On the Emergence of Modern humans

Symbolism and Modern Human Origins [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): J. M. Lindly, G. A. Clark, O. Bar-Yosef, D. Lieberman, J. Shea, Harold L. Dibble, Phillip G. Chase, Clive Gamble, Robert H. Gargett, Ken Jacobs, Paul Mellars, Anne Pike-Tay, Yuri Smirnov, Lawrence Guy Straus, C. B. Stringer, Erik Trinkaus and Randall White Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jun., 1990), pp. 233-261 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743625 . Accessed: 15/09/2012 00:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 ? I990 byThe Wenner-Gren forAnthropological Foundation Research.All rightsreserved OOII-3204/90/3I03-OOOI$2.00 Symbolismand ModernHuman Origins' by J.M. Lindlyand G. A. Clark Chase andDibble (i987) have arguedthatthereis littleevidence ofsymbolicbehaviorin theMiddlePaleolithicofEurasia.They suggestthathominidsassociatedwiththesearchaeological industrieswere"paleocultural"(sensuJelinekI977) andthatit is only in theUpperPaleolithicthatsymbolismappears.Concernedthat theirconclusionmightbe takenas evidenceforculturaldiscontinuitybetweenarchaicHomo sapiensandmorphologically modernhumans,we examineevidencefromall thesitesearlierthan theUpperPaleolithicthathaveyieldedremainsidentified as morphologically modernhumansandfindno indicationofsymbolic behaviorbytheircriteria. We concludethatneitherarchaicH. sapiensnormorphologically modernhumansdemonstrate symbolicbehaviorpriorto theUpperPaleolithicand thatevidencefor withhominidtaxaas has symbolicbehaviorcannotbe correlated sometimesbeenclaimed.A modelofregionalcontinuity across fromtheMiddleto theUpperPaleolithic theculturaltransition and thebiologicaltransition fromarchaicH. sapiensto morphologicallymodernhumansappearsto be supported bytheavailable evidence.Thereis no indicationthatthetwotransitions coincidedin time. J. M. LINDLY is a Ph.D. candidatein anthropology at Arizona State University(Tempe, Ariz. 85287, U.S.A.). Born in I956, he received his B.A. in I979and his M.A. in I985. He has conducted in Jordan, fieldwork France,Guatemala,andtheAmericanSouthwest.His publicationsinclude"CarnivoreandHominidActivity at MiddleandUpperPaleolithicCave Sitesin EasternSpain" (Munibe 40:45-70) and, with G. A. Clark, "A PreliminaryLithic AnalysisoftheMousterianSiteof'AinDifla(WHSSite634)in theWadiAli,West-central Jordan" (Proceedings ofthePrehistoric Society 53:279-92) and "The Case forContinuity: Observations on theBioculturalTransitionin EuropeandWesternAsia,"in TheHumanRevolution,editedbyP. Mellarsand C. Stringer (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,i989). G. A. CLARK iS Professor ofAnthropology at ArizonaStateUniHe was bornin I944 and educatedat theUniversity of versity. Arizona(B.A.,I966; M.A., i967) andtheUniversity ofChicago includecircum-Mediterra(Ph.D.,I971). His researchinterests neanhunter-gatherer adaptations, long-term changesin thehumanfoodniche,and systematics in archaeology andpaleoanHe has published"SiteFunctionalComplementarity thropology. in theMesolithicofNorthern Spain,"in TheMesolithicin Europe,editedbyC. Bonsall(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University ModelsofPleistoceneBioculturalEvoPress,i989), "Alternative lution"(Antiquity 63),"Some Thoughtson the'BlackSkull"' and Paradoxesin (AmericanAnthropologist go), and "Paradigms in QuantitativeResearchin ArContemporary Archaeology," Hills: Sage,i987). chaeology,editedbyM. Aldenderfer (Beverly Chase and Dibble (I987) have arguedthat thereis little archaeological evidence for symbolism in the Middle Paleolithic of Eurasia and that this constitutes a significantcultural differencebetween the Middle and the UpperPaleolithicin this region.The behavioralsystem ofEurasian Middle Paleolithichominids,labelled a "paleoculture"(afterJelinekI977), is consideredto have differedfrom"modern" systems in that it did not include regular,patternedsymbolicbehavioras partofthe repertoireof human adaptation. This "paleocultural" systemis contrastedwith that of the Upper Paleolithic, considereden bloc and takento exhibita "fullymodern" rangeofbehaviorswith evidence fornumerouskinds of nonutilitarian,"symbolic"artifacts.The possiblecauses in evidenceforsymbolismand ofthe apparentdifference the implications of Chase and Dibble's results forthe currentdebate on modern human origins are not addressed,yet their conclusions bear on the nature and timingofthe transitionfromarchaicto morphologically modern humans and the question of the role of the Neanderthalsin the bioculturalevolutionofthe species (see, e.g., Gowlett I987; Foley I987a; Mellars I988, I989; StringerI988; Stringerand Andrews I988; Feder and Park I989; GargettI989; Bar-Yosefn.d.; Mellars and StringerI989; Otte I988; Trinkausn.d.a). We are concernedthatChase and Dibble's conclusions might be taken by anthropologistsinclined to see marked discontinuityacross the Middle/UpperPaleolithic transitionas further"proof"of a major difference between these periods and, consequently,considerable evolutionary"distance" between archaicHomo sapiens and morphologicallymodern humans. From this perspective,absence of evidence forsymbolicbehaviorin archaic H. sapiens would supportthe contentionthat archaic H. sapiens (includingthe Neanderthals)was an evolutionarydead end and was replaced throughoutits range by humans of "modern" type with little or no geneticadmixture(see, e.g.,Bar-Yosefet al. I986, Cann, Stoneking,and Wilson I987, Valladas et al. I988). While we think that this evolutionaryscenario is extremely unlikelyto be correct(eitherin a particularregionor in general),the point is simplythatthereare clear-cuttest implicationsof patternin the evidence forand against symbolicbehavior. A patterncorrespondingto the distinctionbetween archaicH. sapiens and morphologicallymodernhumans to thoughtsabout the natureof symbolismand its relationship of Paleolithicartandritualbehavior.J.DesmondClark(University of Georgia), DeborahOlszewski(University Berkeley), California, Philip Chase and C. Michael Barton(ArizonaState University), BrianHayden(Simon ofPennsylvania), HaroldDibble (University AlexanderMarshack(PeabodyMuseum,HarFraserUniversity), and CA referees BernardWood,HerbertUllrich, vardUniversity), also discussed,read,and/orcomPaul Mellars,and Susan Pfeiffer madevaluable mentedupon earlierdrafts.An anonymousreferee The presentpaperwas submitted in finalform7 X89. commentsas well. We have tried to incorporatesuggestions pointsofview,and clarify wheneverpossible,reconciledifferent and doingso has noticeablyimprovedthe ambiguousstatements, i. We thankMargaretConkey(University forerrors ofcommissionoromisofCalifornia, Berkeley) essay.However,all responsibility fora criticalevaluationof this manuscriptand forsharingher sion remainsours. 233 234 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, fune I990 Morphologicallymodernhuman skeletalremainsdatwould supportthe argumentthatfullymodernbehavior did not evolve until and essentiallycoincidedwith the ing to the Middle Paleolithic (or,in Africa,the Middle appearance of morphologicalmoderns. If, in contrast, StoneAge) have been reportedfromStarosel'e(Alexeyev evidence forsymbolicbehavior crosscutthe biological I976; see also A-M. Tillier,citedin Roneni982:3I5), transition,it would supportthe model ofmultiregional, Darra-i-kur(Angel I972), Skhfil (McCown and Keith in situ evolution proposed by Brace (e.g., I964, I967, I939; Trinkausi982, i984, i986), andQafzeh(Bar-Yosef I988), Wolpoff(e.g.,I980, I989; Wolpoffet al. I988), and and VandermeerschI98I) in southwesternAsia; Dar esothers(Clark and LindlyI988, 1989a, b; Simek and Sny- Soltane(DebenathI975, TrinkausI986) and Temara der I988; Simek and Price n.d.; Brooks I988). As a prac- (Ferembach I976) in North Africa; and Klasies River tical matterit must be assumed in eithercase that hu- Mouth(Singerand Wymeri982, Rightmire I984), Borman paleontologists can distinguish unambiguously derCave (Beaumont,de Villiers,and Vogel I 978, Butzer, among archaic H. sapiens, morphologicallymodernhu- Beaumont,and Vogel I978), Mumba Rockshelter(Brauer man, and Neanderthalpopulations,althoughwe do not and Mehlman I988), Laetoli (Rightmire I984), Omo I984, believe thattheycan actuallydo this (Clark I988; Clark (BrauerI984, J.D. ClarkI988), PorcEpic (Brduer and Lindly I988, i989a, b). An additionalentailmentof J.D. Clark I988), and Singa (BrauerI984, but cf.Stringer replacementscenariosis thatthe biologicaland cultural I979) in Africasouth of the Sahara. If the contextssurtransitionsshould have occurredoverapproximately the roundingthesemorphologicallymodernhumanremains same time intervalsin all regions,when in fact it ap- have littleorno evidenceofsymbolicbehavior,it will be pears thatthe biological transitiontook place much ear- clear thatno correlationof modernbehaviorwith modlier than any discernibleculturaltransitionin both the ern morphologycan be proposed. Near East and Europe. The evidence suggeststhatthere is no majorchangein adaptation2 untilrelativelylate in the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, perhaps as much as Review of the Evidence 20,ooo years afterthe biological transitionto modern ASIA humanshad takenplace (Simekand SnyderI988; Simek SOUTHWESTERN FourMiddle Paleolithicsites in southwesternAsia have and Price n.d.; Clark and Lindly I989a; Straus I977, been reportedto containthe remainsofmorphologically n.d.a; Straus and Heller I988). In order to examine the implications of Chase and modernhumans: Starosel'e (Soviet Crimea),Darra-i-kur Dibble's conclusionsforthe studyofmodernhumanori- (Afghanistan), Skhuil,and Qafzeh (bothin Israel). Starosel'e Cave is located in a drytributaryvalley of gins,we considerarchaeologicalevidenceforsymbolism fromregionsof the Old Worldin which the remainsof the Churuk-suRiver and was excavated by the Soviet morphologicallymodernhumans occur long beforethe prehistorianand anthropologistA. Formozovin i 952beginningoftheUpperPaleolithic(or,in Africa,theLate 56. Deposits at the site rangedin depthfrom6o cm to 4 Stone Age). The surveyis exhaustive:these are the only m. The skeletalremainsconsistofthepartialskeletonof sites in theworldthathave producedallegedmorpholog- a child,the chin sectionofan adult mandible,and single ofradiusand humerus,all considereddirectly ically modern human remains earlier than the Upper fragments Paleolithic/LateStone Age. If evidenceforsymbolicbe- associated with Mousterianartifacts.The infantskelehaviorcan be correlatedwith hominidtaxa, and if (as is ton,foundat a depthof70-90 cm, is classifiedas "modwidely assumed) "symbolism" has some adaptive ern" on the basis of a comparisonwith moderninfant significance,we should be able to detectdifferences be- remains of similar age and a reconstructionof the ditween assemblages associated with archaic H. sapiens and those associated with pre-Upper Paleolithic moddencefroma singleregionis increasingly problematic, especiallyin erns.To keep the resultscomparable,the archaeological light oftheallegedly"delayed"characterofmodemizationevents