casteclcivita RSI PIE RPI RSA E III E II-I E-D D N A IV A III A II-I 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.50 0.35 0.69 0.48 0.30 0.61 0.38 0.24 0.23 0.58 0.72 0.92 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.84 0.10 0.05 0.44 0.64 0.54 0.85 0.81 0.22 0.72 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.11 0.39 1.00 0.58 0.72 0.92 0.90 0.36 0.63 0.95 0.80 0.78 0.88 0.00 1.00 Cavallo Uluzzo Mario Bernardini 382 J. Riel-Salvatore Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 292–293; Noone 1949, 112, Figure 1i; Worsnop 1897, 127–128, Plate 63:4). In these cases, the ‘splinters’ were the desired end-product of bipolar reduction manifested archaeologically by the presence of splintered pieces; and they were not curated, despite being essential to death spear functionality. It must be emphasized that this strategy was also often a response to peculiar raw material constraints and decreases in overall mobility, that is to say more lengthy occupation of base camps and the adoption of more logistical land-use strategies (see Attenbrow 2004 and references therein). Given that broadly comparable parameters appear to characterize at least the beginning phases of the Uluzzian, however, it is warranted to explore whether this analog might prove useful to resolve at least some of the interpretive ambiguity linked to the role of bipolar reduction in Uluzzian technological organization. As discussed above, most Uluzzian assemblages show reduction strategies designed to produce blanks of fine-grained stone, despite these blanks not being retouched or curated to any significant degree. This pattern is consistent with the purposeful production of sharp pieces of stone that could have been used as ad hoc insets in composite weapons. While this interpretation is tantalizing, it remains to be tested by future, in-depth examinations of Uluzzian splinters and debitage. However, even if it is only partially correct, this interpretation would also explain why formal insets (i.e., Uluzzian lunates) are so rare in Uluzzian assemblages despite the advantages provided by multicomponent technology in resource acquisition (see Table 1). In this case, lunates would have represented only one comparatively minor way of manufacturing projectile weapons in the broader context of Uluzzian multicomponent weaponry (Riel-Salvatore 2007). Turning to patterns of blank production, the Uluzzian is usually described as a mainly flakebased industry (Palma di Cesnola 1993), although no quantitative treatment of this dimension of Uluzzian technology has so far been published. The types of blank produced by Uluzzian toolmakers include flakes, laminar flakes (i.e., flakes at least twice as long as they are wide but lacking parallel dorsal ridges), blades, bladelets, splintered pieces, crested blades, and technologically undiagnostic pieces referred to as ‘chunks.’ Uluzzian assemblages from the Salento also contain a large number of pieces made on siliceous limestone slabs (liste), especially in the lower levels of Cavallo and Mario Bernardini. Since these are not bona fide technological elements, however, they mask the true importance of various blank production strategies and they are excluded from consideration here, which deflates the total number of pieces in those assemblages but renders them directly comparable to those from Castelcivita (see Riel-Salvatore [2007] for full discussion). The frequencies of the various kinds of blanks retouched into formal ‘tools’ by Uluzzian toolmakers are presented in Table 3. These data are Table 3 Blank selection among retouched pieces for Uluzzian and Late Mousterian (Bernardini A V-VII) assemblages Site Level Flake Lam. Flake Blade Bldlt. Crest Blade Chunk Splint. pc. N Mario Bernardini A I-II A III A IV A V-VII RSI PIE RPI RSA N E III E II-I E-D D 0.68 0.40 0.22 0.92 0.80 0.49 0.66 0.49 0.52 0.60 0.81 0.76 0.63 – – – – – 0.02 0.03 0.05 – 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.30 0.06 – 0.10 – 0.03 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.17 – – – – – – – – – 0.02 – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.61 0.08 0.10 0.46 0.27 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.17 0.08 – 0.11 – – 0.04 0.03 0.09 – 0.03 0.02 – – 25 10 18 24 10 57 79 108 23 180 182 89 172 Castelcivita Uluzzo C Cavallo What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 383 Table 4 Blank selection among unretouched debitage for Uluzzian and Late Mousterian (Bernardini A V-VII) assemblages Site Level Flake Lam. flake Blade Crest blade Chunk N Mario Bernardini A I-II A III A IV A V-VII RSI PIE RPI RSA N 0.68 0.40 0.22 0.92 0.80 0.49 0.66 0.49 0.52 – – – – – 0.02 0.03 0.05 – 0.16 0.30 0.06 – 0.10 – 0.03 0.05 0.43 – – – – – – – – – 0.08 0.30 0.61 0.08 0.10 0.46 0.27 0.32 0.04 25 10 18 24 10 57 79 108 23 Castelcivita Uluzzo C consistent with Uluzzian tools being made prevalently on flake blanks, but they also highlight the importance of chunks (i.e., pieces with no welldefined striking platform and/or ventral surface) as retouched blanks. The importance of ‘chunks’ as retouched blanks may reflect the high incidence of bipolar technology in the Uluzzian, since this reduction strategy tends to obliterate striking platforms and results in ‘sheared’ ventral surfaces (Hayden 1980). A noteworthy pattern is that flake blanks are less important in the Uluzzian than in the reference Late Mousterian assemblage from Mario Bernardini (i.e., Level A V–VII). Although these data are admittedly few, they suggest that Uluzzian toolmakers employed a wider range of blank production strategies than in the Mousterian. Comparative data on unretouched pieces are only available for Mario Bernardini, Uluzzo, and Castelcivita, since the debitage from Cavallo was unavailable for study (Table 4). In this case, too, flakes dominate, but chunks are proportionally more important than for retouched pieces. This suggests that in the Uluzzian, flakes and complete pieces were preferred for retouch. As well, blades are found as retouched implements more frequently than in unretouched debitage. This is consistent with the pattern highlighted for flakes and chunks, and suggests that Uluzzian toolmakers preferentially selected complete, regular blanks for retouch. Given their distinct production strategy, splintered pieces were analyzed separately from both retouched tools and unretouched debitage (Table 5). The general pattern of blank selection among retouched tools holds for splintered pieces, with flakes and blades being preferentially reduced bipolarly. Liste also appear to have been selected for bipolar reduction, especially in ‘archaic’ Uluzzian assemblages (Riel-Salvatore 2007, 46, Table 2.8b). The main difference in blank selection between retouched and splintered pieces is that chunks are much more numerous among the latter. This again probably reflects the nature of bipolar reduction, which tends to remove diagnostic landmarks from flakes and blades. In fact, it is to be expected that ‘chunks’ should be proportionally more important among splintered pieces, given that bipolar technology was, by definition, employed to produce them. The dominance of flakes in Uluzzian debitage, retouched pieces, and splintered pieces lends support to the general characterization of Uluzzian cores directed at the production of flakes (Benini et al. 1997; Gambassini 1997a; Palma di Cesnola 1989, 1993). Morphological classification of core types in Uluzzian assemblages (and in the Late Mousterian of Mario Bernardini) is presented in Table 6, and also agrees with previous descriptions of Uluzzian core preparation as largely opportunistic (Gambassini 1997a; Palma di Cesnola 1989, 1993). For the purposes of this analysis, cores labeled as ‘amorphous’ show no clear organization of the striking platforms, while bipolar ones are globular in shape, with a splintered base and splintered removals from the base and the top of the core. Unidirectional cores are those cores whose removals are oriented in a single direction from the striking plane, while bidirectional cores have removals from two opposite planes, and centripetal cores have removals from three or more planes on the core surface. Discoid cores display the features 384 J. Riel-Salvatore Table 5 Blank selection among splintered pieces for Uluzzian and Late Mousterian (Bernardini A V-VII) assemblages Site Level Flake Lam. Flake Blade Crest Blade Chunk