OFER BAR-YOSEF

Peabody Museum
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
STEVEN L. KUHN
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

The Big Deal about Blades:

Laminar Technologies and Human Evolution

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

D
uring the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the pioneers of prehistoric research based the main
subdivisions of the Stone Age largely on the forms
of lithic artifacts found on river terraces and in stratified
cave sites. The Lower Paleolithic was defined as consisting
of assemblages with core choppers or large bifaces, the
Middle Paleolithic was characterized by flake-based lithic
industries and Levallois technique, and the Upper Paleo-
lithic was identified with blade-dominated assemblages.
Technologies based on geometric microliths and ground
and polished implements characterized the postglacial
Mesolithic and Neolithic, respectively. The transition from
chopper to handaxe to flakes, blades, and finally ground-
edged axes was often—and in some cases continues to be—
equated with a generalized pattern of technological "pro-
gress" paralleling biological evolution within the genus Homo.
Although they were originally formulated on the basis
of the relatively small number of archaeological sites then
known within western Europe, these broad generalizations
have held up remarkably well, and they remain the main-
stay of textbooks and popular accounts of the evolution of
early human technology. Inevitably, however, as both the
number and geographic range of documented sites have in-
creased, many exceptions have appeared. The develop-
ment of new methods of radiometric dating has also en-
abled prehistorians to bypass the circular practice of
"dating" assemblages based on apparent levels of techno-
logical development, further complicating—and enriching—
the picture of technological change over the course of the
Pleistocene. For example, it is now well documented that
the "transitions" between different stages or phases were
neither sudden nor smooth, so that "Lower Paleolithic"
core-tool and "Middle Paleolithic" flake-tool assemblages
with prepared cores were contemporaneous in some parts
of the world (e.g., Rigaud 1989:429-439). At this point,
the major stages of the Paleolithic remain useful only as a
crude first approximation of the evolutionary history of hu-
man technologies.
Despite the rapid expansion of the Paleolithic archae-
ological record over the past 50 years and the inevitable
effects of this increased knowledge on the systems of clas-
sification inherited from previous generations of prehisto-
rians, some generalizations have been remarkably tena-
cious. One of the most persistent of these is the equation of
blade technologies, Upper Paleolithic industries, and ana-
tomically (and behaviorally) modern humans. A heavy

American Anthropologist 101(2):322-338. Copyright © 1999, American Anthropological Association