evidence used to assess symbolicbehavioris limitedto and processes in that small and well-studiedregion.Conkey the fourclasses of data examined by Chase and Dibble (I987a, n.d.) has pointedout that,if hominidswere structuring (i987:265): (i) lithic assemblages,(2) burialdata, (3) evi- theirlives and activitiesin ways that we would recognizeand as symbolic,thiswouldprobablybe manifestin more dence forritualbehaviorotherthanthatassociatedwith understand subtle,contextualkindsofarchaeologicalevidencethanthoseexburials,and (4) art.3 aminedbyChase andDibble-in otherwords,thatwe shouldseek biologydoes: any struc2. We defineadaptationas evolutionary ture,physiologicalprocess,or behavioralpatternthatmakes an organismmorefitto surviveand to reproduce(WilsonI975:577). Behaviorcan be viewedas thedynamicsofadaptation-a strategy I97-2:I33). (Binford forsurvivaland reproduction 3. Althoughwe do not intendto developthe argumenthere,we symbolicbeconsiderChase and Dibble's criteriaformonitoring is presented to warhaviorequivocalandinadequate.No argument capacities ofthecognitive indicators ranttheiruse as unambiguous moreinforofthehominidsin question,norare otherpotentially To base a global mativemonitorsofsymbolicbehaviorconsidered. on the limitedarchaeologicalevicharacterization evolutionary to developmoresophisticated waysofanalyzingthearchaeological recordofsymbolismthansimplycharting thepresenceorabsence of"art,""style,"or"ritualactivity."Whilethepointis welltaken, theexceptionally coarsegrainoftheOld WorldUpperPleistocene recordmakesthesepotentially archaeological moresensitivemonitorsof symbolicbehaviorexceedingly difficult to operationalize. Conkeyhas further pointedout (personalcommunication) thatthe Chase and Dibble essay is whollydependentupon a distinction betweenculture(whichseemsto be equatedwithsymbolism-the "consciousproductionof meaning")and paleoculture(consciousness apparently withoutsymbolicbehavior),but thesetermsare leftundefined. Withouta clearsenseofwhatcultureis,whatsymbolic behavioris, and whatrelationships mighthave obtainedbetweenthem,it is difficult to put muchfaithin it. LINDLY AND mensions of the skull as it would have appearedas an adult (AlexeyevI976; see also A-M. Tillier,cited in Ronen I 98 2: 3 I 5). The adult remainswerefoundat approximately the same level as the infant,and the mandible fragmentis considered"modern" in everysense of the word.None ofthe remainsare judgedto representintentional burials (Klein I965). The lithic assemblage is identifiedas Mousterian because of the presence of limaces, discoidal cores, bifaciallyflaked"Quina-type" transverse, sidescrapers,and simple,double,convergent, and dejete sidescrapersmade on flakes and is said to resembleCharentianindustriesof southwesternFrance (Klein I965:63). Despite the recovery of more than ii,ooo stone artifactsand some 6o,ooo unworkedbone fragments(dominatedby Equus), thereis no indication of a stylistic component (by anyone's definition[see CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins1235 its and is suggestedto have been a dietaryitem (Bate to concludethattheboar I937: I48) it seemsreasonable mandible may have become spatially associated with the human remains throughsome process other than deliberateinclusion in a grave.The skeletalremainsare associated with Middle Paleolithic artifactsrecently classifiedas Phase 2/3 Mousterianand on thesegrounds arguedtobe "late"(ca.40,000-50,000 yearsB.P.) (Jelinek LevantineMousterianlithicassemblageshave no clear stylisticcomponentand appear instead to reflect variation in raw-materialsize and/oravailabilitythat constrainschoice amongreductionstrategies(Clark and i982). LindlyI988, i989a, b; Lindlyand ClarkI987). Qafzehis an inlandcave site locatednearthevillageof Nazarethin the lower Galilee. It was excavatedby Neu- and andbyVandermeersch villeand Stekelis(I932-35) SackettI982, BinfordI989, Clark I989b]) or of ritual Bar-Yosef(I965-79, i983-present). The cave contains paraphernaliaor art. bothMiddle and UpperPaleolithicdeposits.The Qafzeh At Darra-i-kur,a rock-shelterin westernBadakhshan, hominidremainsare all morphologicalmodernhumans the human remainsconsistofa righttemporalfragment and are considered similar morphologicallyto the rethat is "modern in appearance" (Angel I972). It is not mains foundat Skhfil(VandermeerschI98I). Sixteeninconsideredto pertainto an intentionalburial.The lithic dividuals have been recovered.One, Qafzeh ii (an inassemblage is Mousterian, comprisingmore than 8oo fant),is reportedto have had associated gravegoods; the Levallois flakes and points, handaxes, sidescrapers, antlersof a fallow deer (possiblyDama mesopotamica) flake/blades,and debitage(Dupree and Davis I972). The are describedas "held in the hand" ofthe child (Vanderonly object recovered that might, by a considerable meerschI970). Dama mesopotamica is, however,an stretchof the imagination,be consideredsymbolicis a economic species that occurs in Level 22, with which fossil shark's tooth tentativelyidentifiedas "worked" QafzehiI is associated(BouchudI974). Whilethe re(Dupree I972:79). A so-calledbone fabricatoris reported mains of this species are not especiallynumerous,they to be workedon both ends, but it is not clear fromthe neverthelessaccount for20.4% ofthe faunalremainsin illustrationshow it was "worked" and it is at least Levels i8-22, and the possibilityofa fortuitousassociaequally probablethat it is a diaphysisfragmentgnawed tion cannot be ruled out. Ochre is presentthroughout by carnivores.Since the excavation at Darra-i-kurpre- the deposits but not associated with the hominid redatedthe currentconcernwith taphonomicprocesses,it mains (VandermeerschI969). There is no evidence of is unlikely that the investigatorswould have distin- ritualbehaviorotherthanthe equivocal burialdata or of guished between human and animal modificationof art. bone except where the differencewas fairlyobvious. The lithic industriesof the Mousterianlevels at QafThere is no art or unequivocal evidence of symbolicac- zeh have been classified as Tabfin B/C or Levantine tivityat this site. MousterianPhase 2/3 and have until veryrecentlybeen on theIsraelicoast,is the smallest considered"late" (ca. 40,000-50,000 yearsB.P.) (Jelinek Mugharetes-Skh-ul, oftheageofQafzeh interpretation ofthe Mt. Carmel caves investigatedbyDorothyGarrod I98I, i982). Jelinek's in the i92oS and I930s. Skh-ulwas also excavatedby has been challenged by the recent evidence from of the microverteTheodoreMcCownin I 93 I. The humanremainsconsti- geomorphology,the biostratigraphy brate faunas, and amino-acid racemizationdates (Bartute one of the best samples in southwesternAsia (>IO individualsand numerousfragments).Both classic and Yosef and Vandermeersch198I, Bar-Yosefn.d.).A series modern researchers consider them morphologically of thermoluminescencedates on burntflinthas yielded modern(McCownandKeithI939; Trinkausi982, I984, an average age of 92,ooo ? 5,ooo years B.P. for the deposits (Valladas et al. I988), and a I986). Many appear to have been purposefullyburied, hominid-bearing determinationsaveralbeit forthe most part without grave goods. Skhuil5 numberofelectron-spin-resonance etal. I988). Ifthesedates may have been interred with offerings;McCown age98,ooo yearsB.P. (Schwarcz arguesthat a boar (Sus scrofa)mandiblewas are correct,the Qafzeh hominids are the earliestdated (I937:I04) clasped in its hands because "the leftforearmrestsupon remains of morphologicallymodern humans in the thebroken,hinderends ofthe mandible" (p. Ioo; see his world. It should be noted that the dates forthe Qafzeh pl. 52[2], reproducedhere as fig.I). Most of the ribsand Mousterianlevels are approximatelythe same age as is vertebraeas well as part of the pelvis and most of the proposed for Tabtun D/Phase i "early" Levantine rightleg are missing,however,and McCown notes some MousterianassemblagefromTabtun,suggestingthatthe crushingofthe lowerpartofthe skeletonby "an ancient normativephase sequence currentlyused to organize disturbance"and reportsthat "it was impossibleto de- Middle Paleolithic assemblagesin a loose chronological terminethe exact limitsofthegrave"(p. ioi). Fromthis orderis in need of serious revision(see, e.g., Lindlyand and thefactthatSus occursthroughoutthe Skh-uldepos- Clark I987; Clark and Lindly I988, I989b). 236 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, fune I990 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CENTIMETRES Plan of the contractedburial of a tall male, Skhul 5. i, rightarm; 2, Sus scrofamandible; 3, dorsal vertebrae;4, leftscapula and humerus; 5,leftclavicle; 6, leftradius; 7, rightilium; 8, leftfemur;9, lefttibia and fibula.(ReprintedfromMcCown I93 7:pl. 52[2] bypermissionofthepublisher.) FIG. i. NORTH AFRICA North Africa has also produced several sites with claimed earlymorphologicalmodernhumanremains,in every case associated with Aterian lithic assemblages (J.D. Clark I983, FerringI975). Dar es-Soltane,a cave site on the coast of Morocco, has "lower" Aterianlevels thathave producedtwo partial human craniaofessentiallymodernappearance(De- the site probablydates to the latest part of the Aterian sequence. There are no radiocarbondates fromTemara. The Aterian"facies" ofthe NorthAfricanMousterian is composed primarilyof Levallois debitage including blades with facetedplatforms,sidescrapers,points,and endscrapers, but some assemblages include tanged pieces (pedunculates)and bifacialfoliatepoints (Ferring I975). Nothingin the publishedaccountsof Aterian parietaland sites suggeststhe presence of symbolicbehaviorin the benathI 975, TrinkausI 986). Singlemodern formof stylisticpatterningin stone tool assemblagesor occipital fragmentsfromthe Grottedes Contrebandiers ofritualor art(Ferring I975). (Smugglers'Cave) at Temara are also associatedwith an Aterianassemblage (FerembachI976). There is no indi- SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA cationthattheseremainswereburiedintentionally.The Aterian is usually considered Middle Paleolithic. Al- Several Middle Stone Age sites in southernAfricaconthoughit has producedsome radiocarbondates younger tain what until the publicationofthe Qafzeh dates were than 30,000 years B.P., most Aterian assemblages are consideredthe world's earliestmorphologicallymodern human remains(Beaumontet al. I978, Brauerand Mehlmorethan40,000 yearsold (Ferring probably I975; J.D. Clark i982, I983). Radiocarbon-datedAterian assem- man I988, Grine and Klein I985, Singer and Wymer blagesrangefrom>39,900 yearsB.P. in theMaghreband i982). There is some controversyabout the age of these devia- sites(Butzeri982, Shackletoni982), butthereseemsto standard yearsB.P. (withenormous tions)at the Haua Fteah(Cyrenaica)to >27,000 years be consensus that they all date priorto the limits of (VolmanI984). yearsB.P. in a lower radiocarbon B.P. in an upper level and >30,000 4I,500-45,000 Excavations in a series of caves and rock-sheltersat one at Dar es-Soltane. Therefore,despite the assertion thatthe Dar es-SoltaneAterianis typologically"early," the