N Mario Bernardini A I-II A III A IV A V-VII RSI PIE RPI RSA N E III E II-I E-D D 0.23 – 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.41 0.30 0.54 0.75 0.43 – – – – – – – 0.02 – 0.03 – – – 0.54 – – 0.20 – – – – – 0.02 – 0.10 0.03 – – – – – – – – – – 0.01 0.05 – 0.23 1.00 0.86 0.60 0.83 0.71 0.70 0.75 0.59 0.65 0.45 0.10 0.55 13 1 22 5 6 34 109 111 22 60 133 20 40 Castelcivita Uluzzo C Cavallo Table 6 Core classification for Uluzzian assemblages in southern Italy, and for the Late Mousterian at Mario Bernardini Site Level Amorphous Bipolar Unidirectional Bidirectional Centripetal Discoid N Mario Bernardini A I-II A III A IV A VVII RSI PIE RPI RSA N E III E II-I E-D D – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.25 – – 0.33 – – – – 0.75 1.00 – 0.67 4 1 0 3 Castelcivita 0.63 0.50 0.48 0.43 – – 0.29 – – 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.17 1.00 0.33 0.21 1.00 0.40 – 0.25 0.19 0.24 – 0.33 0.04 – – – – – – – – 0.08 – 0.20 0.13 – 0.05 0.09 – – 0.21 – 0.20 – – – 0.07 – 0.33 0.17 – 0.20 8 4 21 46 1 3 24 1 5 Uluzzo C Cavallo of Middle Paleolithic discoid technology, with a lack of hierarchy between the striking surfaces (Boeda 1994, 1995; see also papers in Peresani ¨ [2003]). At Castelcivita, Cavallo, and Uluzzo, amorphous, bipolar, and unidirectional flake cores dominate the assemblage (Table 6). At Mario Bernardini, in contrast, centripetal and discoid forms dominate, perpetuating the Late Mousterian pattern of core organization. It is worth noting that it is only in the Salento that discoid cores account for >10% of Uluzzian cores. At Castelcivita, the dominance of amorphous and bipolar cores marks an especially conspicuous break with the well-developed Levallois technology documented in the underlying Mousterian levels (Gambassini 1997a). Beyond Uluzzian Typo-Technology Having established a baseline of what the Uluzzian ‘looks like,’ it must be stressed that few new data— behavioral, contextual, or chronological—have What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 385 augmented the initial studies of the Uluzzian (with the notable exception of the rich and detailed information available for Grotta di Castelcivita [Gambassini 1997b]). This is in sharp contrast with recent in-depth work on the Chatelperronian ˆ (Harrold 1978, 1989, 2000; Lucas et al. 2003; Pelegrin 1995), the Szeletian (Adams 1998, 2000, 2007; Adams and Ringer 2004; Allsworth-Jones 1986, 1990, 2000), and other transitional industries (see papers in Brantingham et al. [2004]; Riel-Salvatore and Clark [2007]; Straus [2005]; and Zilhao and ˜ d’Errico [2003]). As a result, the Uluzzian is often considered to be an ‘Italian Chatelperronian,’ with all that entails for ˆ its makers’ behavioral modernity, its chronology, and its relation to the Aurignacian (Gioia 1988, 1990; see also d’Errico et al. 1998; Mussi 2001). This tends to obscure the fact that we know relatively little about the Uluzzian behavioral package and the adaptations its technology embodies, a fact also reflected in recent publications. For example, a recent volume edited by Zilhao and d’Errico (2003) ˜ contains studies on transitional industries from throughout Eurasia, ranging from the well-known Chatelperronian (e.g., Lucas et al. 2003) to others ˆ identified only at single sites (e.g., Svendsen and Pavlov 2003). However, no chapter in this otherwise comprehensive volume deals specifically with the Uluzzian, which receives only oblique mention in a continental-scale synthesis of transitional industries (Djindjian et al. 2003). The most recent paper on the Uluzzian is a short synthesis of previous knowledge about the industry’s distribution and its tentative chronology (Palma di Cesnola 2004). A review of currently available contextual data nonetheless opens up new, nontypological avenues of research on this industry. First, in terms of its basic geography, the Uluzzian presents some interesting characteristics that have gone largely unnoticed or unaddressed in previous work (but see Kuhn and Bietti 2000). Stratified Uluzzian assemblages are only found in the southernmost third of the Italian peninsula, since Bietti and Negrino (2007; Bietti 2006) have empirically demonstrated that Grotta della Fabbrica—the only putative stratified Uluzzian assemblage in central Italy (Pitti et al. 1976)—does not actually contain an Uluzzian component. Likewise, in the absence of appropriate technotypological data to permit comparison with meridional assemblages, it is at present difficult to assess objectively whether recent claims about an Uluzzian component at Fumane (i.e., Peresani 2008) are to be taken at face value, or if these assemblages are best attributed to the Late Mousterian with backed knives documented at La Fabbrica by Bietti and Negrino (2007).While there have been recent claims for an Uluzzian assemblage at Klisoura Cave in Greece (e.g., Koumouzelis et al. 2001a, 2001b; d’Errico 2003; Kozlowski 2004, 2005; Zilhao 2006, 2007), a ˜ quantitative assessment of the typotechnological characteristics of that assemblage and the Uluzzian in Italy suggests that the two industries may not be as similar as had been claimed (Riel-Salvatore 2007; n.d. a), which restricts the industry’s geographic distribution to peninsular Italy. Italy served as a biological refugium during glacial advances throughout the Pleistocene, with all that entails in terms of ecosystem richness and diversity (Hewitt 1999, 2000; Schmitt et al. 2002; Taberlet et al. 1998; Tzedakis et al. 2002, 2004), and the peninsula was continuously occupied by hominins throughout the Middle and Late Pleistocene, even as wide stretches of Eurasia were depopulated during glacial advances (van Andel et al. 2003; Finlayson 2004, 16, 68). However, Blondel and Aronson (1999; see also Stiner 2005) have shown that during glacial advances, only central and coastal northwestern Italy maintained Mediterranean ecosystems. Thus, only those parts of the peninsula can truly be considered glacial refugia. During Late Pleistocene glacial advances, southern Italy was characterized by a much more open and arid ecological regime, as demonstrated by palynological analyses from lake cores extracted from Lago Grande di Monticchio, in Basilicata (Allen et al. 1999). These studies indicate that much of southern Italy was a cold, arid steppe, including the flat plateau of the Salento peninsula where most stratified Uluzzian sites are located. In sum, southern Italy was a marginal periphery to the central Italian Mediterranean refugium during glacial advances, with implications for the ecological diversity of the region. In addition to its restricted geographical distribution, the Uluzzian is also defined by some artifacts quite unlike those found in underlying Mousterian assemblages. Like the Chatelperronian, the ˆ 386 Fig. 3 Shell ornaments (A), bone awl (B), and ochre and limonite fragments (C) from Grotta del Cavallo. Scalebar = 5 cm J. Riel-Salvatore Uluzzian is characterized by the appearance of bone artifacts (mainly points and awls), pierced shells likely used as ornaments, and coloring materials such as ochre and limonite (Fig. 3). For example, undisputed osseous artifacts and coloring materials have been recovered from Uluzzian layers at Cavallo (Palma di Cesnola 1993), Mario Bernardini (Borzatti von Lowenstern 1970), and Uluzzo C (Borzatti von ¨ Lowenstern 1965). Bone points also were recov¨ ered in the Uluzzian levels at Castelcivita, where they are more abundant than in the overlying proto-Aurignacian levels, and features (i.e., post holes) have only been identified in that site’s Uluzzian layers (Gambassini 1997a, 121). In fact, with the exception of two fragmentary bone points and ‘numerous pierced shells’ from the proto-Aurignacian levels of La Cala (Benini et al. 1997, 51) in southern Italy, it is the Uluzzian rather than the proto-Aurignacian that has yielded most of these artifacts: Proto-Aurignacian deposits at Serino and Paglicci contain no evidence of organic technologies or ornaments, while the Serra Cicora A proto-Aurignacian deposits have produced only a single fragment of a bone awl and faint traces of ochre (Spennato 1981). The only fully published Uluzzian assemblages to have been excavated using modern methods (i.e., those from Grotta di Castelcivita) have also yielded suggestive evidence of small game exploitation, notably of several What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 