 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
reliance on specialized methods for producing elongated,
parallel-sided stone flakes (or blades) is often cited in text-
books as a defining characteristic of the lithic assemblages
of anatomically modem human populations in Eurasia and
Africa (the Upper Paleolithic and Late Stone Age) (e.g.,
Boyd and Silk 1997:471; Foley and Lahr 1997; Gamble
1986:120; Relethford 1997:329; Schick and Toth 1993). The
manufacture and use of blades is seen by some as a major
threshold in the evolution of hominid technological capaci-
ties, a watershed event in the development of "modem" be-
havioral repertoires. Blade technologies are thought to pos-
sess a number of inherent advantages particularly suited
for the "complex" and "efficient" technological adapta-
tions of modem humans, and they are frequently included
in archaeological trait lists used to define "fully modem be-
havior" in the Paleolithic (e.g., Clark and Lindly 1989;
Schick and Toth 1993:293; Sherratt 1997:283).
In fact, it has been clear for some time that the presumed
associations between blade technology, modem anatomy,
and modem behavior are far from clear cut. In this paper,
we review some of the evidence of blade technologies in
Eurasia and Africa. Many assemblages from Europe, the
Near East, and Africa provide evidence for the production
of blades and laminar flakes during the Middle Paleo-
lithic/Middle Stone Age, and even the later Lower Paleo-
lithic. While blade-based assemblages are somewhat scat-
tered across both space and time prior to the Upper
Paleolithic, there is no justification in maintaining that the
development of laminar lithic technologies per se is linked
to the appearance of either modem anatomy or "modem"
behavior. At the same time, the recent prehistory of North
America and Australia shows that blades are not part and
parcel of complex, sophisticated or high-mobility adapta-
tions of "modem" hunter-gatherers. These well-docu-
mented but little-discussed global patterns call into ques-
tion assumptions of both the significance of blade
technologies in human evolution and the putative supe-
riority of these technological systems. The global data can
also help in redefining questions about the nature of the
technological transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic
in Eurasia. Although the Upper Paleolithic does not mark
the first appearance of blades, they do come to dominate
the archaeological record to an unprecedented degree. The
real issue therefore, concerns the rapid proliferation of
blade-based lithic technologies during the Upper Paleo-
lithic of western Eurasia. In the concluding section, we
propose a hypothesis to explain the redefined patterns, cit-
ing both historical factors and changes in the organization
of technological systems.
What Are Blades, and What Have People
Said about Them?
The standard morphological definition of a blade is any
flake more than twice as long as it is wide, although some
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 323
investigators prefer ratios of 2.5 or even 4 to 1. The techni-
cal definition is somewhat narrower, limiting use of the
term to elongated blanks with parallel or slightly converg-
ing edges. Normally, technical blades possess one or more
ridges running parallel to their long axes, giving them a tri-
angular or trapezoidal cross-section. The sub-class of
bladelets simply represents especially small, narrow
blades. Although they may be made by very different
methods, the distinction between blades and bladelets in
the Old World is generally based on an arbitrary size
threshold: the maximum width for bladelets is generally set
between 1 and 1.5 cm, depending on local assemblage
characteristics (Owen 1988:2; Tixier 1963). The "micro-
blades" found in late Pleistocene and Holocene assem-
blages from northeast Asia and Alaska are often even
smaller, and were produced by pressure flaking (Anderson
1970; Andrefsky 1987).
Blades and blade-like flakes can be manufactured in a
surprising variety of ways. It is possible to draw a broad
distinction between prismatic and Levallois methods. In
classic prismatic blade production, one or more long ridges
are prepared on the face of the core by bifacial flaking, cre-
ating the characteristic crested blade (lame a crete). A se-
ries of blades is then detached along part or all of the core's
perimeter. The striking platforms of prismatic cores can be
flat and unmodified or they may be prepared by flaking or
abrasion. If multiple striking platforms are present, they are
often located at opposing ends of the core, not infrequently
somewhat offset. Levallois technology, better known as a
technique for the production of flakes, was especially com-
mon during the Middle Paleolithic. In Levallois blade
manufacture, blades are "peeled off' the gently-convex
face of a generally flat core. Striking platforms are located
on the core's perimeter. Typically, the angles and contours
of striking platforms are adjusted by removal of small
flakes, producing the characteristic faceted morphology:
striking platforms may also be isolated by creating notches
on either side, resulting in so-called "chapeau de gen-
darme " morphology. A crucial aspect of Levallois manu-
facture is the shaping of the face of detachment to an ap-
propriate longitudinal and transverse convexity, a process
that results in a number of distinctive byproducts (Boeda et
al. 1990; Inizan et al. 1993). The so-called "Hummalian" tech-
nique (Boeda 1995) may represent a third family of ap-
proaches to making elongated blanks, though it is much
less widespread than Levallois or prismatic core technology.
There is considerable variation even within each of
these broad categories of blade production. The variety of
approaches to blade production that could be classified as
prismatic or Levallois is vast, and it would be impractical
to list every variant here. True Levallois blade technology
may be less variable than prismatic blade technology. Le-
vallois methods are confined largely to the Lower and
Middle Paleolithic of Eurasia and Africa, although very
324 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2 • JUNE 1999
closely allied techniques appear in contexts such as the
Preclassic Maya "macroblade" production (Hester and
Shafer 1987:247-249). At least during the Middle Paleo-
lithic, Levallois technique was executed using direct hard
hammer percussion (Boeda et al. 1990), whereas prismatic
blade cores may be exploited using hard hammer, soft
hammer, or indirect percussion, as well as pressure. It is
noteworthy that small bladelets or microblades are gener-
ally manufactured by prismatic reduction only.
Prismatic blade production has often been described as
offering marked advantages over other means of manufac-
turing blanks for stone tools. One potential strong point
concerns the economy of raw material, the number of
blanks that can be produced from a given unit of stone. It is
frequently stated that prismatic blade production can pro-
vide a vastly greater length of usable edge per unit of raw
material than other blank manufacture techniques (e.g.,
Bordaz 1970). In fact, the only empirical evaluation of this
proposition (Sheets and Muto 1972) involved replication
of Mesoamerican pressure blade technology using obsid-
ian, which represents a rather extreme case: there is no ex-
perimental literature on the relative productivity of hard
hammer blade production. Boeda (1990, 1995) has argued
that prismatic blade production differs from classical Le-
vallois technology in how a piece of raw material is ex-
ploited. Essentially, Levallois production concentrates on
the exploitation of a single surface of flake detachment,
gradually flattening (and shortening) the core as reduction
proceeds. In contrast, prismatic blade manufacture is
thought to involve systematic exploitation of the entire vol-
ume of a nodule of raw material. The production of pris-
matic blades may thus consume a given volume of raw ma-
terial more effectively and completely. One implication of
these characteristics is that blade technologies might have
provided distinct advantages to toolmakers where raw ma-
terial was at a premium, due either to a scarcity of suitable
stone or to limitations imposed by high residential mobility.
A number of additional potential advantages have been
attributable to blade technologies. Prismatic core tech-
niques, in particular, permit close control over the dimen-
sions of blanks, sometimes resulting in a remarkable de-
gree of standardization in the sizes and shapes of end
products (e.g., Clark 1987). Such uniformity of products
could be a distinct advantage when manufacturing replace-
able components of composite tools, a theme to which we
will return, as well as in the context of mass production for
sale or exchange. Laminar blanks may also provide greater
potential for resharpening than flakes, particularly when
the working edge is on the end of the blade.
Although they have some notable strong points, it is im-
portant to point out that blade technologies have a number
of potential limitations as well. Blade production is risky,
prone to "fatal" errors, mistakes that render a core useless
without extensive reworking. The production of elongated,
laminar blanks also tends to be quite demanding of raw
materials. Long, thin blades are comparatively fragile, yet
significant force is needed to detach them. The raw mate-
rial must be brittle enough that a fracture will carry over the
desired length of the blade, yet also sufficiently homogene-
ous and tough so that the blades will not shatter from the
force of percussion or pressure. As a consequence, blades
were most often manufactured on isotropic, fine-grained
raw materials such as flint, jasper, chert, and obsidian, al-
though coarser-grained materials were sometimes em-
ployed if they were sufficiently isotropic. The need for ho-
mogeneous material may in rum require stringent selection
or importation of raw materials, at some cost in terms of
time or effort in many geological contexts. Properly setting
up a face of detachment for blades often requires extensive
preparation, placing further limits on minimum sizes of
nodules. Finally, production of large blades may be rela-
tively rigid and not especially "portable," or at least not ap-
propriate for transport and sporadic, occasional exploita-
tion. Speaking of the manufacture of pressure blades,
admittedly the most "sensitive" type of blade production
technology, John Clark, an experienced flint knapper, ob-
serves:
Each blade is produced by the same process as the one pre-
ceding it, a monotonous process. As with other skilled knap-
ping, it also requires rhythm.... Blade removal takes only a
fraction of a second; but setting up, and reawakening the
needed "touch" for making blades, requires the most time. It
takes about 10-15 minutes to make one blade and another
four minutes to make 10-20 more, barring any major knap-
ping errors. [1987:268]
A question that naturally arises in the context of discus-
sions of human evolution is whether blade manufacture is
in some way more complicated than other forms of blank
production, requiring a higher level of physical skill or
cognitive sophistication. There is no evidence to indicate
that the manufacture of blades is any more demanding than
the making of handaxes or Levallois flakes. Although
Boeda has long argued that Levallois and prismatic blade
technologies entail different conceptions of how to exploit
the volume of a piece of raw material, he does not assert
that one conception is more sophisticated or complex than
the other. It is our impression, based on an admittedly in-
formal survey of modem-day knappers, that, if anything,
the Levallois method is more difficult to master than is the
production of blades from prismatic cores. If prismatic
blades appear to be complex and sophisticated, it may only
be because they seemed at one time so closely linked with
the appearance of modem humans (Reynolds 1990).
Blade Technologies Before the Upper Paleolithic
Findings from throughout Europe, the Near East, and
Africa show that, in some times and places, substantial
numbers of blades and blade cores are present in layers
long predating the appearance of other traits thought to
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
'--fe'Wallertheim
*- Ro
HOCOUi!
Riencoi-rt-es-B . n.,:ie
uaaro
^Hayonfti .Hummalian sites
• Yabrud
BoompV, as# *•• Howeison's Poort sites
KRM
Figure 1. Map showing locations of some sites yielding early (pre-Upper Paleolithic) blade industries.
define the Upper Paleolithic and/or the first appearance of
anatomically modern humans. A brief summary of some of
the global evidence is appropriate at this point. The follow-
ing review is by no means comprehensive, and it is focused
mainly on the areas with which the authors are most famil-
iar: western Europe and the Levant. Figures 1 and 2 show
the locations of some of the pre-Upper Paleolithic and
early Upper Paleolithic sites discussed below.
In the Near East, the manufacture of blades first appears
quite early, in the l<pre-Aurignacian" of Yabrud rockshelter
I and the Amudian at Tabun and Abri Zumoffen (Garrod
and Kirkbride 1961; Jelinek 1981, 1982, 1990; Meignen
1994) (Figure 3, nos. 1-6). Based on extrapolation from re-
cent TL dates, the Amudian layers at Tabun cave (Mercier
et al. 1995) appear to date to the later half of the Middle
Pleistocene, between 270,000 and 330,000 years before
present. Although blades are not the most common variety
of tool blank in Amudian assemblages (Jelinek 1990), they
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 325
•A -
• Sites or clusters of
s'tes with early (pre-
Upper Paleolithic)
blade industries
are nonetheless quite typical in form (Ronen 1992). The
so-called "pre-Aurignacian" assemblage from the Haua
Fteah cave in Libya (McBumey 1967) could represent a
similar phenomenon, but this assemblage is extremely
small and remains undated.
The earliest Mousterian assemblages of the Levant are
typically even more laminar (blade-rich) than the Amudian.
One of the defining characteristics of the so-called "Early
Levantine" or "Tabun-D type" Mousterian, known from
sites such as Tabun, Hayonim layer E (Meignen 1994,
1998) (Figure 4), Abu Sif, Rosh Ein Mor (Crew 1976;
Marks and Monigal 1995), Ain Difla (Lindly and Clark
1987), and Douara layer IV (Nishiaki 1989), is the pre-
dominance of blades and elongated points (pointed blades).
The abundance of retouched points made on markedly
elongated blanks in assemblages from Abu Sif and Tabun
layer D attracted the attention of Bordes, who termed them
"Abu Sif points (1960). Both Levallois and non-Levallois
326 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST V O L . 101. N o . 2
Bacho-Kiro1 "• .
-] . UmetTeil
KsarAkil^ Yabrud
Hauah"Fteah"~vJBoeke?r^chtit
Figure 2. Map showing locations of some sites yielding early Upper Paleolithic blade industries.
methods were employed to produce blades, and sometimes
they are found together in the same assemblage or geologi-
cal layer. The presence of crested blades in some assem-
blages indicates that the basic schemes of core exploitation
were at least generally similar to later prismatic blade in-
dustries (e.g., Marks and Monigal 1995). The majority of
sites yielding these early Levantine Mousterian assem-
blages date to between 100 and 250 Ka B.P (e.g., Griin et
al. 1991; Mercier et al. 1995). The Hummalian assemblages
from El-Kowm, Syria (Boeda and Muhesen 1993), also char-
acterized by non-Levallois blades and elongated points,
might date to approximately the same time as the early Le-
vantine Mousterian, although there are inconsistencies be-
tween different dating techniques (Bar-Yosef 1996).
Interestingly, the majority of the more recent Upper
Pleistocene Mousterian strata in the Near East, including
those yielding the early anatomically modem Homo sapi-
ens burials at the site of Qafzeh, have produced decidedly
JUNE 1999
• Selected sites with
early Upper Paleolithic
blade industries
47/45-38/36 ka
non-laminar industries. The more recent Mousterian as-
semblages in the northern and central Levant are domi-
nated by typical centripetal or convergent Levallois meth-
ods (Bar-Yosef 1996; Meignen 1995; Meignen and
Bar-Yosef 1991), which result in the manufacture of rela-
tively short, wide blanks. It is not clear whether blade pro-
duction reappears in the terminal Mousterian. Some inves-
tigators argue that "bladey" industries persist throughout
the Mousterian in the southern Levant, so that so-called
'early" and "late" versions of the Levantine Mousterian
actually coexisted (e.g., Marks 1990). In the refitted cores
from the site of Boker Tachtit, the site s investigators see a
smooth transition from essentially Mousterian to typical
Upper Paleolithic prismatic blade production (e.g., Marks
1983, 1990; Marks and Volkman 1983). However, other
non-laminar assemblages date to about the same time as
the Boker Tachtit sequence (e.g., Boeda and Muhesen
1993, Goren-Inbar 1990).
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN / LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 327