mouth of the Klasies River,on the east coast of the LINDLY AND Republic of South Africa,have produced five partial mandibles, a maxilla, and various small craniofacial fragments, teeth,and postcranialbones consideredto be those of morphologicallymodern humans (Singerand Wymeri982, RightmireI984). None are thoughtto rep- resentburials(SingerandWymeri982:I47). The Middle Stone Age levels at these sites are primarilyassignedto Stages I-4 (includingthe lamellarHowieson's Poortindustries),although there are also overlyingLate Stone Age deposits (Singerand Wymer i982). Some workers (e.g.,Butzeri982) have proposeda date forthemas early as >2o0,000 yearsB.P. MiddleStoneAge lithicassem- blages fromsouthernAfricaconsistmainlyofflakesand flake/bladesfromwell-preparedcores with retouched tool typessuch as points,denticulates,and sidescrapers. The Howieson's Poortis somewhatdifferent frombut an integralpart of the Middle Stone Age. Instead of the "generic" Middle Stone Age flake tools, it contains an abundance of backed pieces (blade segments)and rather largebut well-madegeometrics,such as lunates (orcrescents) and trapezoids (Volman I984). The Howieson's Poortis seen by some as an "adaptiveresponse"to environmentalperturbationthatincludedchangesin mobility patternsand possibly the conservationof more distant and higher-qualityraw-materialsources (Mellars I988, I989; cf.Parkington n.d.fora morecriticalview), and fromthis perspectivethe technologicalchanges it representsneed not be consideredmattersof style. Evidence for symbolism in the Middle Stone Age levels at Klasies RiverMouth (and in all AfricanMiddle Stone Age sites) is extremelyscarce. The lithic industriesshow no patterningthatcan be consideredstylistic. The best-definedchange is one in retouchedtool forms that correspondsto the appearance of the Howieson's Poort industryin Layers i0-2i of Shelter iA. Above Layer io, thereis a reappearanceof the modal kind of Middle Stone Age assemblage. The African Middle Stone Age has been dividedinto stages accordingto debitagecharacteristicssuch as blank size and shape,percentageof facetedbutts,and core types.The extremely questionable but time-honoredpractice of using retouchedpieces in these classificatoryschemata is hamperedby extremelylow tool frequencies(<i% in most cases)(Volmani984:201). In manycases,it has proven difficultto separate Middle Stone Age stages fromone anotheron the basis of characteristicsof the lithic assemblages alone, and stratigraphicand paleoenvironmental informationis oftenutilized. It is difficultto avoid the impression of an essential continuityand homogeneityin these Africanequivalentsofthe Middle Paleolithic.At present,the best single criterionforsubdividingthe AfricanMiddle Stone Age industries(includingHowieson's Poort)appearsto be changesin raw materiallinked,probably,to changesin the settlementsubsistence systems within which raw-materialprocurementwas embedded(see BinfordI979). There are fourinstancesofworkedbone fromKlasies: two serratedribfragments and one bone withthin,regular parallel groovesfroma Middle Stone Age 2 level and a bone "point" fromone ofthe Howieson's Poortlevels. CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins| 237 These veryrareinstancesofworkedbone correspondto Chase and Dibble's reportsforthe EurasianMousterian. Ochre was also founddispersedthroughoutthe Middle StoneAge levels. Althoughthereis no directassociation of ochre with the hominid remains,some of the larger pieces show striations,faceting,and abraded surfaces suggestinguse as a colorant.This evidenceforsymbolic behavior is, however, both equivocal and scarce, and thereis no indicationof a patternin its occurrence. BorderCave, on the Swaziland/Kwa-Zuluborderin the Lebombo Range, has yielded a long Middle Stone Age sequence tentativelyassociated with skeletalmaterial consideredmorphologicallymodernhuman (Beaumont, de Villiers, and Vogel I978, Butzer,Beaumont, and Vogel I978, Beaumont I980). The hominid fossils consist of mandible and cranial fragmentsfromthree adult individuals,a relativelycomplete infantskeleton that is considereda burial, and postcranialremains of uncertainproveniencerecoveredin uncontrolleddigging foragriculturalfertilizerat the site. One adult mandible and the infant burial were apparentlyfound in situ (RightmireI984). The specimens associated with Middle Stone Age artifactsare all consideredto be the remains of morphologicallymodernhumans (Beaumont I980). Perhapsthe best evidence forsymbolicbehaviorfrom the site is the possible infantburial fromthe Middle Stone Age 2b level, with an associated perforatedConus shell that can only have come from the Straits of Madagascar,some 8o km distant.The Middle StoneAge and seven 3 assemblagecontainsa notchedribfragment split-tusk"daggers,"possiblyfroma warthog,thatshow signs of abrasion. It is not clear fromthe photographs (Beaumont,de Villiers,and Vogel I978) whethertheabrasion on the tusk fragmentswas produced by human agency(as Beaumontsuggests)or,as seems morelikely, by naturalprocessesduringthe life of the animal. (Suid canines are typicallybrokenand abradedin vivo, especiallyat the tip [BrainI98I].) As at Klasies RiverMouth, hematite flecks are found throughoutthe levels, with some ofthelargerpieces showingwearfacets,striae,and othersigns of abrasion (Volman I984). Two additionalsites in southernAfricaare sometimes mentionedas havingproducedevidenceforsymbolicbehavior. A Middle Stone Age level at Florisbad,in the OrangeFreeState,has produceda brokencurvedwooden implementwith parallel markingson the end (Volman I984). Since the famoushominidcraniumfromtheMiddle Stone Age deposits at this site has recentlybeen rereconstructedand is now consideredarchaic H. sapiens (Kuman and Clarke I986), its co-occurrencewith a workedwooden object mightbe viewed as furthersupportforthe view thatthereis no link betweensymbolic behaviorand modernmorphology.Middle Stone Age 2b levels at Apollo ii Cave in Namibia have yielded two notchedbone fragments, and thereare additionalincised fragmentsof ostricheggshell in the Howieson's Poort (WendtI976, VolmanI984), but thereare no hominid remains fromthis site to indicate who the makers of these artifactsmighthave been. 238 1 CURRENT TABLE ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 I EvidenceforSymbolicBehaviorfromSitesin the Old WorldAssociated withPurportedPre- UpperPaleolithic MorphologicallyModernHumans Sites Starosel'e Darra-i-kur Skhil Qafzeh Dar es-Soltane Evidence Source None Klein(i965) Bone "fabricator" Dupree (I972) "Worked"(?) shark'stooth BoarmandibleassociatedwithSkhuls burial Deer antlerassociatedwithQafzehi i burial Ochrethroughout deposit McCown(I937) Vandermeersch (i98i) None Deb6nath (I975) None Stringer(I979) Temara None Ferembach(I976) KlasiesRiverMouth 2 serrated ribfragments anda bonewiththinregularparallelgroovesin an MSA SingerandWymer(i982) Volman (i984) 2 level Bone"point"in a Howieson'sPoortlevel Ochrewithabrasionsandfacetsdispersedthroughout MSA levels BorderCave Conus shellfoundwithinfantburialin an MSA 2b level Beaumontet al. (I978) Notchedribfragments and 7 split-tusk "daggers"in an MSA 3 level Volman(i984) Hematitewithwearfacets MumbaRockshelter None BrauerandMehlman(i988) LaetoliHominidi8 None J.D. Clark(i988) Omo I & 3, Kibish None J.D. Clark (i988) Formation PorcEpic Hematitewithwearfacets J.D. Clark(i988) Singa Mumba Rockshelterin Tanzania has producedthree hominidmolars fromMiddle Stone Age levels dated to ca. I30,000 years B.P. that supposedlyfall within the range of variationseen in modernAfricanpopulations and are consequentlyconsideredmorphologicallymodern (Briuer and Mehlman I988). The Ngaloba Beds at Laetoli in Tanzania, dated by uraniumseriesto i20,000 years B.P., have yielded an almost complete skull (Laetoli Hominid i8) with both "modem" (expansionof the vault, roundedocciput) and "archaic" (frontalflattening,supraorbitaltorus,thick cranial bones) features (RightmireI984). The fossilis associated with a Middle comStoneAge assemblagethatlacks a heavy-duty-tool ponent(J.D. Clark I988). The KibishFormationat Omo in Ethiopiahas producedan incompletecalvariumwith some associated postcranialbones (Omo I), a second incracompletecalvarium(Omo 2), and some fragmentary nial bones (Omo 3) (BriiuerI984, J.D. Clark I988). Omo i was recoveredfromoverbankdepositson the surfaceof Stratume at the top ofMember i. It has morphologically modernhuman featuresand is associated with a small redepositedMiddle Stone Age assemblage containing Levallois flakes.An age of ca. I30,000 yearsB.P. iS suggestedby a uranium-seriesdate on shell fromthe sedimentsthatproducedthe skull. Omo 2 was a surfacefind ca. 2.5 km away that could have come fromthe same it has severalH. erecgeologicalhorizon; interestingly, tus featuresthatplace it outside morphologicalmodern humans and,indeed,archaicH. sapiens. Ifit is penecontemporaneouswith Omo i, a population of enormous morphologicalvariabilityis indicated. Omo 3 comes fromMember 3 and is probablysomewhat(perhapsconsiderably)youngerthanthe others.An age somewherein theI00,000-40,000 yearsB.P. the finds lie outside the range of radiocarbon.In the EthiopianRiftat Porc Epic, a robustmandiblefragment associated with a Middle Stone Age assemblagewas recoveredby Breuil in I933. There is a minimum-ageobsidian-hydration date of 60,000-70,000 years B.P. from artifactsin the brecciatedcave earthsfromwhich the fossil was apparentlyextracted.Measurementsand robusticityofthe findindicatethatit lies withinthe range of variationof modernhumans, but it also has archaic featuresreminiscentof the Neanderthals(Briuer I984, J.D. Clark I988). Finally,fromSinga,on theBlue Nile in southeasternSudan, a heavily mineralized skull with most of the face missingwas foundin I924. It has recentlybeen describedboth as archaic H. sapiens (Stringer I979) and as "completely modern" (Brauer I984). There are no associated artifacts.Evidenceforsymbolic behavioris absent fromall these East Africanmorphologicallymodernhuman sites exceptforthe occurrence of hematite with wear facets at Porc Epic (J.D. Clark i988:299). In no case is the contextofdiscoveryprimary, and in most cases the skeletalremainshave clearlybeen redepositedby geological agencies. The Middle Stone Age chipped-stoneassemblagesfoundwith morphologically modern human fossils in this area are indistinguishablefromthose foundwith archaicH. sapiens fossils. In neither case are there examples of parietal or mobile art,ornaments,bone artifacts,or burials. Concluding Remarks The resultsofour survey(table i) suggestthat,as Chase and Dibble have reportedfor archaic H. sapiens, the since daily activities of pre-Upper Paleolithid morphologiinterval is suggested, LINDLY AND cally modernhumans had no archaeologicallydiscernible symboliccomponent,at least in the regionswe examined and quite probablyin any region of the Old World that has produced an Upper Pleistocene archaeological record. Does this apparent "fact" render difthesemorphologicallymodernhumans significantly ferentfromor less