387 varieties of fish and fowl (Cassoli and Tagliacozzo 1997). Additionally, in southern Italy, longdistance raw material transfers are only associated with Uluzzian assemblages (Riel-Salvatore and Negrino, 2009; see also Bietti 2006; Bietti and Negrino 2007). This is especially relevant in light of the claims of researchers who see such behaviors as hallmarks of the earliest modern humans in Europe (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2003; Kuhn and Stiner 2006; Mellars 2004, 2005). These behaviors not only have few antecedents in the southern Italian Mousterian, but they are more strongly expressed in the Uluzzian than in the proto-Aurignacian record (Riel-Salvatore and Negrino, in press). Such an observation is at odds with the acculturation model, which sees transitional industries as reflecting basically Mousterian behavior onto which have been grafted disparate elements of modern human behavior. The chronology of the Uluzzian is of paramount importance in helping establish whether ‘culture contact’ might even have been possible. So far, the Uluzzian has generally been thought to cover a span of time stretching from the end of the Wurm II–III ¨ interstadial and lasting to the Arcy interstadial in the Salento, and to the first cold phases of the Wurm ¨ III stadial in Campania (Palma di Cesnola 1993, 2004). Radiometrically, this assessment is based on radiocarbon dates from Grotta della Cala (Benini et al. 1997) and the top of the Uluzzian sequence at Grotta di Castelcivita (Gambassini 1997c), as well as on one infinite radiocarbon determination from level E II-I at Grotta del Cavallo (Palma di Cesnola 1970). Loose biochronological associations have also been derived from the macromammal assemblages of the Salentine assemblages (Palma di Cesnola 1993), and these agree with the available dates that the Uluzzian appears to fall somewhere within the transition interval. In sum, based on the available chronometric dates and on coarse-grained macrofaunal data of variable quality, the industry as a whole lasted about 10,000 years, from c. 40 kyr BP to, at the latest, 30–29 kyr BP. This is broadly supported by the available radiocarbon dates, although it must be stressed that the basal Uluzzian remains undated in Campania and, until recently, in Puglia. AMS 14C dates were recently obtained for the base of the Uluzzian deposits at Grotta del Cavallo and these push back the date of the earliest Uluzzian by about 3,000–3,500 kyr BP (Riel-Salvatore et al. 2006). Importantly, a comparative analysis of the available dates for the earliest proto-Aurignacian in northwest Italy and the earliest Uluzzian in southeastern Italy indicate that they appear during a comparable interval of climatic instability, but in opposite parts of the peninsula, all the while being separated by a zone of late-lasting Mousterian assemblages in central Italy (Riel-Salvatore 2007, Chapter 3). These observations militate against the case for acculturation through direct or indirect ‘culture contact’ and suggest that the development of the Uluzzian was independent of that of the proto-Aurignacian. Who Made the Uluzzian? The ‘behavioral modernity’ implied by some of the artifacts found in Uluzzian assemblages is linked to the thorny issue of the identity of the hominins who made it. Palma di Cesnola (1989, 1993) was the first to argue that the Uluzzian was the handiwork of Neanderthals, and that its novel features were the results of contacts with modern humans. Until recently, the only human remains found in association with Uluzzian artifacts were two deciduous molars found in layers E III (archaic Uluzzian) and E II-I (evolved Uluzzian) of Grotta del Cavallo. Originally, the first one was described as having modern human affinities while the second (and more recent) one was described as being more Neanderthal-like in morphology (Messeri and Palma di Cesnola 1976; Palma di Cesnola and Messeri 1967). While these counterintuitive results warranted caution with regards to the definitive attribution of the Uluzzian to a specific hominin population, inconvenient details have generally been disregarded and the attribution of the Uluzzian to Neanderthals remains the consensus view among prehistorians (see e.g., Palma di Cesnola 1989, 2004). While a recent reassessment of the published measurements of these teeth suggests that both fall within the range of variability of Neanderthals (Churchill and Smith 2000, 77–78), these data remain scant and were published well after the dominant view of the Uluzzian as a 388 J. Riel-Salvatore Neanderthal fact had been accepted by the vast majority of researchers interested in the question of the Transition in Italy (Mussi 1990, 2001; Palma di Cesnola 2001, 2004). In the summer of 2004, a deciduous human incisor was found associated with unpublished material from Layer E III at Grotta del Cavallo being studied by the author. Subsequent study of the tooth identified Neanderthal apomorphies and a wearpattern similar to that borne by other Neanderthal incisors. Gambassini et al. (2005) have interpreted these data as evidence reinforcing the prevalent view that the Uluzzian was manufactured by Neanderthals. However, recent debates about the reliability of taxonomic attributions based on deciduous teeth found in early Aurignacian deposits at Brassempouy underscores some of the problems associated with basing species identifications on such remains (Gambier-Henry et al. 2004; cf. Bailey and Hublin 2005). In light of this, an argument can be made that there are no unambiguously diagnostic human remains on the basis of which to attribute the Uluzzian to a specific hominin type. While BarYosef (2006a, 2006b) interprets the absence of a conclusive association between the Chatelperronian ˆ and diagnostic Neanderthal remains as likely evidence that modern humans were the makers of many transitional industries (including the Uluzzian), it is perhaps more prudent to consider the Uluzzian’s authorship unknown and thus to remain agnostic about the taxonomic designation of its makers. By considering Uluzzian toolmakers first and foremost as Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, this view provides an analytical vantage point from which to evaluate claims that have been made about their behavior based on the assumption that they were Neanderthals. Uluzzian Behavioral Ecology Importantly, this perspective encourages studying the Uluzzian as a behavioral phenomenon all its own, as opposed to one that needs to be understood in relation to either the Mousterian or the protoAurignacian. Rather than focusing on the typological distinctions of various assemblages, such an approach permits researchers to view the Uluzzian adaptive package from an explicitly nontypological perspective grounded in well-established principles of human behavioral ecology and hunter-gatherer ethnoarchaeology (Riel-Salvatore 2007). Riel-Salvatore and Barton (2004, 2007) were the first to adopt such a perspective to study some aspects of Uluzzian lithic variability, employing a ‘whole assemblage analysis’ perspective conceptually grounded in the idea that variability in retouched tools is best understood in the wider context of the cores and debitage of their assemblages (cf. Barton 1998). This method enables a quantitative assessment of lithic procurement, technological organization, and assemblage curation patterns that echo the overall mobility and land-use strategies of prehistoric foragers (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004). Applied to the Uluzzian, this method suggests that assemblages belonging to that industry pattern according to the model’s expectations, provided that due consideration be given to raw material variability (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004, 2007). This in turn implies that Uluzzian toolmakers were able to adjust the organization of their lithic technology to different conditions, the exact nature of which conditions remained somewhat unclear in those studies. Importantly, however, it showed that behavioral flexibility characterized the Uluzzian as a whole (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004, 2007). Additionally, the patterns obtained through the use of this method for the Uluzzian of Grotta Mario Bernardini suggest that Palma di Cesnola’s ‘evolutionary phases’ of the Uluzzian might represent different strategies of technological