: "._. i

I I M

T! 1

CM

Figure 3. Blade tools and core from the Amudian of Abri Zumoffen,
Lebanon (nos. 1-6), and middle Pleistocene layers from the Kap- Figure 4. Laminar artifacts and blade core from the early Mousterian
thurin formation, Kenya (nos. 7-9) (after Garrod and Kirkbride 1961; (layer E) of Hayonim cave, Israel.
McBrearty et al. 1996).
Middle or early Upper Pleistocene (between approxi-
Middle Paleolithic blade industries are also known from mately 200,000 and 70,000 years ago), certainly well be-
Transcaucasia, from the sites of Djrujula, Tsona, and fore the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition. There is no
Koudaro Caves (Liubin 1977, 1989) (Figure 5). Mouste- evidence for a massive shift (or return) to the use of blade
rian assemblages from Koudaro I and Tsona, both high- technologies at the end of the Middle Paleolithic in Europe,
elevation localities, are characterized by elevated frequen- and in fact it may be the earliest assemblages that are rich-
cies of blades and retouched pieces, especially points, est in blades (Revillion 1995:438-^39). Mellars argues
much like the Early Levantine Mousterian. Although nei- that, on the whole, blades are scarce in terminal Mousterian
ther site has been directly dated, blade-rich Middle Paleo-
lithic levels in Koudaro I and Tsona are stratified directly
above late Acheulean layers, suggesting that they are rela- &
tively ancient.
Despite the stereotypical view, pre-Upper Paleolithic
assemblages dominated by blade blanks are now docu-
k ,i ' \ 1 §
mented in several parts of Europe. Twenty years ago, Bor-
des noted that even late Acheulean assemblages could con-
tain substantial numbers of blades (Bordes 1977). Northern
Europe is especially rich in early blade industries, and liter-
/
ally dozens of Middle Paleolithic assemblages with a I

strong, even predominant, blade component are known

from Germany (Conard 1990), northern France (Meignen
1994; Revillion 1995; Revillion and Tuffreau 1994), and
Belgium (Otte 1994). A variety of methods was employed I
in blade production, ranging from uni- and bidirectional re-
current Levallois at Biache-Saint-Vaast (Tuffreau and . • 1 S
• , •