human than morphologicalmoderns associated with Upper Paleolithic industriesin Europe, who admittedlydo exhibitsymbolicbehavior?Are they to be consideredoutside the evolutionarytrajectoryof modernhumans? Clearly,the answeris no. Yet, on the basis of similar lack of evidence forbehaviorlike that observed in the European Upper Paleolithic, Eurasian archaicH. sapiens has been considereddifferent enough frommorphologicallymodern humans to warrantrethinkingof the biological and culturalrelationshipsbetween these hominids (Bar-YosefI987, n.d.; Gargett I989; Foley i987a; Gowlett I987; Mellars I988, I989; White i982, 1i989a; Clark and LindlyI989a). Supportfor a hypothesisof no difference in this regardbetweenarchaic H. sapiens and morphologicallymodernhumans of the Middle Paleolithic/MiddleStone Age calls into question the credibilityof the replacementscenariofor modernhuman originsand suggeststhat archaic H. sapiens cannot be relegatedto an evolutionarybackwater (see also Marshack I988a, n.d.). That thepatternin the evidenceforsymbolicbehavior is the same whetherthe hominidsassociated withMiddle Paleolithic/MiddleStone Age archaeologicalassemblages are archaic H. sapiens, Neanderthals,or morphological moderns implies that the taxonomic units themselvesare unreliable (which we thinkverylikely) and/orthatthemajorshiftin adaptationoccurredlate in the Upper Paleolithic/LateStone Age and was largely unrelatedto the perceivedtransitionfromthe Middle to the Upper Paleolithic (see Chase I986, I989; Simek and Pricen.d.; Simek and Snyderi988; Brooksi988; Svoboda I988, n.d.; Geneste I988; Boeda I988; Straus n.d.a; Strausand Heller I988; Marshack I988a, b, n.d.; Clark and Lindly i988, i989a, b). The latterconclusion is likelyto be disputedby workerswho arguefromEuropeandata fora "symbolicexplosion" at the beginningofthe UpperPaleolithic(e.g.,and esp.,White 198.2, 989a, b). Though Europe,since it has modernhumans, notproducedanyearlymorphologically is tangentialto our major argument,we thereforewish to make our views on the Europeansituationabsolutely clear. We readily acknowledge an apparentlatitudinal componentto the archaeological evidence forsymbolin social complexism that implies possible differences ity between western Eurasia and the rest of the Old CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins| 239 behavior,while rareand sporadic,extendswell back into the Middle Paleolithic and, in aggregate,stronglysupportsthe idea of behavioralcontinuityacross the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition (see also Gonzailez EchegarayI988). We do, however,seriouslydoubt that much of the earlyUpper Paleolithic evidence (i.e., ivory sculpturesfromAurignacian sites in Germany; limestone engravings,ornamentsfromFrenchAurignacian sites; Aurignacianbone points; the Sungir and Dolni Vestonice burials; the Dolni Vestonice clay figurines; the Mladec ornaments;etc.) can be shown to date to the beginningof this period.Comparedwith the late Upper Paleolithic, the early Upper Paleolithic has relatively few radiometricdates, and in most cases "symbolicartifacts"are considered"early" only on the basis of allegedlytime-sensitive"index-fossil"tool typesand normative characterizationsof assemblage sequencesboth notoriously unreliable as temporal indicators (Clark and Straus I986, Straus I987a, Strausand Heller I988). It should be kept in mind that the conventional early Upper Paleolithic analytical units (Aurignacian, Perigordian,Uluzzian, Gravettian,Szeletian, etc.) span ca. i8,ooo-i6,ooo yearsand that aggregationof the evidence fromany such unit may make changeappear"explosive." Again,while thereis some unambiguousparietaland mobiliaryart fromthe early Upper Paleolithic, when are exsites thathave producedabsolute determinations amined the overwhelmingmajority of it postdates 20,ooo yearsB.P. (ConkeyI983, I987, personalcommunication).This also applies to the workedbone and antlerinventoriesand the burials (cf.,e.g., White I987, I989a with JulienI983, May I986). All but 3 of the 74 relatively unambiguous Upper Paleolithic burials studiedby May (i986) are not only fromthe late Upper Paleolithic(25,000-I2,000 yearsB.P.) butfromitslatest phases. The recentlydiscoveredtripleburial at Dolni at 27,600 and Vestoniceis radiocarbon-dated 26,600 years B.P. (Bahn I988). The Sungirburials are 2o,ooo25,000 yearsold (FisherI988). Ifonewereto "scale" the incidenceofart,bone/antlerartifacts,and/orburialsper unit time (e.g.,numberof items or occurrencespermillennium), it would immediatelybecome evident that, contra White (i987, i989a), the "symbolic explosion" occurrednot at the Middle/UpperPaleolithictransition butin thelate UpperPaleolithic,at ca. 20,000-i5,000 yearsB.P. The rate at which such evidence accumulates increases slowly during the early Upper Paleolithic, morerapidlyduringthe late UpperPaleolithic,and even more rapidlyin the Mesolithic and beyond (Clark and Neeley I987). Worldat ca. 20,000-i5,000 Finally, abundant European archaeofaunalevidence yearsB.P. To arguethatthe shows few marked changes coincidentwith the local Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition at ca. 38,ooo35,000 years B.P. is a major thresholdin culturalevolu- Middle/UpperPaleolithicboundaries,and those thatare tion (cf. White i982, i989a, b) is, however, an over- detectablecan usually be attributedto climate (Straus I977, Delpech I983, ClarkI987). Sincefewwoulddissimplification. We are not suggestingthat there is no evidence for pute that the characterof faunalassemblagesis a much symbolismin the earlyUpperPaleolithicofEurope(con- more directmonitorof human adaptationthan art,ordatedca. 38,ooo-2o,ooo ventionally yearsB.P.). Indeed, namentation,or mortuarypractices,it is not unreasonMarshack (i988a, b, n.d.) has demonstrated,througha able to conclude that here, too, is evidence forclinal, series of exhaustivestudies,that evidence forsymbolic relativelygradualchange,in some regions(e.g.,northern 240 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 Spain) acceleratingsharplyabout 2o,ooo yearsago (Clark and Lindly I989a). In lightof this continuity,acknowlI986). In short,a modelof regional edged even by archaeologistswho supportbiological recontinuitybetween Middle and Upper Paleolithic and placement (e.g.,Bar-Yosefand Meignen I989), it seems betweenarchaic and modernH. sapiens (see, e.g.,Brace more reasonable to suggestthat the taxa employedby I967, I988; Wolpoff I980, I989) appearstobe supported replacement systematics are defective and that arin Europe as well as elsewhere. chaeologistswould be well advised not to take them at This is not to say thatwe or any ofthe otherresearch- face value. A satisfactoryexplanationof the originsof ers cited in supportof the continuityposition consider modernhumans must reconcile the archaeologicaland the two transitionsto have been simultaneous,but this fossilevidenceand the evidencefrommolecularbiology. is in facta clearimplicationofthereplacementscenario. In our opinion, only a multiregionalmodel of cultural In evolution,behavioral change always occurs well in and biological continuitycan do so. advance ofrelatedmorphologicalchange.Ifsome kindof relationshipobtained between the emergenceof morphologicallymodernhumans and the UpperPaleolithic/ Late Stone Age, the morphologicalchanges that supposedly allow human paleontologists to distinguish betweenmorphologically modernhumansandarchaicH. sapiens should have been precededby many thousands 0. BAR-YOSEF, D. LIEBERMAN, AND J. SHEA Peabody Museum, of years by significantadaptive shifts.There is no evi- DepartmentofAnthropology, dence whatsoeverfor such adaptive shiftsin Eurasia, Harvard University,Cambridge,Mass. 02I38, U.S.A. Africa,or the Levant-although, admittedly, theywould I4 XII 89 be exceedinglydifficultto detectgiventhe inadequacies Lindlyand Clark have attemptedto deal with the quesof the time/spacegrid. We irreverentlyconclude that the replacement tions raised by the new thermoluminescenceand elecscenario is very likely a productof samplingbias and tron-spin-resonancedates from Kebara, Qafzeh, and entrenchedregionalresearchtraditions(Binford and Sab- Skhiul(Valladas et al. I987, I988; Schwarcz et al. I988, loffi982). While no one disputesthe Europeanevidence I989; Stringeret al. I989). Until two years ago, most forUpper Paleolithic symbolism,the case forthe restof scholars ignoredthe biostratographicevidence and the forthe Tab-un the Old Worldis whollydependentupon argumentfrom alternativepalaeoclimatic interpretations negativeevidence: areas outsideofEuropearejudgednot sequence and othermajorcave sites,placingtheWestern to have been characterizedby the same level of social Asian Neandertals (Amud, Kebara, Shanidar, Tabtun) complexityas Europe duringthe 25,ooo-io,ooo-years- earlier than the early anatomically modern humans B.P. intervalbecause theyhave not producedcomparable (Skhtul, Qafzeh) to argue forlocal evolution of modern evidence of symbolism.Such areas are, of course,much humans in SouthwesternAsia (Bar-YosefI989). The acless intensivelyinvestigatedthan Europe, and tapho- ceptance of the greaterantiquityof the early anatominomic and macroclimaticfactorsmay have combinedto cally modernHomo sapiens fromQafzeh and Skh-ulhas erase any evidence of social complexitycomparableto raised many interestingquestions concerninghuman that of Europe. We do not imply,however,nor do we evolutionin the Upper Pleistocene,especiallyquestions believe, thatrates ofUpper Pleistocenebioculturalevo- of taxonomy,the relationshipbetween archaeological lution were everywherethe same. assemblages and fossils,and the anthropologicalmeanThe question of symbolic behavioron eitherside of ing of the transitionfrom the Middle to the Upper the archaic H. sapiens/morphologically-modern-human Paleolithic-all of which are confused by Lindly and transitionis one small part of the largerissue of the Clark. appearance of modern humans. In the absence of any They are correctin pointingout the paradoxicallack evidencefordifferences in adaptationamong archaicH. of any discernible behavioral differencesin the arsapiens, Neanderthal,and early morphologicallymod- chaeological recordbetween earlyanatomicallymodern ern human populations-differencesthat would be ex- and archaic H. sapiens. We agreethat thereis evidence of symbolicbehaviorbetween pectedifin factthese taxa werereallydistinct-the case forsignificantdifferences forreplacementof archaic H. sapiens by modernsrests the archaeological records of the Middle and Upper solely upon the assertionthat morphologicallymodern Paleolithicand thatsymbolicexpressionsbecome much humans displaced archaic H. sapiens because theywere more prevalent and elaborate during the late glacial more "advanced." We submitthatthe Old WorldUpper maximum/oxygen-isotope stage.2 (24,000-I4,000 years Pleistocene archaeological recordexhibitsnone of the ago). We stronglydisagree,however,thatthe absence of symbolicbehaviors discontinuityimplied by the replacementmodel and archaeologicalevidencefordifferent that it is incumbentupon