organization (Riel-Salvatore 2007; n.d. b; Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2007). Specifically, the ‘archaic Uluzzian’ displays characteristics of an expedient lithic technology, while ‘evolved’ and ‘final’ Uluzzian assemblages represent more curated forms of technological organization. An analysis of the Uluzzian lithic assemblages from Grotta del Cavallo lent strong empirical support both to observations based on ancillary lines of evidence such as raw material exploitation patterns, and to artifact-based measures of curation intensity (Riel-Salvatore, n.d. b). Lastly, a large-scale study of Uluzzian assemblages from Grotta del Cavallo, Grotta Mario Bernardini, Grotta di Uluzzo, and Grotta di Castelcivita indicates that this conclusion is supported by the lithic assemblages from other sites; and that the earliest What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 389 phases of the Uluzzian are characterized by expedient technological organization and logistical landuse strategies, which is what human behavioral ecological principles predict for the earliest phase of a new industry (Riel-Salvatore 2007). This same study shows that Uluzzian mobility, land-use, and technological organization is nonetheless quite distinctive from that of the proto-Aurignacian at the other end of the peninsula and from that of the Mousterian in both southern and northern Italy. That is, hominins seem to have become overall more mobile over the course of the Italian Early Upper Paleolithic than they had been in the Mousterian, although the patterns of mobility in northern and southern Italy clearly differ in how this mobility was organized, likely in response to distinct sets of environmental constraints operating on the hominins living in these two segments of the peninsula (Riel-Salvatore 2007). This approach thus offers the potential to significantly reorient the way in which the Uluzzian is understood. First, it allows the incorporation of all Uluzzian assemblages into a single interpretive framework, even if they do not display ‘evolutionarily diagnostic’ typological signatures, as at Grotta di Castelcivita and Grotta della Cala (Benini et al. 1997, Gambassini 1997a). Second, it suggests that the Uluzzian demonstrates a level of flexibility fully comparable to, but nonetheless distinct from that of the ‘behaviorally modern’ proto-Aurignacian, indicating that the two industries were responses to similar kinds of problems during the transition interval in Italy. Lastly, it constitutes the first model to analyze the Uluzzian as a behavioral (and thus adaptive) system, fully consistent with the tenets of contemporary evolutionary biology and especially human behavioral ecology (Kelly 1995; Winterhalder and Smith 2000). This offers an untapped source of insights and explanatory potential relative to those offered by the culturehistorical approach advocated by workers like Palma di Cesnola (1989, 1993) and Gioia (1988, 1990). Critically, it offers a way of understanding the Uluzzian on its own, all the while permitting its comparison to other industries using unified methodological frameworks that do away with the a priori assumptions that assemblages classified using different typologies are necessarily different in evolutionarily meaningful ways. Discussion The insights provided by a human behavioral ecological approach to the Uluzzian indicate that it is possible to understand it as the material embodiment of the interface between the ecology of meridional Italy and hominin behavior following the end of the Mousterian in that region (Riel-Salvatore 2007; Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004, 2007). Moreover, the Uluzzian is characterized by the emergence of behaviors not documented in the southern Italian Mousterian, behaviors fully consistent with recent reviews of what the archaeological correlates of ‘behavioral modernity’ should look like (Henshilwood and Marean 2003; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Wadley 2001) and that parallel—though not duplicate—similar developments in the protoAurignacian of northern Italy (Bartolomei et al. 1992; Broglio 2005; Broglio et al. 2006; Kuhn 2002; Kuhn and Bietti 2000). Fast-moving small game (i.e., fish and fowl) may also have been exploited by the hominins who made Uluzzian assemblages (Cassoli and Tagliacozzo 1997), although a thorough assessment of the context and importance of this expansion of the diet base has yet to be conducted. Because of the high proportional representation of Middle Paleolithic tools in Uluzzian assemblages, it has generally been assumed that the Uluzzian is directly and technologically derived from the underlying Mousterian, despite the clear technological and typological differences highlighted in this paper. Up to now, the most popular explanation for the emergence of the Uluzzian postulates that Neanderthals who originally made Mousterian tools in southern Italy were ‘acculturated’ by contact with proto-Aurignacian-making modern humans who first settled the northern part of the Italian peninsula (Mussi 2001; Palma di Cesnola 1993, 2004). However, it seems clear that the Uluzzian lasted for several thousand years and that, as befits a behavioral system of such duration, it was flexible and responsive to changing conditions. It developed in southern Italy in isolation from the more or less contemporary development of the proto-Aurignacian in the north of the peninsula during the climatically-turbulent interval of late Oxygen Isotope 3 (Riel-Salvatore 2007). During that time, the center of the peninsula appears to have been occupied only by hominins manufacturing Mousterian assemblages, although the scant but 390 J. Riel-Salvatore suggestive data from the Adriatic coast prevent us from absolutely ruling out a potential diffusion of the Aurignacian along that segment of the peninsula. Nevertheless, there is a good association between the Uluzzian and relatively open and arid conditions that prevailed in meridional Italy during the transition interval, although the precise mechanism behind this conjuncture remains to be investigated more fully. What is undeniable, however, is that the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries of the Italian peninsula are first documented in areas marked by pronounced shifts in ecological conditions, as recorded in proxy records (e.g., the lake core from Lago Grande di Monticchio [Allen et al. 1999, 2000]). What emerges form this discussion is that the Uluzzian does not display the implied characteristics of transitional industries as conceptualized from the acculturation perspective. This is true on several counts. First, typologically and technologically, it is unique and very distinct not only from the Mousterian, but also from the proto-Aurignacian. Most saliently, neither of these two industries is associated with lunates or lunate-like armatures, nor are they associated with the bipolar technology that defines the blank production strategy of the Uluzzian. Second, temporal and chronological data indicate that the Uluzzian is very unlikely to have been descended from the proto-Aurignacian in any way, shape, or form, because the two industries are first manifest archaeologically in parts of Italy separated by about 1,000 km, by the Apennines and by the Mediterranean refugium of central Italy, where only Mousterian industries are documented at that time. Third, and most importantly, the Uluzzian does not fit the profile of a behavioral system that was either fleeting or internally heterogeneous. In other words, the Uluzzian is marked by its own, distinct technotypological signature as well as by land-use patterns distinctive from those of other broadly contemporaneous industries found in the Italian peninsula. These observations do not ‘square’ with a view of the Uluzzian as simply ‘Mousterian plus’ or ‘Aurignacian lite,’ which most acculturation scenarios implicitly depict it as being. In this author’s view it is simply inconceivable to label as ‘transitional’ a multimillennial behavioral package marked by coherent sets of technological, economic, and foraging strategies. It is even less warranted to claim that the only mechanism that could have given rise to such industries is ‘acculturation.’ While these observations greatly refine our understanding of the defining characteristics and internal dynamics of the Uluzzian, their implications are much less clear as concerns the phylogeny, cultural and biological, of the Uluzzian. It has been established that the Uluzzian differs in significant ways from both the Mousterian and the proto-Aurignacian. Phylogenetically, this can be interpreted in several ways, one of which is the currently dominant scenario that portrays it as the handiwork of Neanderthals, arguably the scenario best supported by the very limited fossil evidence ( Bietti 1997; Gambassini 1997a; Kuhn and Bietti 2000; Palma di Cesnola 1993, 2004). Alternatively, some authors have recently claimed that the Uluzzian—and most other ‘transitional’ industries—was most likely manufactured by the first wave of modern humans to enter Europe (Bar-Yosef 2006a, 2006b, 2007). This view certainly accounts for the many differences between the Mousterian and Uluzzian, but it then leaves unaddressed the question of the Uluzzian’s differences with the Aurignacian. A final hypothesis is that all industries documented in Italy during the transition interval were manufactured by Neanderthals, and the first ‘modern human’ industry in the peninsula was the Gravettian (cf. Fedele et al. 2003; Giaccio et al. 2006). In the absence of additional, unambiguous hominin fossil evidence, it is impossible to clearly establish which of these interpretations is most likely to be correct. However, if one goes on the assumption that the Uluzzian was manufactured by Neanderthals, this implies that marked behavioral (‘cultural’) breaks during the transition interval need not be correlated with the arrival of a new hominin clade. This would open up the possibility that the proto-Aurignacian might also have been manufactured by Neanderthals, thus further showcasing the resilience and behavioral flexibility of those hominins in the face of environmental and social duress (Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2005). And, if both early Upper Paleolithic industries were manufactured by the same biological population, this implies that there was a great deal of regional diversification of its behavior during that interval. Perhaps most importantly, it also implies that groups of the same population apparently competed against one another at that time (cf. O’Connell 2006). Even more provocative, this correlate holds true even if we accept the idea that modern humans were the makers of those What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study 391 industries. The point is, then, that intraspecific competition is very likely to have characterized the human population dynamics of the transition interval to a much greater degree than has heretofore been generally assumed. As concerns acculturation and its archaeological correlates, it is worthwhile to note that researchers focusing on more recent periods than the Paleolithic—and especially those informed by some kind of ethnographic record—agree that the term is a very problematic one, and that it encompasses a wide range of social, cultural, economic, and demographic scenarios (e.g., papers in Cusick 1998a). It has in fact cogently been argued that the very notion of ‘acculturation’ and how it might be visible archaeologically remains fraught with conceptual and epistemological ambiguities (Cusick 1998b). Yet, in paleoanthropology, acculturation continues to be dealt with in broad strokes and glossed over as an intuitively satisfying and self-evident process by its proponents (e.g., Mellars 1989, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006). And while the ‘acculturation’ of Neanderthals by modern humans has been argued to parallel that of Native Americans and Australian Aborigines by European colonists (Mellars 2005, 22), it has been pointedly remarked that ‘the encounters between Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were not equivalent to the colonial confrontation between Europeans and indigenous peoples. There was no Upper Paleolithic empire; there was no shocking disparity in firepower. There were no relevant institutions to frame such a contest’ (Gamble 1999, 269). Additionally, the time scales involved are completely incompatible with such a process, since European contact in the Renaissance decimated American and Australian populations in one or two centuries, with major demographic impacts at a decadal scale. Put briefly, if ‘acculturation’ as a concept is to retain heuristic value in paleoanthropological research, archaeologists need to explicitly discuss what they mean by it and how that phenomenon matches these theoretical expectations in the coarse-grained record of the transition interval, in light of the archaeological work on acculturation done in other contexts. Having answered this, it will also be important to address two additional issues: (1) Why should ‘culture contacts’ during the transition interval have resulted in a flow of ideas apparently exclusively from modern humans to Neanderthals, considering that the latter had occupied the human niche of Eurasia for the past 150–200,000 years? And (2) if acculturation can be documented during the transition interval and can thus be argued to be visible archaeologically, why have paleoanthropologists referred to that concept almost exclusively in the context of the MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition? Conclusion Descriptive, typological approaches have led many researchers to claim that there was evidence that the Uluzzian was the result of the acculturation of Mousterian-making Neanderthals by protoAurignacian-making modern humans in Italy. This paper has shown, however, that when the Uluzzian is adequately contextualized geographically, chronologically, and paleoenvironmentally, the case for strong similarities between the Mousterian and the Uluzzian is rather weak. In fact, the Uluzzian appears to be a beast all its own rather than a derivative of the Mousterian or the proto-Aurignacian. Further, considering the Uluzzian as an industry that hominins used for their day-to-day survival, as opposed to an exercise in cultural self-affirmation, shows that a view of this industry as somehow ‘below par’ compared to the proto-Aurignacian of northern Italy is unwarranted. One likely correlate of this observation is that such is also probably the case for most, if not all, of the other so-called transitional industries documented across Eurasia during the transition interval. In the specific case of the Uluzzian, the record demonstrates that the Uluzzian was a comparatively long-lived and polyvalent behavioral system that was likely developed by hominins in southern Italy as a response to the distinctive ecological conditions of the region during the transition interval. This suite of observations argues strongly against some of the most salient preconceptions implied by the label ‘transitional industry’ as used in scenarios invoking acculturation as a prime mover behind the florescence of nonAurignacian industries during the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Eurasia. Besides the fact that the notion of acculturation in the Paleolithic remains to be properly defined and operationalized 392 J. Riel-Salvatore Adams, B. 2000. Archaeological Investigations at Two OpenAir Sites in the Bukk Mountain Region of Northeast ¨ Hungary. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans: Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe From 50,000–30,000 B.P., edited by J. Orschiedt and G.-C. Weniger, pp. 169–179. Neanderthal Museum, Mettman. ´ Adams, B. 2007. Gulyas Archaeology: The Szeletian and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Hungary and Central Europe. In Transitions Great and Small: New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper Paleolithic ‘Transitional’ Industries in Western Eurasia, edited by J. RielSalvatore and G. A. Clark, pp. 91–109. Archaeopress, Oxford. ´ Adams, B. and A. Ringer. 2004. New C14 Dates for the Hungarian Early Upper Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 45:541–551 Allen, J. R. M., U. Brandt, A. Brauer, H.-W. Hubberten, B. Huntley, J. Keller, M. Kraml, A. Mackensen, J. Mingram, J. F. W. Negendank, N. R. Nowaczyk, H. Oberhansli, W. A. Watts, S. Wulf and B. Zolitschka. ¨ 1999. Rapid Environmental Changes in Southern Europe During the Last Glacial Period. Nature 400: 740–743. Allen, J. R. M., W. A. Watts and B. Huntley. 2000. Weichselian Palynostratigraphy, Palaeovegetation and Palaeoenvironment: The Record from Lago Grande di Monticchio, Southern Italy. Quaternary International 73/ 74:91–110. Allsworth-Jones, P. 