Somme 1988) to more classic, UpperPaleolithic-like

methods involving prismatic cores (Otte 1994; R6villion
1995; Tuffreau et al. 1994) (Figure 6). It is noteworthy that Figure 5. Mousterian blades from Koudara and Djrujula caves, Cau-
many of the laminar Mousterian industries date to the late casus (after Liubin 1989).
328 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 101, No. 2
Figure 6. Mousterian blades and blade cores from Riencourt, Bel-
gium (after Otte 1994).
assemblages in Europe (1996:393; see also Harrold
1989:691). In Italy, blade production increases towards the
end of the Mousterian in some areas (e.g., Kuhn 1995) and
declines in others (Kuhn and Stiner 1992; Palma di Ces-
nola 1986). Some European "transitional" or initial Upper
Paleolithic industries, such as the Bohunician (Svoboda
and Skrdla 1995), are decidedly laminar. Others, including
the Castelperronian, appear to be technologically variable,
encompassing both blade- and flake-dominated assem-
blages (Harrold 1989; Kozlowski 1990, Pelegnn 1995).
Still others, such as the Uluzzian of Italy, are essentially
flake industries (Palma di Cesnola 1993).
Assemblages containing substantial numbers of blades
are also known from both east and south Africa as early as
the later Acheulean (Clark 1989:571). Middle Stone Age
assemblages from southern Africa may contain many
blades and elongated, pointed flakes (e.g., Clark 1989;
JUNE 1999
Sampson 1974). In South Africa, the Howieson's Poort in-
dustry, dating to the early part of the Upper Pleistocene,
contains many blades and backed pieces as well as flakes
(Clark 1989:573; Deacon 1989). In the Kapthurin forma-
tion of Kenya, layers dated to around 240,000 years ago
have yielded assemblages containing blades produced
from large prismatic cores using the crested-blade tech-
nique (Comelissen 1995; McBrearty et al. 1996; Texier
1996). Although the artifacts appear rather rough (Figure
3, nos. 7-9), this is probably attributable to the use of
coarse-grained volcanic stone. Discussions of these early
blade-rich assemblages from Pleistocene Africa some-
times link them hypothetically to the appearance of ana-
tomically modem humans (e.g., Deacon 1989; Stringer
1989).
Flakes. Blades, and Bifaces in Later
Assemblages
Not only were true blades sometimes systematically
produced in very early time periods, they are by no means
ubiquitous among stone-tool technologies attributed to
modern humans. The notion that laminar technologies are
somehow integral to the sophisticated foraging adaptations
of anatomically modem humans simply does not hold up
outside of western Eurasia and North Africa. Based on a
review of the evidence from the Americas, Parry (1994)
concludes that blade manufacture in the New World is
more commonly associated with specialist (commoditized)
production in urban settings rather than with mobile
hunter-gatherers. With a few exceptions, including pris-
matic blades from Paleoindian (Clovis) caches and sites
(Collins 1990; Green 1963), the early rrucroblade indus-
tries of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (Anderson 1970;
Andrefsky 1987), and highly specialized rrucroblade pro-
duction in the Channel Islands of southern California (Ar-
nold 1985, 1987), most mobile New World hunter-gather-
ers based stone tool production on either flake or biface
manufacture techniques (Kelly 1988; Parry and Kelly
1987). This includes many of the highly complex ethno-
graphically documented technologies of the Arctic and Pa-
cific coast. In Australia, the production of blades or elon-
gated flakes from both Levallois and prismatic cores is
known (Binford and O'Connell 1984; Dortch and Bordes
1977), but is also comparatively rare.
Even the Eurasian Upper Paleolithic, the source of ideas
about the association between blade-based lithic technolo-
gies and modern humans, is not entirely uniform from this
technological perspective (e.g., Clark and Lindly 1989;
Straus 1990). Early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian and
Castelperronian) assemblages from southwest Europe exhibit
a wide range of variation in blank production. In northern
Italy and Spain, the earliest Aurignacian assemblages from
sites such as Arbreda Cave, Riparo Mochi, and Grotta Fu-
mane contain large numbers of blades and especially
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
bladelets (e.g., Bartolomei et al. 1992; Kuhn and Stiner
1998; Maroto and Fullola 1996); the frequency of blades in
the Aurignacian subsequently declines in these sites. The
late Upper Paleolithic Badegoulian of France is an almost
entirely flake-based industry (Sonneville-Bordes
1960:387). In the Near East, the earliest Upper Paleolithic
industries, termed Ahmarian, are heavily biased towards
the production of elongated blanks. These assemblages,
which first appear as early as 42,000 B.P., contain not only
blades but also many small, marginally retouched
bladelets: in the long run, the production of small bladelets
may have more important behavioral implications. Inter-
estingly, the later Levantine Aurignacian, which appears
after the Ahmarian, is often described as a flake-based
technology (Bar-Yosef and Belfer Cohen 1988; Bar-Yosef
et al. 1996; Gilead 1991; Marks 1983). In southern Africa,
blades are common early in the Middle Stone Age and oc-
cur in some Late Stone Age industries, but they disappear
again between 12,000 and 8000 B.P. (Deacon 1984; Vol-
man 1984). In East Asia, the timing of the appearance of
blade-based technologies is still unclear, but it is likely that
they long postdate the early Upper Paleolithic of western
Asia and Europe (e.g., Jia and Huang 1985).
Discussion
Several points are clear from the review presented
above. First, blades and blade technologies are not exclu-
sively associated with the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone
Age (LSA). Both Levallois and prismatic blade technolo-
gies are found throughout western Eurasia in Paleolithic
assemblages dating back as far as the later Middle Pleisto-
cene, or as early as 300,000 years ago. These early assem-
blages contain more than just a few elongated pieces: there
is abundant evidence for stone-working techniques di-
rected specifically at the production of blades. Second,
pre-Upper Paleolithic blade technologies are found in
many regions of the Old World. Although east Africa is
home to one of the earliest cases of blade manufacture
from prismatic cores (Kapthurin), blade-rich assemblages
of similar antiquity are known from the Near East (some
early Levantine Mousterian assemblages, for example).
Laminar technologies appear somewhat later in Europe,
but a number of cases do predate the last interglacial
(120,000 years ago). Finally, in no region is there an un-
broken sequence linking Middle or Lower Paleolithic
blade technologies to the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone
Age. In most regions, including the Levant, southern Af-
rica, and Europe, the use of blade technologies waxes and
wanes markedly over time, and early blade-based assem-
blages are subsequently replaced by flake-based Middle
Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age industries (see also Gam-
ble 1994). Finally, after the establishment of anatomically
modem humans and the disappearance of archaic Homo
sapiens, blade technologies became very widespread if not
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 329
ubiquitous in some parts of the world, notably North Af-
rica, western Asia, and Europe.
Many of the facts summarized above have been known
for decades. Still, long-held assumptions about links be-
tween modem humans and blade technologies are remark-
ably tenacious. Some researchers continue to assert that the
early appearance of blades in Africa and the Near East
marks the first appearance of either anatomically modem
humans or "modem behavior" (e.g., Ronen 1992; le Ten-
sorer and Muhesen 1997:162). The emphasis placed on
pre-LSA blades in Howieson's Poort assemblages from
South Africa as support for the African origin of modem
Homo sapiens (e.g., Deacon 1989; Stringer 1989) shows a
similar, though less explicit assumption about the phyloge-
netic significance of blade production. Clearly, the data
show that blades were made at many times and places prior
to the Upper Paleolithic. However, the Upper Paleolithic is
no longer synonymous with anatomically modem humans.
Is it possible that blade technologies still are somehow
linked with modem humans, whether before or after the
appearance of the Upper Paleolithic?
The fossil record is of little immediate help in answering
this question. Certainly, there is no direct evidence that the
earliest blade industries are associated with anatomically
modem fossils. There are few, if any, unambiguous homi-
nid associations with the early industries containing blades
in East Africa, the Near East, or Europe. In part, this re-
flects a general scarcity of fossil-bearing deposits and well-
preserved human remains dating to the period between
around 300,000 years ago and the appearance of the classic
Neandertals. While there is currently no direct evidence
that the 'Tabun D-type" Mousterian or any similar assem-
blages were produced by anatomically modem popula-
tions, it is not clear to which hominid taxon or taxa these
assemblages should be attributed. Of course, the earliest
anatomically modem human burials known today (from
Skhul and Qafzeh) are associated with Mousterian assem-
blages dominated by flakes obtained by centripetal Leval-
lois method. On the other hand, several fossils of archaic
members of the genus Homo have been found in layers
yielding laminar lithic assemblages. The hominids from
Biache-Saint-Vaast, which are closely affiliated with the
Neandertals (Vandermeersch 1978), were associated with
artifact assemblages full of blades, albeit produced by Le-
vallois method. Much later in time, Neandertal fossils from
Saint-Ce"saire and Arcy-sur-Cure are associated with Cas-
telperronian industries showing substantial evidence for
blade production by non-Levallois methods (Gouedo
1990; Guilbaud 1993).
Indirect evidence argues more strongly against any sim-
ple equation of blades with modem anatomy. The highly
discontinuous spatio-temporal distribution of early blade
technologies makes them an unlikely potential marker for
the hypothetical early expansion of the first anatomically
330 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2 • JUNE 1999
modem populations "out of Africa." If one wished to argue
that the early presence of blades in East Africa, the Levant,
and Europe also marked the presence of modem Homo sa-
piens, one would have to hypothesize either (1) a period of
co-residence of early anatomically modem populations
with Neandertals and their forbears throughout Europe and
western Asia lasting between 100,000 and 250,000 years,
with the latter dominating the fossil record, or (2) a series
of brief expansions of blade-making modem humans as far
as northern Europe, subsequent to which they either
stopped making blades or were replaced by anatomically
archaic human groups. Neither of these seems a very likely
scenario. Of course, if one holds with a model of regional
continuity and a late appearance of modem Homo sapiens,
then blade industries older than 50,000 years or so should
have nothing to do with modem humans. Similarly, the ab-
sence of local technological continuity between early blade
industries and the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone Age in
many areas suggests that laminar technologies per se have
little long-term phylogenetic significance.
In the absence of good fossil associations, the most par-
simonious interpretation of current knowledge is that the
pre-Upper Paleolithic blade technologies in Europe, the
Near East, and Africa were produced by a variety of mem-
bers of the genus Homo, perhaps including anatomically
modem humans but certainly also including other taxa
such as Neandertals or H. heidelbergensis. One lesson to
be taken from the global evidence is simply that the knowl-
edge of and ability to produce blades from either Levallois
or prismatic cores has tremendous time depth in human
prehistory. Since at least the late Middle Pleistocene, some
humans have had both the capacity and savoir faire to
make elongated blanks. Moreover, many notions about the
general superiority and complexity of prismatic blade tech-
nologies stem from perceived associations between these
types of technologies and anatomically modem popula-
tions. If these connections no longer seem so robust, then
perhaps it is time to reevaluate ideas about the behavioral
significance of making blades. The converse holds true as
well. If it is not possible to equate blade making with mod-
em humans or "modem behavior," whatever that may be,
then the scarcity or absence of blades in early Upper Paleo-
lithic assemblages can no longer be considered an "ar-
chaic" holdover. After all, in North America and Australia
sophisticated, mobile hunter-gatherers got along quite well
into the historic period with "only" flakes and bifaces.
We do not mean to deny that prismatic blade technolo-
gies can provide advantages over other methods of blank
production, or that many Upper Paleolithic groups took ad-
vantage of the special properties of blades. However, the
advantages are only situationally relevant. The simple fact
that blade technologies come and go in many prehistoric
sequences demonstrates that their advantages are hardly
overwhelming. In order to argue that blade technologies
would provide an advantage to populations using them it is
first necessary to explain how their particular properties
would have been locally beneficial. It may be true, for ex-
ample, that the manufacture of prismatic blades yields
more sharp edge per kilogram of stone than any other tech-
nique. However, it is relevant to ask whether the conserva-
tion of raw material is always of great advantage, or
whether the need to save stone has always been a major
driving force in human evolution.
Although it is not valid to attribute blade technologies
exclusively to either modem humans or the Upper Paleo-
lithic, or to assume that such systems or blank manufacture
are inherently superior to all other modes of stone tool pro-
duction, blade-dominated assemblages are still an impor-
tant and interesting dimension of the Pleistocene archae-
ological record. Many of the broad patterns that stimulated
researchers to investigate the connections between homi-
nid anatomy and technology in the first place must still be
explained. The questions must simply be refrained. First, it
is clear that the Upper Paleolithic/modem human "blade
phenomenon" is really confined largely to North Africa,
northern and western Asia, and Europe. Second, the most
important development in laminar technologies within this
area is not in their simple presence but in their ubiquity (cf.
Mellars 1989:360). Many pre-Upper Paleolithic assem-
blages contain significant numbers of blades, but many do
not. In contrast, the majority of Upper Paleolithic assem-
blages from western Eurasia and North Africa, especially
the later ones, contain plentiful evidence for blade and
bladelet production. Moreover, many other methods of
blank production, including Levallois and classic discoid
methods, seem to disappear almost completely from these
areas at about the same time that blade technologies take
over. Finally, if there is any major shift from Middle to Up-
per Paleolithic in the technology of blade production, it is
seen in (1) the appearance of soft hammer and indirect
(punch) percussion in blade manufacture, which result in
finer, more symmetrical products (e.g., Meignen 1994,
1996; Mellars 1996; Pelegrin 1990), and (2) the manufac-
ture of small bladelets.
The two authors of this paper come from very different
backgrounds and are inclined "paradigmatically" to pursue
very different explanations for the widespread use of
blades in the Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic of west
Asia and Europe. Nonetheless, we do agree on several as-
pects of a potential explanation for why laminar technolo-
gies become so dominant after 45,000 years ago. With the
recognition that we are unable to offer a complete resolu-
tion to the question at present, we offer the following con-
jectures as a basis for further discussion.
First, the chaines operatoires behind what we refer to
generically as blade production techniques represent de-
signs for producing tool blanks that were invented, aban-
doned, and reinvented due to a variety of factors, of which
their success or failure in the techno-economic sphere is
only one. There are only a limited number of ways usable
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
blanks can be produced from a block of stone, and these
tend to appear repeatedly throughout prehistory. All blade
(or biface, or Levallois) technologies need not have com-
mon origins. Second, it is important to recognize that the
stereotypical progression from flakes to blades is not inevi-
table. Historical contingency plays a major role in shaping
long-term evolutionary trends. Blades simply represent
one alternative way of making tools to solve common
problems that became well established in one part of the
world (Europe and western Asia) where raw materials
were conducive. The heavy reliance on biface production
among mobile hunter-gatherers in North America repre-
sents an equally effective solution to some of the same
kinds of problems.
While historical factors may well answer the question of
"why blades?" (as opposed to flakes or bifaces), they alone
cannot account for the spread and near-ubiquity of blade-
based technologies in the Upper Paleolithic of western
Eurasia. We still need to ask "why so many blades, in so
many places," to seek out a more general explanation for
the remarkable persistence and broad distribution of this
family of blank production techniques. There should be
some commonality in the widespread adoption of blade
technologies in the Upper Paleolithic of the western Old
World. There is no question that mobility patterns and
functional considerations may favor the use of blade tech-
nologies in specific contexts (e.g., Henry 1989; Kuhn
1995; Marks 1988; Parry 1994). However, the range of en-
vironments in which laminar lithic technologies occurred
during the late Pleistocene would argue against a single,
overarching explanation of this type: social systems, land
use strategies, and economies were simply too diverse. The
same is true of general explanations relating to the conser-
vation of raw material. In some areas, high quality raw ma-
terial may have become increasingly scarce over the course
of the Upper Pleistocene, which would favor the adoption
of economical prismatic blade production techniques, but
this needs to be demonstrated and should not be presup-
posed.
On the other hand, lithic technology was not the only
thing to change with the origins of the Upper Paleolithic. It
is likely that the widespread adoption of prismatic blade
production was associated with other broadly metamor-