its advocates to show how associated with archaic and modernH. sapiens during replacementcould have occurredwithoutleavingtraces the Middle Paleolithicconstituteseithersupportforthe of disjunctionin the typologicaland technologicalas- multiregionalhypothesis or refutationof the singlepects of archaeologicalassemblages,in those aspects of originhypothesis. the archaeofaunalrecordthat monitorsubsistence,and Lindly and Clark make a numberof taxonomic and in the evidence fromsettlement-pattern studies (Clark phylogeneticerrors.Fossil taxa such as archaicand mod- and StrausI983, Comments LINDLY AND ern H. sapiens can only be definedon the basis of morphologicalcriteria,some ofwhich may implybehavioral (Mayr I942). AlthoughLindlyand Clark are differences justified in looking for differentbehaviors that are specificto these taxa (as predictedby the evolutionary principleof competitiveexclusion), the absence of archaeologicalevidenceforbehavioraldifferences-particularly in connection with somethingas ephemeral as symbolism-is a poor basis on which to criticizetaxonomy. Fossil species are definednot by theirarchaeological traces or by theirpresumedevolutionaryrelationships to modernhumans but by the rangeofvariationof their morphologies.Whether or not Neandertals and to test species is difficult modernH. sapiens are different and hence open to debate; however,to arguethat there are no behavioral differencesbetween these taxa (and hence thatthesetaxa are incorrectlydefined)ignoresthe largebody of functionalmorphologicaldata thatclearly demonstratesotherwise(Trinkaus i986). Lindlyand Clark incorrectlyattemptto fitarchaeological data (actuallythe absence of evidence forsymbolic behavior)to the biologicalquestion ofwhetheranatomicallymodernhumans evolvedin one regionor in numerous regions. The evolutionaryrelationshipsbetween taxa such as archaic and modernH. sapiens can onlybe determinedby analyzingtheirmorphologicalcharacteristics (whetherby cladistic and/orphenetic methods). For the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant, there is no close correspondencebetween hominid morphotypes and the lithicindustrieswith which theyare found.For example,hominidssuch as the Neandertalwoman from Tab-anlayerC are associated with the same industryas thehominidsfromQafzeh(layersI 7-24). One canargue that the associations between burials and industriesin Levantinecaves are coincidental,but this argumentignores theirrepetitivenature. Lindly and Clark's argu"disturbed"Skh-uland mentconcerningthe purportedly Qafzeh burials is at variancewith photographicrecords and the illustrationincluded in their article. (Perhaps theyhave confusedMcCown's referenceto disturbance in the "lower part of the body," which clearlyrefersto the lower limbs of the Skh-ul5 burial,with the stratigraphically "lower" portion of the thoracic region.) Again,it is truethatfallowdeerremainswereuncovered at Qafzeh,but only as small fragments;the occurrence ofthe largeantlersacross the chestofthe dead child can hardlybe conceivedas accidental.The mereobservation fromexthatMousterianburialsare somewhatdifferent pectationsbased on Upper Paleolithic,Mesolithic, and Neolithic burials does not mean that these were uninThis is why tentional or unaccompanied by offerings. accurate,well-recordedfield observationsare essential (Villa I989). Moreover,the nearlycompletearticulation ofmany of these skeletal remainsat sites demonstrably frequentedby hyenas is compellingevidence fortheir integrity(Trinkaus I989). Althoughthe archaeological recordcan tell us little about the phylogenyofprehistorichominids,behavioral inferencesfromarchaeological residues can informus about their coevolutionaryrelationships.There is no CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human OriginsI 24I crediblearchaeologicalevidence forprolongedcontact, or evolutionarycontinuityamong Neaninterbreeding, dertalsand earlymodernhumans in the Levant,and currentdata suggestthattheywould have been ecologically incompatible.Lithicuse-wearanalysis (Shea I989) indicates thattool functionswere virtuallyidenticalin kind and in relativefrequencyamong LevantineMousterian sites located in the Mediterraneanwoodland phytogeographiczone. Moreover,the large-mammalcomponents of the archaeofaunasfromthese sites are essentiallythe same (Tchernovi988:2i9-22). Neandertalsand early modemhumans,it seems,utilizedthispartofthe Levant in essentiallythe same way fora considerableperiodof time,which would likelyhave placed themin competition forthe same set of plant and animal resources-a profoundobstacleto prolongedcoresidence.Not surprisingly,Neandertal and earlymodernhuman skeletal remains have not been found in the same strata of any Levantine site. Accordingly,the LevantineMousterian archaeologicalrecordcan most parsimoniouslybe modeled as documentingshiftsin the occupationof what is today northernIsrael by at least two distincthominid taxa competingforapproximatelythe same ecological niche. Indeed, a similar interpretationis possible for Late PleistoceneprehistorythroughoutwesternEurasia. HAROLD L. DIBBLE AND PHILIP G. CHASE DepartmentofAnthropology!UniversityMuseum, UniversityofPennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pa. U.S.A. 30 XI 89 I9I04-6398, The natureofUpperPleistocenehominidbehavioraland biological changes is the subject of considerablerecent Three distinctissues, each entailinga quite controversy. different kind of evidence, are being debated simultaneously: i. Whetherthe differences betweenarchaicHomo sapiens and morphologicallymodernH. sapiens should be as inter-orintraspecific. Resolvingthisquesinterpreted tion dependsprincipallyon biological evidence,including functionalanatomy and the growthand developmentofdiagnosticskeletalfeatures,and the geographic, environmental,and temporaldistributionsof hominid forms. 2. Whethertherewas a relativelyrecentreplacement of populations in various parts of the Old World or whether each region exhibits local continuityof biological forms.Archaeological, chronological,paleoanthropological,and genetic data are all relevanthere to show movementsofand contactsbetweenvariouspopulations. 3. The nature of the behavioral adaptationof Upper Pleistocene hominids.The most directevidence forbehavioris, of course,archaeological,thoughskeletal evidence may be importantwhen the relationshipbetween behaviorand biologyis well understood. We concentratedon the last of these, reviewingthe evidence that had been put forwardby others for the 242 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 presenceofsymbolicbehaviorin theMiddle Paleolithic. theirfindingsagreewith ours,we disagreewith the conLindlyand Clark expandon our review,with essentially clusions theydrawfromthem.Their argumentis strucidenticalresults,but because theyconfusethe threeis- tured as follows: (i) Biological change and speciation conclusions. sues theydraw verydifferent result from changes in adaptation. (This premise is Lindly and Clark are clearlyaddressingthe issues of unstated.) (2) Symbolinghas adaptive significance.(3) In their in- "In evolution,behavioralchange always occurs well in taxonomy and replacement/continuity. troductiontheystate: "We are concernedthatChase and advance of related morphologicalchanges"; therefore Dibble's conclusions might be taken . . . as further the developmentof symbolingin hominidsshould pre'proof' of . . . considerable evolutionary'distance' be- cede biologicalchangeand speciation.(4) "The resultsof tween archaic Homo sapiens and morphologicallymod- [this]surveysuggestthat,as Chase and Dibble have reern humans." This is a question of taxonomy.They go portedforarchaicH. sapiens, the dailyactivitiesofpreon to say that "absence of evidenceforsymbolicbehav- Upper Paleolithicmorphologicallymodernhumans had ior in archaic H. sapiens would supportthe contention no archaeologicallydiscerniblesymbolic component." thatarchaicH. sapiens (includingtheNeanderthals)was (5) The lack of evidence forsymbolicbehaviorin both an evolutionarydead end and was replaced throughout forms"implies thatthe taxonomicunits themselvesare its rangeby humans of 'modern' typewith little or no unreliable,"and therefore theyshould be consideredthe geneticadmixture."This, of course,relatesto the con- same species. (6) If theyare the same species, theyhave tinuityissue. the same adaptation,and therefore"the assertionthat Ifwe considerthe archaeologicalevidenceforsymbol- morphologically modem humansdisplacedarchaicH. saing as a behavioral issue divorcedfromtaxonomy,we piens because theywere more'advanced' " is untenable. see nothingin Lindlyand Clark's paperthatwould cause We do not, of course, dispute the firsttwo premisesor us to alterour position-in fact,the evidencetheypres- the fourth.We must,however,take issue with the rest. ent concurs with ours. Nonetheless, they criticizeour The chronologicalprimacyof behavioralover biologwork,citingConkey's objectionthatsymbolicbehavior ical change (the thirdpoint) providesthe logic fortheir mightbe manifestin more subtle ways than the pres- reviewofearlymodernH. sapiens sites.However,thisis ence or absence of art,style,and ritual activity.As we valid onlyifit can be shown that the behavioralchange said (Chase and Dibble i987:284), "It could be thatmost in question (the adoption of symbolic behavior)is the ofthe symbolicbehaviorofMiddle Paleolithichominids one responsibleforchangesin hominidmorphology.Ifa left no archaeological traces simply because Middle different behavioralchangeunderliesthe morphological Paleolithic culture did not express symbolismin any differencesbetween archaic and modern H. sapiens, archaeologicallypreservableform.If this is the case, then the timingof the firstappearanceof symbolicbethenwe as archaeologistswill be in errorbecause of the havior in the archaeologicalrecordis irrelevantto the Generally verynatureofour data base. But it is an errorthatmust evaluationofthesemorphologicaldifferences. be riskedin orderto avoid assumingthatwhich we are speaking,the primaryskeletal differencesbetween artryingto demonstrate."To arguethatsymbolism(orany chaic and modernH. sapiens relateto overallrobustness othertrait)may have existedin formsotherthan those and details of cranial morphology.We are not aware of thatare available to us is not a verystrongargumentthat any demonstrationthat symbolingis related to these it did exist. features.In fact, it seems that one of the points that A second criticismof our paper, again attributedto Lindlyand Clarkwant to make is thatsymbolingcannot Conkey,is that it is "wholly dependentupon a distinc- be linked to changes in biology-a conclusion that we tion between culture . . . and paleoculture." Here it is would endorse.But ifsymbolicbehaviorand biologyare clear that Lindly, Clark, and Conkey have missed the not linked, then the presence or absence of symbolic of pointofour study.We simplyreviewedphenomenapro- behavior has no implications for the interpretation posed by othersas evidence ofsymbolismin the Middle taxonomicdifferences. Paleolithic. It