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe Clarendon Press, Oxford. Allsworth-Jones, P. 1990. The Szeletian and the Stratigraphic Succession in Central Europe and Adjacent Areas: Main Trends, Recent Results, and Problems for Resolution. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by P. Mellars, pp. 160–242. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Allsworth-Jones, P. 2000. Dating the Transition between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Eastern Europe. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans: Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe From 50,000–30, 000 B.P., edited by J. Orschiedt and G.-C. Weniger, pp. 22–29. Neanderthal Museum, Mettman. Attenbrow, V. 2004. What’s Changing: Population Size or Land-use Patterns? The Archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin. Terra australis 21. Pandanus Books, Canberra. Bailey, S. E. and J.-J. Hublin. 2005. Who Made the Early Aurignacian? A Reconsideration of the Brassempouy Dental Remains. Bulletins et Me´moires de la Socie´te´ d’Anthropologie de Paris 17:115–121. Bartolomei, G., A. Broglio, P. F. Cassoli, L. Castelletti, L. Cattani, M. Cremaschi, G. Giacobini, G. Malerba, A. Maspero, M. Peresani, A. Sartorelli and A. Tagliacozzo. 1992. La Grotte de Fumane: Un Site Aurignacien au Pied des Alpes. Preistoria Alpina 28:131–179. Barton, C. M. 1998. Looking Back from the World’s End: Paleolithic Settlement and Mobility at Gibraltar. In Las Culturas del Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucı´a, edited by ´ ´ J. L. Sanchidrian Torti and M. D. Simon Vallejo, ´ pp. 13–23. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, Malaga. so that it can be detected archaeologically, continued use of the misnomer ‘transitional industry’ will only perpetuate the mistaken impression that a single phenomenon can adequately explain the multiplicity of cultural, ecological, and biological contexts in which the transition unfolded across a wide range of biogeographical settings. Whatever transitional industries may be, from the acculturation perspective, this paper has shown that the Uluzzian is not one of them. Here I have sought to highlight the interpretive advantages that come from studying any given industry in its proper context and from using methods that yield mainly behavioral as opposed to largely descriptive information. In this specific case, this study has lead to a dramatically different interpretation of the Uluzzian than that reached by the majority of previous analyses. By focusing on behavioral questions, this paper aims to turn away from debates about the interactions of Neanderthals and modern humans, which have grown increasingly sterile as the diagnostic hominin fossil record of the transition interval has failed to keep pace with the discovery of new lithic industries dating to that period. Such a perspective underscores the critical contribution archaeology has to offer the modern human origins debate, and highlights promising new avenues of research that, when combined with the insight of morphological and genetic analyses, will lead to a truly holistic understanding of the MiddleUpper Paleolithic Transition. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Marta Camps and Parth Chauhan for inviting me to contribute to this volume, and for their great help and patience. Michael Barton, Geoff Clark, Curtis Marean, Steven Kuhn, and Bill Kimbel commented on various aspects of the research summarized here, and an anonymous reviewer provided very helpful suggestions. This work was funded by the US National Foundation, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the British School at Rome, and various funding sources at Arizona State University. References Adams, B. 1998. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Europe: The Record from the Bu¨kk Mountain Region. Archaeopress, Oxford. What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study Bar-Yosef, O. 2003. Reflections on Selected Issues of the Upper Paleolithic. In More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East, edited by A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 265–273. Oxbow, Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O. 2006a. Defining the Aurignacian. In Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilhao, pp. 11–25. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, ˆ ˜ Lisbon. Bar-Yosef, O. 2006b. Neanderthals and Modern Humans: A Different Interpretation. In When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met, edited by N. J. Conard, pp. 467–482. Kerns Verlag, Tubingen. ¨ Bar-Yosef, O. 2007. The Archaeological Framework of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Diogenes 5:3–18. Benini, A., P. Boscato and P. Gambassini. 1997. Grotta della Cala (Salerno): Industrie Litiche e Faune Uluzziane ed Aurignaziane. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 47:37–96. Bietti, A. 1997. The Transition to Anatomically Modern Humans: the Case of Peninsular Italy. In Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, edited by G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, pp. 132–147. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Bietti, A. 2006. Alcune Considerazioni Sulla Differenza tra le Strategie di Approvvigionamento di Materie Prime Litiche nel Musteriano e nel Paleolitico Superiore Italiano: Qualche Esempio. In Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP, pp. 267–282. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Bietti, A. and F. Negrino. 2007. ‘‘Transitional’’ Industries from Neandertals to Anatomically Modern Humans in Continental Italy: Present State of Knowledge. In Transitions Great and Small: New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper Paleolithic ‘Transitional’ Industries in Western Eurasia, edited by J. Riel-Salvatore and G. A. Clark, pp. 41–59. Archaeopress, Oxford. Blondel, J. and J. Aronson. 1999. Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Boeda, E. 1994. Le Concept Levallois: Variabilite des Me´th¨ odes. CNRS, Paris. Boeda, E. 1995. Levallois: A Volumetric Construction, ¨ Methods, A Technique. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by H. L. Dibble and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 41–68. Prehistory Press, Madison. Borzatti von Lowenstern, E. 1965. Grotta-Riparo di Uluzzo ¨ C. (Campagna di Scavi 1964). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 20:1–31. Borzatti von Lowenstern, E. 1966. Alcuni aspetti del Muster¨ iano nel Salento. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21:203–287. Borzatti von Lowenstern, E. 1970. Prima Campagna di Scavi ¨ ` Nella Grotta ‘‘Mario Bernardini’’ (Nardo, Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 25:89–125. Brantingham, P. J., S. L. Kuhn and K. W. Kerry (editors). 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley. Broglio, A. 2005. Pitture Aurignaziane nella Grotta di Fumane. In Pitture Paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri,, edited by A. Broglio and G. Dalmeri, pp. 12–63. Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Verona. 393 Broglio, A., S. Bertola, M. De Stefani, D. Marini, C. Lemorini and P. Rossetti. 2006. La Production Lamellaire et les Armatures Lamellaires de l’Aurignacien Ancien de la ´ ´ Grotte de Fumane (Monts Lessini, Venetie). In Production Lamellaire a` l’Aurignacien: Chaıˆnes Ope´ratoires et Perspectives Technoculturelles, edited by F. Le Brun´ Ricalens, J.-G. Bordes and F. Bon, pp. 415–436. Musee National d’Histoire et d’Art, Luxembourg. Cassoli, P. F. and A. Tagliacozzo. 1997. Avifauna ed Ittiofauna di Grotta di Castelcivita: Considerazioni Ecologiche ed Inquadramento Crono-Stratigrafico. In Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: Culture e Ambiente, edited by P. Gambassini, pp. 60–74. Electa Napoli, Naples. Churchill, S. E. and F. H. Smith. 2000. The Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43:61–115. Clark, G. A. and J. Riel-Salvatore. 2005. Observations on Systematics in Paleolithic Archaeology. In Transitions Before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, edited by E. Hovers and S. L. Kuhn, pp. 29–56. Kluwer, New York. Clark, G. A. and J. Riel-Salvatore. 2005–2006. The Compositional Integrity of the Aurignacian. Munibe 57:107–118. Cusick, J.G. (editor). 