phosing aspects of technology and society. It has long been
argued that the spread of prismatic blade technologies
could well tie in to another aspect of technology that flour-
ished during the Upper and Epi-Paleolithic, namely hafting
and composite tools (e.g., Gamble 1986:121, 1994; Sher-
ratt 1997). Although simple hafted knives, scrapers or
points were part of Middle Paleolithic technological reper-
toires (Anderson-Gerfaud 1990; Boeda et al. 1996; Freid-
man et al. 1994; Shea 1989), there is much evidence that
the number, diversity, and complexity of multi-component
tools increased during the Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Clark
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 331
1983; Mellars 1989; Sherratt 1997). Bone, antler, and ivory
armatures are common in many European assemblages be-
ginning with the early Upper Paleolithic. Even when such
artifacts are not preserved, the presence of backed or mar-
ginally retouched bladelets too small and narrow to have
been hand-held tools attests to the use of hafts or armatures
of highly perishable materials such as wood. Although
bladelets are often considered a hallmark of the later Upper
Paleolithic, they are quite abundant in some early Upper
Paleolithic assemblages from the Near East (e.g., Bar-
Yosef and Belfer 1977; Gilead 1991; Jones et al. 1983;
Phillips 1988) and also from Europe (Bartolomei et al.
1992; Harrold 1989; Kuhn and Stiner 1998; Maroto and
Fullola 1996).
Greater reliance on composite tools in turn implies need
for interchangeable parts. Blades, and especially bladelets,
are ideal for this application. One often-stated advantage of
blade technology is that it allows for greater stand-
ardization of the product. This does not necessarily mean
that, taken together, all products and byproducts of blade
production will be notably more standardized than the re-
sults of flake manufacture (cf. Chazan 1995). However,
prismatic blade techniques in particular do seem to permit
an unusual degree of control over the dimensions and
shapes of a limited range of products, namely the blades
themselves. The fact that a blade tends to be fairly uniform
in width and thickness over its entire length also means that
smaller blanks of similar size and shape can be produced
simply by sectioning them. In addition, several investiga-
tors have argued that one difference between Upper Paleo-
lithic and earlier methods of blank production is the use of
soft hammer and indirect (punch) percussion in the later
time ranges (Meignen 1994; Pelegrin 1990). Soft hammer
and indirect percussion permit one to achieve a more uni-
form final product than does hard hammer percussion. This
high degree of control over blank morphology would in
turn have obvious benefits when stone tools served as low-
cost, replaceable components of composite implements.
We emphasize that this argument does not presuppose
that everything in Upper Paleolithic assemblages was
hafted, or even that all blade tools served as parts of com-
posite implements. In fact, it is seldom the case that all
tools in Upper Paleolithic assemblages were made using
blade blanks. Other methods for working stone are likely to
have been employed where they offered particular advan-
tages, or where the potential benefits of prismatic blade
production did not counterbalance the risk of failure or raw
material requirements involved. At the same time, exper-
tise in particular modes of production would be expected to
bleed over into blank production for other purposes: skills
acquired in making uniform blanks for use in composite
tools would inevitably be turned to making larger blades to
be used as blanks for hand-held implements.
332 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2
The assertion that widespread adoption of prismatic
blade production during the Upper Paleolithic is related to
increasing use of composite tools has several implications.
First, the defining characteristic of blades (elongation) may
not be so important as the potential for producing uniform,
standardized blanks. Second, not all blades are created
equal. The appearance of small bladelets as well as the use
of soft hammer, indirect percussion or pressure to make
highly uniform blade blanks are more significant techno-
logically than is the simple preponderance of large blades
in an assemblage. Most importantly, however, this account
also begs the question of why humans might come to rely
more and more on complex composite artifacts.
The burgeoning complexity of composite artifacts dur-
ing the Upper Paleolithic reflects more than a simple in-
crease in the cognitive capacity or technological compe-
tence of hominids: after all, hafting itself has a very long
history. A more comprehensive explanation requires that
one consider disadvantages and costs as well as benefits.
The potential advantages of composite tools with inter-
changeable parts are numerous. Multipart artifacts with
easily replaced components may offer increased effective-
ness, reliability, and maintainability (sensu Bleed 1986),
although admittedly these properties have seldom been
measured experimentally. The integration of tough, flex-
ible components of bone, antler or hardwoods into weap-
ons and other resource procurement tools reduces the like-
lihood of catastrophic failure. Moreover, the parts most
likely to fail—brittle stone inserts—are inexpensively and
easily replaced. Yet this improved functionality is not
without costs. Elaborate tools may afford users increased
effectiveness or time utility in the procurement and proc-
essing of resources, but they also require a greater invest-
ment of time and energy, effort which could in principle be
put to other fitness-enhancing pursuits such as foraging,
mate acquisition or child care. Implements involving parts
of several materials bound, spliced or glued together are
obviously "expensive" to produce, whether the currency
measured is time or energy. Ethnologists (e.g., Osgood
1940) and experimentalists (e.g., Julien 1982; Knecht
1997; Stordeur-Yedid 1980) have documented the consid-
erable effort and time required to produce complex com-
posite tools and weapons with simple hand tools.
The increasing importance of elaborate composite tools
in some parts of the world over the course of the Upper Pa-
leolithic may reflect a significant shift in patterns of alloca-
tion of technological effort and a change in the social net-
works of the producers of these tools. The creation of
elaborate technological aids to foraging or other work car-
ries with it a significant amount of "frontloading," expen-
diture of time and energy well in advance of any possible
return. On one hand, this requires a certain degree of fore-
sight on the part of toolmakers. Perhaps more importantly,
it requires a significant amount of cooperation and coordi-
nation of activities among members of a social group. The
• JUNE 1999
investment of significant amounts of time and labor in the
production of elaborate items of technology, the potential
benefits from which might not be realized for days, weeks
or even years, means that individuals were free to divert
this time and labor from more immediately pressing con-
cerns such as getting food or shelter. If an individual is able
to devote many hours or even days to the manufacture of
an artifact, someone else must be carrying at least part of
the load with respect to gathering and processing other re-
sources. This "division of labor" might well have been
transitory and minor compared with the kinds of occupa-
tional differentiation seen in later and larger-scale socie-
ties, and we are not arguing for rigid, permanent occupa-
tional specialization during the Upper Paleolithic.
Nonetheless, the ability to shift the burden of daily subsis-
tence labor onto another individual at least temporarily
would be vital to the evolution of some of the complex
technologies that began to appear in the Upper Paleolithic.
Conversely, the absence of such options for cooperation
would inhibit the amount of time and energy any single in-
dividual could afford to put into tool manufacture, regard-
less of the potential payoffs of having more elaborate im-
plements.
Admittedly, the Upper Paleolithic is hardly a monolithic
entity. The suite of traits generally thought to typify the
Upper Paleolithic does not appear all at once (Clark and
Lindly 1989; Gamble 1986; Straus 1990; Straus and Heller
1988). Moreover, one of the hallmarks of the period be-
tween 45,000 and 10,000 years ago is the variability of ma-
terial remains. Some Upper Paleolithic assemblages con-
tain few blades, and some have little evidence for
composite tools. As for the first observation, we emphasize
that the use of complex composite tools is neither a neces-
sary nor sufficient condition for the proliferation of blade
production. This hypothetical reorganization of techno-
logical labor would have rendered blade and bladelet tech-
nologies advantageous, but it would not have guaranteed
their invention or adoption in all places. Multi-part tools
can be made with flake inserts as well. However, if tech-
nologies requiring interchangeable components were
widely established in the Upper Paleolithic, conditions
would have been ideal for the adoption of techniques for
blade and bladelet production. As for the second observa-
tion, there is no reason to expect that all Upper Paleolithic
populations would have used elaborate composite tools,
even given the potential to allocate labor to their produc-
tion. Theories of artifact design predict that the complexity,
variety, and labor "cost" of artifacts will vary among
hunter-gatherer groups according to patterns of mobility
and resource distributions, as well as social factors (e.g.,
Arnold 1987; Bleed 1986; Bousman 1993; Hayden 1981;
Short 1986; Torrence 1983, 1989). These theories lead us
to expect that effective but "expensive" composite artifacts
would have appeared most often in certain situations, such
as when windows of opportunity for obtaining certain key
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
resources were at their narrowest. The demographic
changes which mark the later Upper Paleolithic (e.g. Clark
and Straus 1983; Gamble 1986:372-373) could also have
had important consequences in terms of both the opportu-
nities to invest in elaborate items of material culture, and
the benefits of such investment, whether in the context of
procuring increasingly scarce game or in connection with
exploiting newly important resources such as fish or birds.
What, then, of early (pre-Upper Paleolithic) blade tech-
nologies? In biological terms, the resemblance between
early and late blade manufacture is likely to be an analogy
rather than a homology. They are not in themselves suffi-
cient evidence to argue the early appearance of complex
composite tools of the type known for the Upper Paleo-
lithic. Most importantly, the earliest blade technologies do
not include those features (bladelet/microblade production
and soft hammer, pressure, or indirect percussion) that af-
ford greatest control over blank form and would be most
closely tied to the manufacture of interchangeable compo-
nents for composite tools. Large, heavy hard hammer
blades such as those found in the early Levantine Mouste-
rian, the Hummalian or the Kapthurin formation would not
be ideal for hafting in complicated armatures. The Howi-
eson's Poort assemblages, which do contain geometric
pieces, remain an exception and an anomaly. Cases such as
the early Mousterian of northwestern Europe and the
Howieson's Poort are also of a different spatial and chrono-
logical order from the proliferation of prismatic blade
manufacture during the Upper Paleolithic, and we should
not expect them to be amenable to the same kinds of expla-
nations (contra Sherratt 1997:283). Explanations of these
more restricted technological phenomena are more appro-
priately structured in terms of locally relevant factors such
as mobility, raw material availability, or artifact function
(e.g., Ambrose andLorenz 1990; Henry 1989; Kuhn 1995;
Marks 1988).
Summary and Conclusion
Long held and widespread views about the sophistica-
tion and utility of blade technologies and their exclusive
association with anatomically modem humans and the Up-
per Paleolithic are based on observations of the limited and
rather incomplete European archaeological record of dec-
ades past. Based on the archaeological record as it is
known today, there is no clear association between the pro-
duction of elongated blades—prismatic or Levallois—and
any single feature of hominid anatomy or behavior. Pris-
matic blade production is the dominant mode of blank
manufacture in most parts of Europe and western Asia dur-
ing the Upper Paleolithic, but forms of blade technology
had been around for tens of millennia before the appear-
ance of modem humans or the Upper Paleolithic, and other
modes of blank production continue to be used throughout
the world even after the origins of modem humans.
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 333
Though hominids have been making blades since the
late Middle Pleistocene, there is no denying the fact that
blade technologies do come to dominate the archaeological
record of western Eurasia and parts of Africa after around
45,000 years ago. Because the basic techniques had first
appeared thousands of years earlier, however, this appar-
ently sudden and widespread adoption of a fairly narrow
range of methods for making stone tools cannot be attrib-
uted to either chance discovery or some specific change in
the technological capacities of hominids. The ubiquity of
blade technologies involving soft hammer or indirect per-
cussion during the Upper Paleolithic in certain regions of
western Eurasia may well have been tied to the use of com-
plex composite tools with interchangeable cutting edges
composed of blades or blade segments. Ultimately, the fact
that blade technologies—as opposed to other methods of
working stone—became predominant in western Eurasia
during the late Upper Pleistocene may be simply a "frozen
accident," in evolutionary terms equivalent to the fixation
of a trait due to historical circumstances. After all, in late
prehistoric Australia, microlithic components of composite
tools were often manufactured using small flakes (Flood
1983:190). However, if the proliferation of blade and
bladelet technologies during the Upper Paleolithic is in fact
linked to composite tool manufacture, it may also reflect
the emergence of novel and highly significant patterns of
social and economic cooperation within human groups.
Notes
Discussions with a number of colleagues have greatly influ-
enced our thinking on the topics contained in this paper. We
would like to acknowledge the contributions of Anna Belfer-
Cohen, Arthur Jelinek, Janusz Kozlowski, Liliane Meignen,
Nigel Goring-Morris, and Mary Stiner. Three anonymous re-
viewers provided cogent and much-needed criticism of an ear-
lier version of this manuscript.
References Cited
Ambrose, S., and K. Lorenz
1990 Social and Ecological Models for the Middle Stone
Age in Southern Africa. In The Emergence of Modern Hu-
mans: An Archaeological Perspective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp.
3-33. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Anderson, D.
1970 Microblade Traditions in Northeastern Alaska. Arctic
Anthropology 7(2):2-16.
Anderson-Gerfaud, P.
1990 Aspects of Behaviour in the Middle Paleolithic: Func-
tional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France. In
The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological
Perspective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 389^19. Ithaca, NY: Cor-
nell University Press.
Andrefsky, W.
1987 Diffusion and Innovation from the Perspective of Wedge
Shaped Cores in Alaska and Japan. In The Organization of
334 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2
Core Technology. J. Johnson and C. Morrow, eds. Pp.
13-44. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Arnold, J.
1985 The Santa Barbara Channel Islands Bladelet Industry.
Lithic Technology 14:71-80.
1987 Technology and Economy: Microblade Core Produc-
tion from the Channel Islands. In The Organization of Core
Technology. J. Johnson and C. Morrow, eds. Pp. 207-237.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bar-Yosef, O.
1996 The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A View
from the Eastern Mediterranean. In The Last Neanderthals,
the First Anatomically Modern Humans. E. Carbonell and
M. Vaquero, eds. Pp. 79-94. Tarragona, Spain: Universitat
Rovira i Virgili.
Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Belfer
1977 The Lagaman Industry. In Prehistoric Investigations in
Gebel Mughara, Sinai. O. Bar-Yosef and J. Phillips, eds. Pp.
42-88. QEDEM 7. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Belfer-Cohen
1988 The Early Upper Paleolithic in Levantine Caves. In
The Early Upper Paleolithic: Evidence from Europe and the
Near East. J. Hoffecker and C. Wolf, eds. Pp. 2 3 ^ 2 . BAR
International Series, 437. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
Bar-Yosef, O., M. Arnold, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg,
R. Housley, H. Laville, L. Meignen, N. Mercier, 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.
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.PreistoriaAlpina28(l):131-179.
Binford, L., and J. O'Connell
1984 An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry. Journal of An-
thropological Research 40:406-432.
Bleed, P.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons. American
Antiquity 51:737-747.
Boeda, E.
1990 De la surface au volume. Analyse des conceptions des
debitages Levallois et laminaire. In Palgolithique Moyen
Recent et Paleolithique Superieur Ancien en Europe. C.
Farizy, ed. Pp. 63-68. Me"moires du Musee de Prehistoire
d'lle de France, No. 3.
1995 Levallois: Volumetric Construction, Methods, a Tech-
nique. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois
Technology. H. Dibble and O. Bar-Yosef, eds. Pp. 41-68.
Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 23. Madison, WI:
Prehistory Press.
Boeda, E., J. Connan, D. Dessof, S. Muhesen, N. Mercier,
H. Valladas, and N. Tisnerat
1996 Bitumen as a Hafting Material on Middle Paleolithic
Artifacts. Nature 380:336-338.
Boeda, E., J.-M. Geneste, and L. Meignen
1990 Identification des chaines operatoires lithiques du
Paleolithique ancien et moyen. Pale"o 2:43-80.
• JUNE 1999
Boeda, E., and S. Muhesen
1993 Umm El Tlel (El Kowm, Syrie): Etude preliminaire
des industries lithiques du Pale"olithique moyen et supeYieur.
Cahiers de l'Euphrate 7:47-91.
Bordaz, J.
1970 Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. New York:
Natural History Press.
Bordes, F.
1960 Le Pre-Aurignacien de Yabroud (Syrie) et son inci-
dence sur la chronologie du quaternaire en Moyen Orient
Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 9G:91-103.
1977 Que sont le Pre-Aurignacien et le Yabroudien? In Eretz
Israel 13 (Moshe Stekelis Memorial Volume). B. Arensburg