turnedout that much of the "evidence" As we pointedout, "it is highlyprobablethatMiddle was shaky because of taphonomicconditions,dubious Paleolithichominidshad some capacityforsymbolism" dating,or inadequate documentation.Moreover,other (i987:285). What we question is that the regularuse of claims of symbolismusually requiredthe unwarranted symbolswas an integralpartof theirbehavioraladaptaassumptionof links with phenomenasuch as esthetics. tion. Contraryto the characterizationof his work by When we used the word "paleoculture"we were simply Lindlyand Clark,Marshack(I988, I989) has not demonacknowledgingthat the lack of evidence forsymbolic stratedhabitual use of symbols in the Middle Paleobehaviorin the Middle Paleolithicwas consistentwitha lithic.What he has done is to argueforthe Neanderthal in behaviorbetweenUpperPaleolithicand be- capacity for symboling-a capacity more clearly sugdifference havior from earlier periods (as was noted by Jelinek gestedby the evidencefromSaint-Cesaireand Arcy-surdid Cure than by his analysis of isolated finds. [I977], who coined the term)and thatthis difference not appearto be due to lack ofintelligenceon thepartof Thus, thatthereis no solid archaeologicalevidencefor Middle Paleolithic hominids. symbolismbeforethe Upper Paleolithic, even at sites When Lindly and Clark review evidence forsymbol- associated with modern H. sapiens, has no apparent ism fromMiddle Paleolithic sites associated with ana- bearingon the question of the biological differences betomicallymodernhuman remains,theyuse essentially tween archaic and modernhominids.It just means that the same methodwe did. While we are encouragedthat the appearanceof thisparticularbehaviorand the devel- LINDLY AND CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins 2243 opment of this particular set of biological traits are archaicH. sapiens elsewhereuntilconsiderablylater,on neithercausally nor temporallylinked. the other,demonstratethat this new adaptation was Nor does the absence of archaeological evidence for purelybehavioralin natureand neitherthe cause northe symbolingfromsites associatedwitheitherformofpre- resultofbiological change.Nor, as we have pointedout Upper Paleolithic hominid "imply that the taxonomic elsewhere(Chase and Dibble n.d.),does replacementin units themselvesare unreliable" (point 5). It makes no Europe necessarilyargue forreplacementelsewhere in sense to arguethat the sharedlack of any particularbe- the world. havioral trait (especially one not linked to biology)in In sum, we hope that Lindlyand Clark's findingswill two populations implies that the formsare taxonomi- not be takenby anthropologists as "proof"thatbehavior cally the same. Frogsand humans share the absence of did not change significantlyduring the early Upper the abilityto fly,but thatdoes not make us one species. Pleistoceneor thattherecould not have been population Even withinthe hominidline, no one would arguethat movementsduringthis time. australopithecinesand modernH. sapiernsfromtheMiddle Paleolithic belong to the same species just because thereis no archaeologicalevidence that eitherregularly CLIVE GAMBLE DepartmentofArchaeology,Universityof used symbols. In point 6, Lindlyand Clark confusethe issues of be- Southampton,SouthamptonS09 5NH, England. haviorand taxonomywith the issue ofreplacement.It is 4XII 89 true that different species oftenhave different adaptations,at least if theyoverlaptemporallyand geographi- This paper is an ingenious exercise in moving the cally. It does not follow,however,thatthereare no dif- chronologicalgoalpostsin orderto accommodatethe arferencesin adaptationwithina species,especiallyone as gumentforregionalcontinuitybetween archaic Homo plastic and as dependenton learnedbehavioras the hu- sapiens and anatomically modern humans. While the man. One need onlylook at the differences in adaptation data that Lindlyand Clark presentcome fromthroughbetween traditionalAustralianpeoples and modem in- out the Old World,the focusis stronglyEuropean,since habitantsofMelbourne.Nor does it followthatone pop- it is here that the cultural,symbolic,and anatomical ulation cannot displace or geneticallyswamp another evidence most stronglyfavoursthe replacementmodel population of the same species. There may have been to which theyare opposed. Their main point is thatthe a population movement into Europe, for example, EuropeanearlyUpperPalaeolithic(ca. 40,000-20,000 whetheror not modernH. sapiens is a species distinct B.P.) producesfew data that can be interpretedas symfromthe Neanderthals.Such movementshave virtually bolic. Similarly,in sub-SaharanAfricamodern skulls no taxonomic implications in the sense that replace- and mandibles predate the Late Stone Age/UpperPament of one population by anothercannot be taken as laeolithic"revolution" at 40,000 B.P. andarenotassocievidence of genetic distance. An obvious historicalex- ated with any symbolicobjects.This situationcontrasts ample is the colonization of the Caribbean,where the with the creativeexplosion after20,000 B.P. in Europe indigenouspopulation was almost totally replaced by and i1,000 B.P. in southern Africa(Deacon I990). This newcomersfromfirstEurope and then Africa.In other extra2o,ooo years,theyargue,is ample timeforsymbolwords, an importantimplication of the "extrasomatic ically informedbehaviourto have developed,and as a means of adaptation" characteristicof hominidsis that resultwe do not have to posit rapidreplacementto exsignificantchanges in behaviorneed not be associated plain its appearance. with significantchanges in morphology. While welcomingLindlyand Clark's negativereview There does appear to be good evidence forpopulation of symbolic data fromthe Old World,I can see some replacementin Europe at the beginningof the Upper problems.Not least among these,given the chronology Paleolithic (Mellars I989). Moreover,the coincidenceof just mentioned, is their contention that behavioural this replacementwith the firstgood archaeologicalevi- change always precedes anatomical change if, as they dence of the habitual use of symbolsis striking.Even if claim, the symbolicexplosion after2o,ooo B.P. is someConkey (as cited by Lindlyand Clark) is rightthatsym- how moresignificantbecause ofthevolume ofsymbolic bolic behavior may have been too subtle for the ar- objectsrecoveredafterthattime.Symbolism,once availchaeologicalrecordto monitor(an argumentthatis, ipso able, is not somethingthatis eitherturnedoffand on or facto,dificultto supportempirically),the common evi- varies in intensity.For example, the colonisation after dence of symbolingin the archaeologicalrecordof even I3,000 B.P. ofthe NorthEuropeanPlain and the entryof the earlyUpper Paleolithic ofEuropeimplies a new and humans into North America are markedby veryfew if different role forsymbolsin a new adapta- anysymbolicartifacts.The worldat thelast glacial maxsignificantly tion (see Gamble I983, White I985, and Whallon I989 imum (I8,000 B.P.) has huge areas with no symbolicobforideas about what this may have involved).The tem- jects and a northernfringewith abundantart (Gamble poral coincidence implies that it was this new adapta- and Soffer I990, WobstI990). This doesnotmeanthat tion thatpermittedthe newcomersto replace or swamp the populations settlingthe formerareas for the first the area's formerinhabitants.The association of both time or adaptingto refugeconditionstherehad switched Neanderthalsand archaeologicalevidenceforsymboling offtheircapacityforsymbolism. I am therefore surprisedto see Lindlyand Clark recogwith the Chatelperronian,on the one hand, and the absence oflinks between symbolingand both modernand nise, at a world scale, a "latitudinal componentto the 244 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number3, JuneI990 archaeologicalevidenceforsymbolism"but thenignore stages of the this componentwithinEurope at different last glacial cycle. Nor can theirargumentbe applied to the objectsfromthe earlyUpper Palaeolithicof Europe, especially now that the Aurignacian is gettingolder thanksto acceleratormass spectrometerdating(Mellars I989). Consequently,it is unreasonableto dismiss such data as the southernGermanfigurines,all dated to over 30,000 B.P., as unimportant becausetheyarerare.As to the pieces fromthe Middle Palaeolithic championedby Marshack,I follow Chase and Dibble (I987) and Davidson and Noble (I989) in consideringtheir symbolic status improbable. Movingthe goalpoststo make thepitchlongerputs off answeringthe main problem,which supportersof regional continuityare often reluctant to address-the veryrapid colonisation by humans of the whole earth (Cavalli-Sforzaet al. I988:6005). This occurs not with the firstmodernskulls but in a pulse beginning5o,ooo30,000 years ago with, forexample, the colonisationof Australia and Melanesia (Allen, Gosden, and White I989, for30,000 years.It JonesI990) and continuing seems likely that expansion on this scale requiredthe "conscious production of meaning" (n. 3); Whallon (I989) has arguedthat it points to the developmentof efficientlanguage and memorythat increasedthe scale and intensityofinteractionand resultedin humans' colonisingall the world'shabitablezones. Ifthisprovideda contextforselectionand byproxya chronologyformodern human origins (irrespective,by the way, of the shapes of theirskulls and stone tools),thenwe need be less concernedwith negativeevidence forsymbolicartifacts.We can also avoid the problemof supposingdifferentrates ofbioculturalchange and social complexity in different regionsof the world-a notion thatis reminiscentof Coon's (i962) conclusion,fromwhich forobvious reasonsmost supportersofregionalcontinuityare keen to distancethemselves,thatsome regionalpopulations (no guesses which) crossed the line to humanity laterthan others. What Lindlyand Clark have not addressedis the fact that the massive extension of range,while not always associated with the evidenceforsymbolicartifactsthey discuss, does not take place beforesuch objects have appearedsomewherein the world. Currenttime scales indicate that this process is more readilyexplained by dispersion,which involvedreplacementin some partsof the Old World. A more adequate test for Lindly and Clark's model would thereforebe the convincingdocumentationof Middle and Early Upper Pleistocene human presencein the Americas,Sahul, or any of the major environmentsof the Old World that remainedde- serteduntilafter50,000 yearsago. ROBERT H. GARGETT DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof California, Berkeley,Calif. 