1998a. Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Cusick, J. G. 1998b. Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Concepts and Their Application in Archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 126–145. SIU Center for Archaeological Investigation, Carbondale. d’Errico, F. 2003. The Invisible Frontier. A Multiple Species Model for the Origin of Behavioral Modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12(4):188–202. d’Errico, F., J. Zilhao, M. Julien, D. Baffier and J. Pelegrin. ˜ 1998. Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39:S1–S44. Djindjian, F., J. K. Kozlowski and F. Bazile. 2003. Europe During the Early Upper Paleolithic (40 000–30 000 BP): A Synthesis. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and ˜ F. d’Errico, pp. 29–47. Instituto Portugues de Arqueoˆ logia, Lisbon. Fedele, F. G., B. Giaccio, R. Isaia and G. Orsi, 2003. The Campanian Ignimbrite Eruption, Heinrich Event 4, and Palaeolithic Change in Europe: A High-Resolution Investigation. In Volcanism and the Earth’s Atmosphere, edited by A. Robock and C. Oppenheimer, Pp. 301–325. American Geophysical Union, Washington. Finlayson, C. 2004. Neanderthals and Modern Humans: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York. Gambassini, P. 1997a. Le Industrie Paleolitiche di Castelcivita. In Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: Culture e Ambiente, edited by P. Gambassini, pp. 92–145. Electa Napoli, Naples. 394 Gambassini, P. (editor). 1997b. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: Culture e Ambiente. Electa Napoli, Naples. Gambassini, P. 1997c. Cronologia Radiometrica. In Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: Culture e Ambiente., edited by P. Gambassini, pp. 146. Electa Napoli, Naples. Gambassini, P., F. Mallegni and S. Ricci. 2005. Reperti Dentari dagli Strati Uluzziani di Grotta del Cavallo (Lecce): Stato dell’Arte su Stratigrafia e Aspetti Biologici. In 16th Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani, Genoa, Italy. Gambier-Henry, D., B. Maureille and R. White. 2004. Vestiges Humains des Niveaux de l’Aurignacien Ancien du Site de Brassempouy (Landes). Bulletins et Me´moires de la Socie´te´ d’Anthropologie de Paris 16:49–87. Gamble, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Giaccio, B., I. Hajdas, M. Peresani, F. Fedele and R. Isaia. 2006. The Campanian Ignimbrite (c. 40 ka BP) and Its Relevance for the Timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Shift: Timescales and Regional Correlations. In When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met, edited by N. Conard, pp. 343–375. Kerns, Tubingen. Gioia, P. 1988. Problems Related to the Origins of Italian Upper Paleolithic: Uluzzian and Aurignacian. In L’Homme de Ne´andertal, vol. 8: La Mutation, edited by ` J. K. Kozlowski, pp. 91–102. ERAUL 35, Liege. Gioia, P. 1990. Aspect of the Transition between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Italy: The Uluzzian. In Pale´olithique Moyen Re´cent et Pale´olithique Supe´rieur Ancien en Europe. Ruptures et Transitions: Examen Critique des Documents Arche´ologiques, edited by C. Farizy, pp. 241–250. Associa´ tion pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Ile-de-France, Nemours. Harrold, F. B. 1978. A Study of the Chaˆtelperronian, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Harrold, F. B. 1989. Mousterian, Chatelperronian and Early ˆ Aurignacian in Western Europe: Continuity or Discontinuity? In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, edited by P. Mellars and C. B. Stringer, pp. 676–713. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Harrold, F. B. 2000. The Chatelperronian in Historical Conˆ text. Journal of Anthropological Research 56:59–75. Hayden, B. 1980. Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed Cobbles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9:2–7. Henshilwood, C. S. and C. W. Marean. 2003. The Origin of Modern Human Behavior. Current Anthropology 44:627–652. Hewitt, G. M. 1999. Post-Glacial Re-Colonization of European Biota. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68(1–2):87–112. Hewitt, G. M. 2000. The Genetic Legacy of the Quaternary ice Ages. Nature 405:907–913. Kelly, R. L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Koumouzelis, M., B.Ginter, J. K. Kozlowski, M. Pawlikowski, O. Bar-Yosef, R. M. Albert, M. Litynska-Zajac, E. Stworzewicz, P. Wojtal, G. Lipecki, T. Tomek, Z. M. Bochenski and A. Pazdur. 2001a. The Early Upper J. Riel-Salvatore Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Klisoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(5):515–539. Koumouzelis, M., J. K. Kozlowski, C. Escutenaire, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, H. Valladas, N. Tisnerat-Laborde, P. Wojtal and B. Ginter. 2001b. La fin du Paleolithique moyen et le debut du Paleolithique superieur en Grece : la sequence de la Grotte 1 de Klissoura. L’Anthropologie 105(4):469–504. Kozlowski, J. K. 2004. Early Upper Paleolithic Backed Blade Industries in Central and Eastern Europe. In The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe, edited by P. J. Brantigham, S. L. Kuhn and K.W. Kerry, pp. 14–29. University of California Press, Berkeley. ´ ´ ´ Kozlowski, J. K. 2005. Paleolithique Superieur et Mesolithi´ ´ que en Mediterranee: Cadre Culturel. L’Anthropologie 109(3):520–540. Kuhn, S. L. 2002. Pioneers of Microlithization: The ‘‘ProtoAurignacian’’ of Southern Europe. In Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, edited by R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn, pp. 83–94. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Kuhn, S. L. 2003. In what Sense Is the Levantine Early Upper Paleolithic a ‘‘Transitional’’ Industry? In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico, pp. 61–70. Instituto ˜ Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. ˆ Kuhn, S. L. and A. Bietti. 2000. The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Italy. In The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and D. Pilbeam, pp. 49–76. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Kuhn, S. L. and M. C. Stiner. 2006. What’s a Mother to Do? The Division of Labor among Neandertals and Modern Humans in Eurasia. Current Anthropology 47:953–980. Laplace, G. 1964. Essai de Typologie Syste´matique Sezione ` XV, Supplemento II al Volume I. Annali dell’Universita di Ferrara, Ferrara. Laplace, G. 1966. Recherches sur l’Origine des Com´ ´ plexes Leptolithiques. Melanges d’Archeologie et ´ d’Histoire de l’Ecole Francaise de Rome. E. de Broc¸ card, Paris. ` ´ ` Le Brun-Ricalens, F. 1989. Contribution a l’Etude des Pieces ´ ´ ` Esquillees: La Presence de Percuteurs a ‘Cupules.’ Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Francaise 86:196–201. ¸ Lucas, G., J.-P. Rigaud, J. F. Simek and M. Soressi. 2003. ´ The Chatelperronian of Grotte XVI, Cenac-et-Saintˆ 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. 289–298. Instituto Portugues ˆ ˜ de Arqueologia, Lisbon. McBrearty, S. and A. S. Brooks. 2000. The Revolution that Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563. Mellars, P. 1989. Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans. Current Anthropology 30:349–385. Mellars, P. 1999. The Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40:341–365. What Is a ‘Transitional’ Industry? The Uluzzian of Southern Italy as a Case Study Mellars, P. 2004. Neanderthals and the Modern Human Colonization of Europe. Nature 432:461–465. Mellars, P. 2005. The Impossible coincidence. A SingleSpecies Model for the Origins of Modern Human Behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 14(1):12–27. Mellars, P. 2006. Archeology and the Dispersal of Modern Humans in Europe: Deconstructing the ‘‘Aurignacian.’’ Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 15(5):167–182. ` Messeri, P. and A. Palma di Cesnola. 1976. Contemporaneita di Paleantropi e Fanerantropi Sulle Coste dell’Italia Meridionale. Zephyrus 26–27:7–30. Mitchell, S. R. 1959. The Woodworking Tools of the Australian Aborigines. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 89:191–199. Mulvaney, D. J. and J. Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. ` ´ Mussi, M. 1990. Le Peuplement de l’Italie a la Fin du Paleo´ ´ ´ lithique Moyen et au Debut du Paleolithique Superieur. In Pale´olithique moyen re´cent et Pale´olithique supe´rieur ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions: examen critique des documents arche´ologiques, edited by C. Farizy, pp. 251–262. Association pour la Promotion de la ´ Recherche Archeologique en Ile-de-France, Nemours. Mussi, M. 2001. Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York. Noone, H. V. V. 1949. Some Implements of the Australian Aborigines with European Parallels. Man 146:111–114. O’Connell, J. F., 2006. How Did Modern Humans Disaplce Neanderthals? Insights from Hunter-Gatherer Ethnography and Archaeology. In When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met, edited by N. J. Conard, pp. 43–64. Kerns Verlag, Tubingen. ¨ Palma di Cesnola, A. 1966. Il Paleolitico Superiore Arcaico (Facies Uluzziana) della Grotta del Cavallo, Lecce. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 20:33–62. Palma di Cesnola, A. 1967. Il Paleolitico Superiore Arcaico (Facies Uluzziana) della Grotta del Cavallo, Lecce. (Continuazione). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21:3–59. Palma di Cesnola, A. 1970. Datazione dell’Uluzziano col Metodo del C14. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 24:341–348. ` Palma di Cesnola, A. 1989. L’Uluzzien: Facies Italien du Leptolithique Archaı¨ que. L’Anthropologie 93:783–812. Palma di Cesnola, A. 1993. Il Paleolitico Superiore in Italia: Introduzione allo Studio. Garlatti e Razzai Editori, Florence. ´ ´ Palma di Cesnola, A. 2001. Le Paleolithique Superieur en ´ ˆ Italie, Jerome Million, Grenoble. Palma di Cesnola, A. 2004. Rapports Entre l’Aurignacien et l’Uluzzien en Italie. In Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Lie`ge, Belgium 2–8 September 2001 11 Section 6: Le Pale´olithique Supe´rieur / The Upper Palaeolithic ´ General sessions and posters, edited by Le Secretariat du ` Congres, pp. 7–12. Archaeopress, Oxford. Palma di Cesnola, A. and P. Messeri. 1967. Quatre Dents ´ ´ Humaines Paleolithiques Trouvees dans des Cavernes de ´ l’Italie Meridionale. L’Anthropologie 71:249–262. Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique: le Chaˆtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Coˆte (Dordogne). CNRS ´ Editions, Paris. 395 Peresani, M. (editor). 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and Implications. Archaeopress, Oxford. Peresani, M. 2008. A New Cultural Frontier for the Last Neanderthals: The Uluzzian in Northern Italy. Current Anthropology 49:725–731. Pitti, C., C. Sorretino and C. Tozzi. 1976. L’Industria di Tipo Paleolitico Superiore Arcaico della Grotta La Fabbrica (Grosseto). Nota Preliminare. Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienze Naturali A 83:174–203. Riel-Salvatore, J. 2007. The Uluzzian and the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Southern Italy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University. Riel-Salvatore, J. n.d.a Why the Assemblage from Klisoura Level V Is Not Uluzzian. Unpublished manuscript; under review. Riel-Salvatore, J. n.d.b Etude des Aspects Comportemen´ taux de l’Uluzzien en Italie Meridionale: Revision ´ Critique des Donnees des Ensembles Lithiques de Grotta del Cavallo. Pre´histoire et Anthropologie Me´diterrane´ennes unpublished manuscript under review. Riel-Salvatore, J., and C. M. Barton. 2004. Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy. American Antiquity 69:257–274. Riel-Salvatore, J., and C. M. Barton. 2007. New Quantitative Perspectives on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition: The View from the Northern Mediterranean. In Transitions Great and Small: New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper Paleolithic ‘Transitional’ Industries in Western Eurasia, edited by J. Riel-Salvatore and G.A. Clark, pp. 61–74. Archaeopress, Oxford. Riel-Salvatore, J., S. E. Churchill, A. del Lucchese, V. Formicola, P. Gambassini, B. M. Holt, F. Negrino, A.-M. Ronchitelli and G. Vicino. 2006. All in Due Time: New Data on the Chronology of the Early Upper Paleolithic and Late Mousterian in Peninsular Italy. In XVI UISPP Meeting, Lisbon. Riel-Salvatore, J. and G. A. Clark (editors). 2007. Transitions Great and Small: New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper Paleolithic ‘Transitional’ Industries in Western Eurasia. Archaeopress, Oxford. Riel-Salvatore, J. and F. Negrino. 2009. Early Upper Paleolithic Population Dynamics and Raw Material Procurement Patterns in Italy. In The Mediterranean Between 50-25,000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions, edited by M. Camps i Calbet and C. Szmidt, pp. 205–224. Oxbow, Oxford. Schmitt, T., A. Giebl and A. Seitz. 2002. Postglacial colonisation of western Central Europe by Polyommatus coridon (Poda 1761) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Evidence from population genetics. Heredity 88:26–34. Shott, M. J. 1999. On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces. North American Archaeologist 20:217–238. Spennato, A. G. 1981. I livelli protoaurignaziani della Grotta ` di Serra Cicora (Nardo, Lecce). Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 3:61–76. Stiner, M. C. 2005. The Faunas of Hayonim Cave, Israel: A 200,000-Year Record of Paleolithic Diet, Demography, and Society. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. 396 Straus, L. G. 2003. ‘‘The Aurignacian’’? Some Thoughts. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico, pp. 11–18. ˜ Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. ˆ Straus, L. G. 2005. Armageddon or Entente? The Demise of the European Neandertals in Isotope Stage 3, Quaternary International 137. Straus, L. G. 2007. Even the Notion of a ‘‘Transitional Industry’’ is a Suspect Typological Construct. In Transitions Great and Small: New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper Paleolithic ‘Transitional’ Industries in Western Eurasia, edited by J. Riel-Salvatore and G. A. Clark, pp. 10–18. vol. BAR International Series 1620. Archaeopress, Oxford. Svendsen, J. I. and P. Pavlov. 2003. Mamontovaya Kurya: An Enigmatic, Nearly 40 000 Years Old Paleolithic Site in the Russian Arctic. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, edited by J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico. Instituto Portu˜ gues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. ˆ Taberlet, P., L. Fumagalli, A.-G. Wust-Saucy and J.-F. Cosson. 1998. Comparative Phylogeography and Postglacial Colonization Routes in Europe. Molecular Ecology 7:453–464. Tzedakis, P. C., I. T. Lawson, M. R. Frogley, G. M. Hewitt and R. C. Preece. 2002. Buffered Tree Population Changes in a Quaternary Refugium: Evolutionary Implications. Science 297(5589):2044–2047. Tzedakis, P. C., K. H. Roucoux, L. de Abreu and N. J. Shackleton. 2004. The Duration of Forest Stages in Southern Europe and Interglacial Climate Variability. Science 306(5705):2231–2235. J. Riel-Salvatore van Andel, T. H., W. Davies and B. Weninger. 2003. The Human Presence in Europe during the Last Glacial Period I. Human Migrations and the Changing Climate. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape of the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project, edited by T. H. van Andel and W. Davies, pp. 31–56. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambrdige. Villa, P., A. Delagnes and L. Wadley. 2005. A late Middle Stone Age Artifact Assemblage from Sibudu (KwaZuluNatal): Comparisons with the European Middle Paleolithic Journal of Archaeological Science 32:399–422. Wadley, L. 2001. What is Cultural Modernity? A General View and a South African Perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:201–221. Winterhalder, B. and E. A. Smith. 2000. Analysing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:51–72. Worsnop, T. 1897. The Prehistoric Arts, Manufactures, Works, Weapons, Etc., of the Aborigines of Australia. C. E. Bristow, Government Printer, Adelaide. Zilhao, J. 2006. Aurignacian, Behavior, Modern: Issues of ˜ Definition in the Emergence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In Towards a Definitiion of the Aurignacian, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilhao, pp. 53–69. Instituto ˜ Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. ˆ Zilhao, J. 2007. The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An ˜ Archaeological Perspective on the Origins of ‘‘Behavioral Modernity.’’ Journal of Archaeological Research 15(1):1–54. Zilhao, J. and F. d’Errico (editors). 2003. The Chronology of ˜ the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. ˆ