and O. Bar-Yosef, eds. Pp. 49-55. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society.
Bousman, C. B.
1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and
Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18:59-86.
Boyd, R., and J. Silk
1997 How Humans Evolved. New York and London: W. W.
Norton and Co.
Chazan, M.
1995 The Language Hypothesis for the Middle-to-Upper Pa-
leolithic Transition: An Examination Based on Multi-re-
gional Lithic Analysis. Current Anthropology 36:749-768.
Clark, G., and J. Lindly
1989 The Case for Continuity: Observations on the Biocul-
tural Transition in Europe and Western Asia. In The Human
Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the
Origins of Modern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, eds.
Pp. 626-676. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clark, G., and L. Straus
1983 Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Adaptationsin Cant-
abrian Spain. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. G.
Bailey, ed. Pp. 131-148. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clark, J. D.
1983 The Significance of Culture Change in the Earlier Later
Pleistocene in Northern and Southern Africa. In The Mous-
terian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper
Pleistocene. E. Trinkaus, ed. Pp. 1-12. BAR International
Series SI64. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
1989 The Origins and Spread of Modern Humans: A Broad
Perspective on the African Evidence. In The Human Revo-
lution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Ori-
gins of Modern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, eds. Pp.
565-587. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clark, J. E.
1987 Politics, Prismatic Blades, and Mesoamerican Civiliza-
tion. In The Organization of Core Technology. J. Johnson and
C. Morrow, eds. Pp. 259-284. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Collins, M. B.
1990 Observations on Clovis Lithic Technology. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 7:73-74.
Conard, N.
1990 Laminar Lithic Assemblages from the Last Interglacial
Complex in Northwestern Europe. Journal of Anthropologi-
cal Research 46:243-262.
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
Cornelissen, E.
1995 Indications du post-Acheuleen (Sangoen) dans la for-
mation Kapthurin, Baringo, Kenya. L'Anthropologie 99:
55-73.
Crew, H. L.
1976 The Mousterian Site of Rosh Ein Mor. In Prehistory
and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, vol. 1. A.
Marks, ed. Pp. 75-112. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist
University.
Deacon, H.
1989 Late Pleistocene Paleoecology and Archaeology in the
Southern Cape, South Africa. In The Human Revolution:
Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of
Modern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, eds. Pp.
547-564. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Deacon, J.
1984 The Later Stone People and their Descendants in
Southern Africa. In Southern African Prehistory and Pa-
leoenvironments. R. Klein, ed. Pp. 221-328. Rotterdam: A.
A. Balkema.
Dortch, C , and F. Bordes
1977 Blades and Levallois Technology in Western Austra-
lia. Quarter 27/28:1 -19.
Flood, J.
1983 Archaeology of the Dreamtime. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Foley, R., and M. M. Lahr
1997 Mode 3 Technologies and the Evolution of Modern
Humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(1 ):3-36.
Friedman, E., N. Goren-Inbar, A. Rosenfeld, O. Marder,
and F. Burian.
1994 Hafting during Mousterian Times—Further Indica-
tions. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:8-31.
Gamble, C.
1986 The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1994 Timewalkers: The Prehistory of Global Colonization.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garrod, D. A. E., and D. Kirkbride
1961 Acheuleo-Jabrudian et pre-Aurignacien de la Grotte de
Taboun, Mont Carmel: Etude stratigraphique et chronolo-
gique. Quatemaria 3:39-59.
Gilead, I.
1991 The Upper Paleolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of
World Prehistory 5:105-153.
Goren-Inbar, N.
1990 Quneitra: A Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights.
QEDEM, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Je-
rusalem: Hebrew University.
Gouedo, J.-M.
1990 Les technologies lithiques du Chatelperronien de la
couche X de la Grotte du Renne d'Arcy-sur Cure (Yonne).
In Paleolithique Moyen Recent et Pale"olithique Supe"rieur
Ancien en Europe. C. Farizy, ed. Pp. 305-308. M&noires du
Mus£e de Prehistoire d'lle de France, No. 3. Nemours:
A.P.R.A.I.F.
Green, F. E.
1963 Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano
Complex. American Antiquity 29:145-165.
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 335
Griin, R., C. B. Stringer, and H. P. Schwarcz
1991 ESR Dating of Teeth from Garrod's Tabun Cave Col-
lection. Journal of Human Evolution 20:231-248.
Guilbaud, M.
1993 Debitage from the Upper Castelperronian Level at
Saint-Ce"saire: Methodological Approach and Implications
for the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In Con-
text of a Late Neandertal. F. Leveque, A. Backer, and M.
Guilbaud, eds. Pp. 37-58. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Harrold, F.
1989 Mousterian, Chatelperronian and Early Aurignacian in
Western Europe: Continuity or Discontinuity? In The Hu-
man Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on
the Origins of Modern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer,
eds. Pp. 677-713. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hay den, B.
1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age: Techno-
logical Transitions among Hunter-Gatherers. Current An-
thropology 22:519-528.
Henry, D.
1989 Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settle-
ment Patterns. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analy-
sis. D. Henry and G. Odell, eds. Pp. 139-155. Washington,
DC: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropology
Association, No. 1.
Hester, T., and H. Shafer
1987 Observations on Ancient Maya Core Technology at
Colha, Belize. In The Organization of Core Technology. J.
Johnson and C. Morrow, eds. Pp. 239-258. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Inizan, M. L., H. Roche, and J. Tixier
1993 Technology of Knapped Stone. Prehistoire de la Pierre
Taillee, 3. Meudon: CREP.
Jelinek, A. J.
1981 The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant from
the Perspective of Tabun Cave. In Prehistoire du Levant. J.
Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, eds. Pp. 265-280. Paris: Editions
duCNRS.
1982 The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant with
Comments on the Appearance of Modern Homo sapiens. In
The Transition from Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the
Origin of Modern Man. A. Ronen, ed. Pp. 57-104. BAR In-
ternational Series, 151. Oxford: British Archaeological Re-
ports.
1990 The Amudian in the Context of the Mugharan Tradi-
tion at Tabun Cave (Mount Carmel) Israel. In The Emer-
gence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective.
P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 81-90. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Jia, L., and W. Huang
1985 The Late Paleolithic of China. In Paleoanthropology
and Paleolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of
China. R. Wu and J. Olsen, eds. Pp. 211-224. New York:
Academic Press.
Jones, M., A. Marks, and D. Kaufman
1983 Boker: The Artifacts. In Prehistory and Paleoenviron-
ments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 3. A. Marks, ed. Pp.
283-329. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University.
336 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2 • JUNE 1999
Julien, M.
1982 Les Harpons Magdaleniens. XVII Supplement a Gallia
Pr6histoire. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Kelly, R. L.
1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:
717-734.
Knecht, H.
1997 Projectile Points of Bone, Antler and Stone: Experi-
mental Explorations of Manufacture and Use. In Projectile
Technology. H. Knecht, ed. Pp.191-212. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Kozlowski, J. K.
1990 A Multiaspectual Approach to the Origins of the Upper
Paleolithic. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Ar-
chaeological Perspective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 419-437. Ed-
inburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kuhn, S.
1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Ap-
proach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kuhn, S., and M. Stiner
1992 New Research on Riparo Mochi, Balzi Rossi (Liguria):
Preliminary Results. Quaternaria Nova 2:77-90.
1998 The Earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi, Liguria.
Current Anthropology 39 (supplement):S175-S189.
Lindly, J., and G. Clark
1987 A Preliminary Lithic Analysis of the Mousterian Site
of 'Ain Difla (WHS site 634) in the Wadi Ali, West-Central
Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3:48-76.
Liubin, V. P.
1977 Mousterian Culture in the Caucasus. Leningrad: Nauka
(in Russian).
1989 Paleolithic of Caucasus. Leningrad: Nauka (in Russian).
Marks, A.
1983 The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Le-
vant. In Advances in World Archaeology, vol. 2. F. Wen-
dorf and A. E. Close, eds. Pp. 51-98. New York: Academic
Press.
1988 The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Le-
vant: Technological Change as an Adaptation to Increasing
Mobility. In L'Homme de Neandertal, vol. 8, La Mutation.
M. Otte, ed. Pp. 109-123. ERAUL 35. Liege: Universite de
Liege.
1990 The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the Near East and
the Nile Valley: The Problem of Cultural Transitions. In The
Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Per-
spective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 56-80. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Marks, A., and K. Monigal
1995 Modeling the Production of Elongated Blanks from the
Early Levantine Mousterian at Rosh Ein Mor. In The Defi-
nition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. H. Dib-
ble and O. Bar-Yosef, eds. Pp. 267-278. Madison, WI:
Prehistory Press.
Marks, A., and P. Volkman
1983 Changing Core Reduction Strategies: A Technological
Shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the South-
ern Levant. In The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural
Change in the Upper Pleistocene. E. Trinkaus, ed. Pp.
13-33. BAR International Series SI64. Oxford: British Ar-
chaeological Reports.
Maroto, J. S., and J. M. Fullola
1996 Cultural Change between Middle and Upper Paleo-
lithic in Catalonia. In The Last Neandertals, the First Ana-
tomically Modern Humans. E. Carbonell and M. Vaquero,
eds. Pp. 219-250. Tarragona, Spain: Universitat fcovira i
Virgili.
McBrearty, S., L. Bishop, and J. Kingston
1996 Variability in Traces of Middle Pleistocene Hominid
Behavior in the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya.
Journal of Human Evolution 30:563-580.
McBurney, C. B. M.
1967 The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the
South-East Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Meignen, L.
1994 Le Paleolithique moyen au Proche-Orient: le phenomene
laminaire. In Les Industries Laminaires au Paleolithique
Moyen. S. Revillion and A. Tuffreau, eds. Pp. 125-159.
Paris: Editions du CNRS.
1995 Levallois Lithic Production Systems in the Middle Pa-
leolithic of the Near East: The Case of the Unidirectional
Method. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois
Technology. H. Dibble and O. Bar-Yosef, eds. Pp. 361-381.
Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
1996 Les premices du Paleolithique superieur au proche ori-
ent. In The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern
Humans. E. Carbonell and M. Vaquero, eds. Pp. 107-127.
Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
1998 A Preliminary Report on the Hayonim Cave Lithic As-
semblages in the Context of the Near Eastern Middle Paleo-
lithic. In Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia.
T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and O. Bar-Yosef, eds. Pp. 165-180.
New York: Plenum Press.
Meignen, L., and O. Bar-Yosef
1991 Les outillages lithiques Mousteriens de Kebara. In Le
Squelette mousterien de Kebara 2, Mt. Carmel, Israel. O.
Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch, eds. Pp. 49-76. Paris:
Editions CNRS.
Mellars, P.
1989 Technological Changes at the Middle to Upper Paleo-
lithic Transition: Economic, Social, and Cognitive Perspec-
tives. In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological
Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. P. Mellars
and C. Stringer, eds. Pp. 338-365. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
1996 The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mercier, N., H. Valladas, G. Valladas, J. L. Reyss, A.
Jelinek, L. Meignen, and J. L. Joron
1995 TL Dates of Burnt Flints from Jelinek's Excavations at
Tabun and Their Implications. Journal of Archaeological
Science 22(4):495-510.
Nishiaki, Y.
1989 Early Blade Industries in the Levant: The Placement of
Douara IV Industry in the Context of the Levantine Early
Middle Paleolithic. Paleorient 15(l):215-229.
Osgood, C.
1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications
in Anthropology, 22. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 BAR-YOSEF AND KUHN
Otte, M.
1994 Rocourt (Liege, Belgique): Industrie laminaire an-
cienne. In Les Industries Laminaires au Paleolithique
Moyen. S. Revillion and A. Tuffreau, eds. Pp. 179-186.
Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Owen, L.
1988 Blade and Microblade Technology: Selected Assem-
blages from the North American Arctic and the Upper Pa-
leolithic of Southwest Germany. BAR International Series
441. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Palma di Cesnola, A.
1986 Panorama del Musteriano Italiano. In I Neandertaliani.
D. Cochi-Genick, ed. Pp. 139-174. Viareggio, Italy: Museo
Preistorico e Archeologico "Alberto Carlo Blanc."
1993 II Paleolitico Superiore in Italia: Introduzione allo stu-
dio. Firenze, Italy. Garlatti e Razzai Editori.
Parry, W. J.
1994 Prismatic Blade Technologies in North America. In
The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped
Stone Tool Technologies. P. J. Carr, ed. Pp. 87-98. Archae-
ological Series 7. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs
in Prehistory.
Parry, W. J, and R. L. Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The
Organization of Core Technology. J. Johnson and C. Mor-
row, eds. Pp. 285-304. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pelegrin, J.
1990 Observations technologiques sur quelques series du
Chatelperronien et du MTA B du sud-ouest de la France: Un
hypothese d'evolution. In Paleolithique Moyen Recent et
Paleolithique Superieur Ancien en Europe. C. Farizy, ed.
Pp. 3 9 ^ 2 . Memoirs du Musee de Prehistoire d'lle de
France, No. 3. Nemours: A.P.R.A.I.F.
1995 Technologie Lithique: Le Chatelperronian de Roc-du-
Combe (Lot) et de La Cote (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quater-
naire, N. 20. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Phillips, J.
1988 The Upper Paleolithic of the Wadi Feiran, Southern Si-
nai. Paleorient 14:183-200.
Relethford, J.
1997 The Human Species. 3rd edition. Mt. View, CA: May-
field.
Revillion, S.
1995 Technologie du debitage laminaire au Paleolithique
moyen en Europe Septentrionale: Etat de la question. Bulle-
tin de la Societe Prehistorique Fran?aise 92:425-441.
Revillion, S., and A. Tuffreau, eds.
1994 Les Industries Laminaires au Paleolithique Moyen.
Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Reynolds, T.
1990 The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in South-
western France: Interpreting the Lithic Evidence. In The
Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Per-
spective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 262-276. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Rigaud, J.-P., ed.
1989 La Grotte Vaufrey: Pale"oenvironnement, Chronologie,
Activites Humains. Paris: Memoires de la Societe" Prehisto-
rique Franqaise, Tome XIX.
/ LAMINAR TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN EVOLUTION 337
Ronen, A.
1992 The Emergence of Blade Technology: Cultural Affini-
ties. In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in
Asia. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura, eds. Pp.
217-228. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.
Sampson, C. G.
1974 The Stone Age Archaeology of Southern Africa. New
York: Academic Press.
Schick, K., and N. Toth
1993 Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and
the Dawn of Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Shea, J.
1989 A Functional Study of the Lithic Industries Associated
with the Hominid Fossils in the Kebara and Qafzeh Caves,
Israel. In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biologi-
cal Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. P. Mel-
lars and C. Stringer, eds. Pp. 598-610. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sheets, P., and G. Muto
1972 Pressure Blades and Total Cutting Edge: An Experi-
ment in Lithic Technology. Science 175:632-634.
Sherratt, A.
1997 Climatic Cycles and Behavioral Revolutions. Antiq-
uity 71(272):271-287.
Shott, M.
1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization:
An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological
Research 42:15-51.
Sonneville-Bordes, D.
1960 Le Paleolithique Superieur en Perigord. Bordeaux:
Delmas.
Stordeur-Yedid, D.
1980 Harpons Paleo-Esqimaux de la Region d'Igloulik.
Prehistoire: Enquetes et Methodes. Paris: Editions ADPF.
Straus, L. G.
1990 The Early Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Europe. Cro-
Magnon Adaptations in the Iberian Peripheries, 40,000-
20,000 BP. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Ar-
chaeological Perspective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 276-302. Ith-
aca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Straus, L., and C. Heller
1988 Explorations of the Twilight Zone: The Early Upper
Paleolithic of Vasco-Cantabrian Spain. In The Early Upper
Paleolithic: Evidence from Europe and the Near East. J.
Hoffecker and C. Wolf, eds. Pp. 97-134. BAR International
Series, 437. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Stringer, C.
1989 The Origin of Early Modern Humans: A Comparison
of the European and Non-European Evidence. In The Hu-
man Revolution: Biological and Behavioral Perspectives on
the Origins of Modern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer,
eds. Pp. 232-244. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Svoboda, J., and P. Skrdla
1995 Bohunician Technology. In The Definition and Inter-
pretation of Levallois Technology. H. Dibble and O. Bar-
Yosef, eds. Pp. 432^39. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
338 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2 • JUNE 1999

le Tensorer, J.-M., and S. Muhesen Tuffreau, A., and J. Somme, eds.

1997 Les Premiers Hommes du Desert Syrien: Fouilles
Syrio-Suisse a Nadaouiyeh Ain Askar. Paris: Editions du
Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle.
Texier, P.-J.
1996 Production en serie. Pour la Science (232):22.
Tixier, J.
1963 Typologie de l'Epipal^olithique du Maghreb. Paris:
C.R.A.P.E., 2.
Torrence, R.
1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In
Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. G. Bailey, ed. Pp.
11-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1989 Time, Energy, and Stone Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1988 Le Gisement Paleolithique Moyen de Biache-Saint-
Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Vol. 1, Stratigraphie, environment,
Studes archgologiques. M6moires de la Soci&e PreTiistari-
que Fran?aise, T. 21. Paris.
Tuffreau, A., S. Revillion, J. Somme, and B. Van Vliet-Lanoe
1994 Le gisement Paleolithique moyen de Seclin (Nord).
Bulletin de la Socie'te' Pr£historique Fran?aise 91:23-46.
Vandermeersch, B.
1978 Le crane pre-Wurmien de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-
Calais). In Les Origines Humaines et les Epoques de l'lntel-
ligence. F. Bordes, ed. Pp. 153-157. Paris: Masson.
Volman, T.
1984 The Early Prehistory of Southern Africa. In Southern
African Prehistory and Paleoenvironments. R. Klein, ed. Pp.
169-220. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.

Old Man Fcg and the Last Heart of Heaven,
Aborigines of Barrow Point Heart of Earth
JOHN B. HAVILAND WITH ROGER HART
and Other Mayan
ILLUSTRATED BY TULO GORDON
Weaving together the childhood recollections of Folktales
a native Australian, myths of Old Man Fog, and JAMES D. SEXTON &
excerpts from government and missionary IGNACIO BIZARRO UJPAN
records, John B. Haviland reconstructs the rich, By turns humorous, macabre,
complicated history of Australia's Barrow Point and magical, these thirty-
people during the early twentieth-century
three tales show how the
period when traditional Aboriginal life was
beliefs and practices of
being systematically dismantled.
Tzutuhil Maya mix elements
16 color, 25 6<Sw photographs • 230 pp. • Hardcover $29,95
Smithsonian Series in Ethnographic Inquiry of traditional and Hispanic
cultures. Focused on human
relationships with the
supernatural, the legends
and contemporary stories
also illustrate proverbs and
emphasize the power of luck
and fate.
1 52 pp. • Hardcover $35.00
Paperback $14.95
Settlement Pattern Studies
in the Americas
Fifty Years since Viru
EDITED BY BRIAN R. BILLMAN & GARY M. FEINMAN
Recounting the history of settlement pattern archaeology and
detailing current case studies ranging from Alaska to Oaxaca
to Peru, the contributors to this book show how the interplay
between settlement pattern research and site excavation has
sharpened the discussion of such topics as inequality,
warfare, ideology, subsistence and craft production.
11 b&w illus, 69 maps • 328 pp. • Hardcover $65.00
Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry
The Social Dynamics o f Technology
Practice, Politics, and World Views
EDITED BY MARCIA-ANNE DOBRES &
CHRISTOPHER R. HOFFMAN
Challenging the conventional distinction between the
anthropologist's focus on people and the archaeologist's
focus on objects, the book's eight contributors explore how
technology from prehistoric to modern times has expressed,
reproduced, or contested everyday social practices and
culture-bound beliefs.
29 bSw illus. • 256 pp. • Hardcover $45.00

Smithsonian Institution Press

PO Box 960 • Herndon, VA 20172 • 800/782-4612