94720, U.S.A. 7 xii 89 Lindlyand Clark findno unequivocal archaeologicalevidence for"symbolicbehavior"in association with mor- phologicallymodernHomo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic.They conclude thatbecause neitherMiddle Paleolithic archaic H. sapiens, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, nor morphologicallymodernH. sapiens leftevidenceof abilityto thinksymbolically,none can be ruledout as a potentialancestorof behaviorallymodernhumans. Exposingas specious the old equation ofmodernformwith moderncapacitydoes not,however,radicallyundermine the replacementhypothesis;it does forcea reconsideration ofthe mode ofreplacementand ofwhat constitutes good evidence of modernbehavior. Lindly and Clark present "evidence" for continuity across technological (i.e., Middle-to-UpperPaleolithic) and morphological (i.e., archaic-to-modern)"boundaries" that they contend should lay the replacement model to rest.Laid to rest,however,is any notion that the evidence they introducecan be used to refutethe model of replacementof archaic H. sapiens by modern humans in Europe about 38,ooo years ago. First,citing Marshack (e.g., I988a), they assert that the human capacityforsymbolicthoughtreaches back into the Middle Paleolithic; but Marshack's argumentsare not universallyaccepted (see, forexample, d'Errico I989) and cannotin any case be taken as unequivocal evidencefor the kind of cognitiveabilities that characterizemodern humans. They continuewith the ratherstartlingproposition that we should ignore the evidence of modern "symbolic behavior" fromthe early Upper Paleolithic and view the identicalbut moreplentifulevidencefrom the late Upper Paleolithic as the "symbolic explosion" heraldingthe arrivalof humans with modernabilities. One is leftto inferthat it is not the human abilityto manifest "symbolic behavior" in sculpted antler and on stoneof bone and paintedand incisedrepresentations humans and animals but the ability to leave such artifactsaround in quantitythat makes modernhumans modern.In producingan arbitraryquantitativedistinction to demonstratecontinuity,Lindlyand Clark have betweenthe armasked a markedqualitativedifference chaeological recordsof Europe beforeand afterthe appearance of modernhumans. Finally, they shiftthe discussion fromevidence for "symbolicbehavior" to "the characterof faunal assemblages," on theiraccount a much better"monitorofhuman adaptation" than traces of symbolicability.They maintainthatthe changesin faunalcompositionvisible across the technologicaland morphologicalboundaryin Europe can be attributedto climatic changesand not to any adaptive differencesbetween the two types of H. sapiens-that Neandertals and modern humans in Europelived offthe meat ofjust those animals available to them.They are rightto point out thatthe faunalevidence may not be used to support the replacement model, but neithercan it be used as a refutation.In order forthe faunal evidence to serve as supportforthe continuityhypothesis,we would need to know, at a minimum,whetherNeandertalsacquired theirfoodusingcognitiveabilitiessimilarto those ascribedto behaviorallymodernhumans. Only thenwould it be possible to say with relativecertaintythatthereis "evidencefor clinal, relativelygradual change" in "hutmanadapta- LINDLY AND tion" untilabout 2o,ooo yearsago. In sum,the argument fora multiregionalmodel restson equivocal "evidence" forcontinuityand on the unsuccessfulattemptto use thatevidence to refutethe replacementhypothesis. What,then,is the statusofthetwo competinghypotheses for the emergenceof modern humans, given the early evidence (e.g., at Qafzeh about go,ooo years ago [Valladas et al. I988]) formorphologicallymodernhumans in the Middle Paleolithic?At Klasies RiverMouth 40,000-50,000 years ago there is an arguablymodern tool kit in associationwith morphologicallymodernhumans (Singerand Wymer i982, and see Mellars I989), suggestingthat some as yet unknownprocess of cognitive evolution had already taken place. This evidence comes to us froma time when Neandertalswere still workingstone with the technique that they had once sharedwith the morphologicallymodernformand that theyhad used withoutany real changeforabout 50,000 years. If we can take this as one line of evidence that what occurredin Africadid not happenin Europe(possibly because of geographicalisolation),this should suggest thatwhile a transitionto modernbehaviordid not, afterall, coincidewiththe emergenceofmodernskeletal morphology,it did take place withinthe modernmorphotype. The changes in question may have involved such uniquely human capacities as language and the (possibly) related ability to create archaeological traces of "symbolic behavior," as Davidson and Noble (I989) have persuasivelyargued. This could have profoundly affectedtwo otherwisesimilar populations of protohumans byrenderingthemtoo different psychologicallyfor matingto occur. Thus, while Neandertalsand modern humans may have been potentiallyinterfertile owingto their close phylogeneticrelationship,they may have been behaviorally isolated-a potent mechanism of speciationthat has not receivedmuch considerationin thisdebate.That modernhumans resemblemorphologically modern populations of archaic H. sapiens more thantheydo Neandertalsor otherarchaicformsmay be viewed,quite plausibly,as the resultofreproductiveisolation and not of the willy-nillygene exchangeimplied by the multiregional-origins scenario. Lindlyand Clark have givenus a valuable summaryof the archaeologicalrecordofMiddle PaleolithicmorphologicallymodernH. sapiens. The cautiontheydisplayin making inferences of "symbolic behavior" from archaeological sediments is a position with which I am much in sympathy.Their argumentsforcontinuityultimatelyfail,however,to persuade me that the multiregional-originshypothesisin any way accuratelydepicts recenthuman phylogeny. CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins 2245 cause, forthe decouplingof the markedculturaldiscontinuityacross the Middle/UpperPaleolithic transition fromthe putativebiological discontinuitybetween "archaic Homo sapiens" and "morphologicallymodernhumans." This suggesteddecouplinghas been fartoo long in coming,and to have it so well presentedand documented is helpful. However, several comments are called for: The classic dichotomiesofMiddle versusUpperPaleolithic and archaic Homo sapiens (a euphemism for Neandertal or Neandertal-like)versus morphologically modern humans have hampered our effortsto understandthe evolutionaryprocessesinvolvedin the "transition" betweenarbitrarily defined,and thenreified,categories. We learn these categories, accept them, are beholden to them,and allow them to shape the trajectoryof our researchand discourse. Yet the underlying evolutionarydynamics are rarely addressed. For example, given the emphasis here on purposefulburial,it would have been interestingto see a discussion of why such burials,common in the "Middle Paleolithic," are virtuallyunknownin the "earlyUpper Paleolithic" yet become the rule in the "late Upper Paleolithic." The absence ofsites in which "UpperPaleolithic"burialsare found in sedimentsoverlyingsedimentswith "Middle Paleolithic" burials,which suggestsdifferent strategies and normsregardingsite usage, would also seem pertinent to the themes discussed here. Further,Lindlyand Clark onlybrieflydiscuss the fact thatmajor changesin symbolicbehaviorappearonly at the beginningof the "late Upper Paleolithic," a time roughlycorresponding to the last glacial maximum.This coincides nicely with the results of Soffer(I987), who has underlinedthe archaeologicalcorrelatesof adaptive (includingsymbolic)strategiesin an increasinglystressful environment.Similarly,I have shown (JacobsI985) that major human postcranial changes in sexual dimorphismand robusticityaccelerate with the last glacial maximum.In the absence of an explicitmodel,one getsthe impressionthatLindlyand Clark are suggesting that changes in the nature or intensityof symbolicbehavior have little or no impact on human population biology.While theirrejectionof the classic UpperPleistocene biocultural coupling is welcome, furtherand more informativeinvestigationof the links between symbolicbehaviorand populationbiologyis needed. PAUL MELLARS DepartmentofArchaeology,Universityof Cambridge, CambridgeCB2 3DZ, England. i2 xii 89 Whilst I have a good deal of sympathywith many of Lindlyand Clark's comments,I believe thattheirarticle Departementd'anthropologie,Universitede Montreal, reflectsa numberofpersistentand recurrentconfusions in discussions of the biological and cultural transition Montre'al,P.Q., Canada H3C 317.I5 XII 89 fromarchaic to modern humans. First,no one would Lindlyand Clark are to be congratulatedfora thorough disagreewith them on the absence of a simple,one-toreview of many less well-knownEurasian Upper Pleis- one correlationbetween anatomicallymodernhumans tocene hominid-bearingsites. They argue, with good and characteristicallyUpper Palaeolithic culture (with KEN JACOBS 246 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number3, JuneI990 its rich symbolicmainfestations)throughoutthe world. associated with the earliestformsof anatomicallymodThe question is whetherthis is at all relevantto the ern hominids (e.g., in southernAfricaand the Middle issue of population continuityversus population re- East) were relatively"simple" in technologicalterms, placement over the archaic/modem-human transition this may give little indication of other-potentially As Lindly and Clark point out, there is absolutelyno much more significant-aspects of culture,such as soreason to assume that biological and cultural changes cial organization,subsistence strategies,or language. must have gone strictlyhand-in-hand.A farmorelikely Here again,Lindlyand Clark downplaytheavailable eviscenario is a patternof "mosaic" evolution,in which dence. The fact remains that the boar's jaw and large behavioural changes in some cases preceded major deer antler associated with early (ca. 90,000-I00,000 biological changes and in othercases followedthem.If B.P.) anatomicallymodernhominids at Skh-uland Qafthis was the case, then thereis no reason whateverto zeh, respectively,are by farthe most convincingexamyet recordedfrompreassume thateitherthe initialemergenceofanatomically ples of deliberategraveofferings modernpopulationsin Africaor theirsubsequentpostu- Upper Palaeolithic contexts in Eurasia. Similarly,the lated dispersalinto morenorthernlatitudesshould have perforatedConus shell fromBorderCave and the regubeen connected in any simple or directway with dra- larlynotched bones fromKlasies River Mouth, Apollo matic changes in the associated archaeologicalrecord. II, and other AfricanMiddle Stone Age sites provide The lack of such correlationsin no way "refutes"the much more convincingevidence for early "symbolic" hypothesesof either an initial emergenceof anatomi- artifactsthan anythingso farrecordedfromthe Middle cally modernhumans in one particulararea or theirsub- Palaeolithic/Neanderthalsites of Europe.And the charsequent dispersalto otherregionsof the Old World. acter of the AfricanHowieson's Poort industryis not Leaving aside these theoretical issues, Lindly and simply "aberrantMiddle Stone Age" but fully"Upper Clark skate lightlyover a vast amount of evidence that Palaeolithic" in almost everyrecognizedtechnological over a large region of the Old World (i.e., Central and and typological sense(MellarsI988, I989). It maywell WesternEurope-where the major debate has always be, therefore,that the total "culture" associated with centred)therewere in factfundamentalchangesin hu- these early formsof anatomically modem humans in more complexand adman behaviourthat can be shown to correlateremark- southernAfricawas significantly ably closely with an equally abrupttransitionfromana- vanced than anythingso fardocumentedfromthe contomically archaic to anatomicallymodernforms.The temporaneousMiddle Palaeolithic/Neanderthalsites of whole characterof "Aurignacian" culture (with which Eurasia. the earliestformsoffullyanatomicallymodernhumans Finally,I have never reallyunderstoodthe argument seem invariablyto be associated in this region[Howell that the significanceof the symbolicand technological I984]) shows a dramaticcontrastwith earlier "Middle "explosion" at the startof the Upper Palaeolithic is in Palaeolithic" culture not only in the characterof the some way diminished by the evidence of furtherinlithic industriesbut in such featuresas complex per- creases in "cultural complexity"duringthe laterstages sonal ornaments,elaboratelyshaped bone, antler,and ofthe UpperPalaeolithic sequence. I would see this as a ivoryartifacts,far-travelled marineshells,increaseduse naturaland predictableoutcome ofprogressiveincreases of other "exotic" materials, and the earliest well- in population densities and otherdemographicand sodocumented (and remarkablycomplex) art. The rela- cial pressuresin some ofthe more ecologicallyfavoured regionor the South tively sudden and abruptappearance of these features areas,such as the Franco-Cantabrian over such a largearea withinsuch a shortspace of time Russian Plain (Mellars I985, SofferI985b). To arguethat (Mellars I989:372-75; WhiteI989a; Bischoffet al. I989; this evidence forlater Upper Palaeolithic cultural "inCabreraValdes and BischoffI989; Koz-owskin.d.) is far tensification"rules out the significanceof the farmore more consistentwith the hypothesisof a major episode radical innovations in behaviour at the start of of population dispersal than with that of a gradual,in the Upper Palaeolithic would seem akin to dismissing situ evolution of the local (and highlyvaried) Middle the significanceof the "Neolithic Revolution" on the Palaeolithic industrieswithin the same regions.Lindly groundsthat thingsbecame even more complicateddurand Clark also fail to mention the verylate (and very ing the BronzeAge. typical)NeanderthalhominidfromSaint-Cesaire(westernFrance),which is almost certainlycontemporaneous with the earliestformsof anatomicallymodernhumans ANNE PIKE-TAY in WesternEurope and demonstrablymuch later than Department of Anthropology,New York University, the appearanceoftheseformsat sites in theMiddle East. 25 Waverly Place, New York, N.Y. I0003, U.S.A. Nor do theymentionthe demonstrable 30,000-40,000 years' overlap between "modern" and "archaic" forms thathas now been documentedwithinthe Middle Easternsites (Valladaset al. I988, Schwarczet al. I988). A more generalweakness in manyrecentdiscussions ofthe originsofmodernhumans is an apparentimplicit equationbetween"advancedlithictechnology"and "advanced culture." Even if many of the lithic industries I3 xii 89 I considertwo major aspects of Lindlyand Clark's argumentproblematical.The firstis theiruse ofthe concept ofbehavioraladaptationratherthanculture.In myview, their definitionof adaptation (n. 2) cannot encompass social and culturalchange.Cultureis not like any other "structure,physiologicalprocess,or behavioralpattem" LINDLY AND CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins 2247 that contributes to the reproductive"fitness" of a controlledarchaeologicalcontextscan now aid in monispecies,and its developmentcannotbe monitoredin the toringchangesin subsistencesystemsthatmightappear same manner.For modernhumans, the habitual use of identicalifonlyrelativefrequenciesofspecies,anatomisymbols through language defines the environment cal partsrepresented,and age profileswere considered. within a social and historicalcontext.Changes in hu- In addition,indicatorsother than faunal assemblages, man adaptations involve not only the environmental such as paleonutrition, mustbe consideredin examining stimulibut thegroup'sresponseto them,groundedin its changein subsistenceadaptationsin theMiddle and Upunique historical circumstances (see Bettinger1980, perPaleolithic.Forexample,Brennan's(1 986) workwith Conkey I987b). biological stressindicators(i.e., enamel hypoplasiasand Lindly and Clark's concept of behavioral adaptation Harris lines) has demonstratedstatisticallysignificant directs the argumentthat negative evidence for sym- differences betweenthe Middle Paleolithicand the early bolic behaviorsupports"a hypothesisof no difference" Upper Paleolithic in southernFrance. Pendingfurther between archaic Homo sapiens and anatomicallymod- analysis of this kind, it is perhapsprematureto argue ern humans. I completelyagree that "no correlationof thatthe subsistencestrategiesof the Middle Paleolithic modernbehaviorwith modernmorphologycan be pro- and the earlyUpper Paleolithicwere identicalor differposed." The formerdeals with social and culturaladap- ent. tations (includingsymbolicbehavior),or what Conkey (i987b :65) has termed "human-humanrelationships," and the latterconcernsbiologicaladaptations.I disagree, YURI SMIRNOV however, with the assumption that the mechanisms InstituteofArchaeology,U.S.S.R. Academy of that shape these two dimensionsof human change and Sciences,Dm. Ulianov I9, Moscow II9036, U.S.S.R. 2o XII 89 variabilityare the same. Lindly and Clark also contend that the negativeevidence forsymbolicbehavioron the part of the earliest I cannot but agree with Lindlyand Clark's major argumodernsfromthe Africancontinentchallengesthe re- ment fora slow accumulation of traces of "symbolic" placementscenario.I findthis troublingon two counts. behaviorand a "symbolicexplosion" only at ca. 2o,ooo model has never relied upon yearsB.P. Yet I thinkwe should also bear in mind both First,the "out-of-Africa" of historicaldevelopmentand the wide the premisethat anatomicallymodernhumans arrived the irregularity in Europe fullyequipped with symbolicbehavior.Sec- varietyof its particularformsthat are suggestedby the ond, Lindlyand Clark explicitlyquestion (n. 3) the ap- irregulardistributionofarchaeologicaltracesofsuch acpropriatenessofthe categoriesthathave been employed tivitiesovertime and space. Further,the time and space to monitorsymbolicbehavior,calling them "equivocal distributionof particulartypesof "symbolic" activities and inadequate," but theyproposetest implicationsfor throughoutthe world from ancient to modern times the replacementmodel based on these same classes of testifiesto the existenceof certainzones of aggregation (centers)thatcontainthemajorityofsitesproducingmaevidence. The second problemin Lindly and Clark's argument terial evidence of this or that kind of "symbolism." lies in the assumption that the similaritiesand differ- Thus, thereare centersofprimitiveart(FormozovI983) ences between Middle Paleolithic and early Upper and centersof taphologicalactivity(SmirnovI989). In Paleolithic subsistence adaptations have been ade- all probability,we can also speak of centersof zoolatric a bear cult. The exisquatelyassessed. While the Europeanarchaeofaunalevi- cults,e.g., bear caves representing dence may initiallysuggestfew marked changes "co- tence of such centers does not, however,exclude the incident with the local Middle/Upper Paleolithic possibilitythatsimilar"symbolic" activitieswenton in boundaries,"when we are able to go beyondthe relative other places, although those activities evidentlytook frequenciesof preyspecies we begin to see differences otherformsundetectableby archaeologicalmeans (e.g., suggestiveof changethroughtime. For example,studies drawingson perishablematerials,exposureratherthan such as thatofDelpech and Rigaud(I974) on the system- burial of dead bodies or the objects of zoolatric cults, atic processingofbone and marrowprovideinsightinto etc.). There is good reason to believe that therewere in earlyUpperPaleolithicinnovationthatwould have been factno human societies that did not go in forsome sort otherwiseoverlooked.Interpretive frameworksrecently of "symbolism." Both the structuralcomplexityof the developeu forunderstandingthe age profilesof Middle human brain(KochetkovaI973) and the evolutionofthe and Upper Paleolithic ungulateprey(esp. Stinerig8ga, particularpartsofthe brainresponsibleforthinkingand b) allow us to considerplanned,corporateinvolvement speech suggestthe existence of various kinds of "symin preyacquisition in the Middle Paleolithic and early bolic" activityas farback as Homo erectus. A fewwordsabout some archaeologicalevidencethat Upper Paleolithic (Pike-Tay I990). For example, comparativestudyofstrategiesinvolvedin seasonal red-deer Lindly and Clark have regrettablynot taken into achunting in the Gravettian and Final Magdalenian of count: FromQafzeh we have evidencenot simplyofthe southwesternFrance (Pike-Tay I989) suggeststhat the burial of the dead but of more sophisticatedformsof success of the earlyUpper Paleolithic groupof hunters preburialtreatmentincluding ritual cannibalism (e.g., maybe attributedto cooperationratherthantechnology. pathologyof the occipital part of the Qafzeh 6 skull). Testing for seasonal use of prey species in well- Both the conditionand the distributionof the skeletal 248 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 i. Many/mostUpperPaleolithichumanremains(even in the Late Upper Paleolithic,even in France)lack clear grave goods; indeed, unequivocal burials are still rare, particularlyin such regions as Vasco-Cantabria(Quechon I976, HarroldI980). Gravegoods are variablypresent even at the same site even in the Late Upper Paleolithic; forexample, in the Upper Magdalenian of nov I989:223). Finally,Lindlyand Clarkhave omitted Duruthy(southwesternFrance)the (unsexed)individual mentionoftwo pieces ofochrefoundin associationwith foundin I874 by Lartetand Chaplain-Duparcwas assothe Qafzeh 8 burial (Vandermeerschi969:2563). I think ciated with some 40 perforatedand engravedlion and that the interred(?)bull's skull that partiallyinterfered bear teeth,while the (female)individualfoundin I96I (I978:28-29) lacked"offerings." with the Skhul 9 burial can be consideredfurtherevi- byArambourou 2. Most rupestral and even mobile art in Vascodence of "symbolic" activity.' Cantabriacan be arguedto be of Late UpperPaleolithic and Magdalenian) age; its appearancein this (Solutrean LAWRENCE GUY STRAUS region may be linked to the specificdensity-dependent DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofNew conditions of human settlementalluded to above (Straus Mexico,Albuquerque,N.M. 87I3I, U.S.A.ii xii remains in burials testifyto the practice of mortuary decapitation (Qafzeh 6), defleshing(Skhiuli?), and reburial(Skhiul2?). They also indicatethattherewere two typesofburial,of the whole body and of onlypartsofit (Skhiul2, 6?, Qafzeh 6, io, i 5), and thereare groundsfor beliefthat the Mousteriansrituallysubstitutedisolated teethforthe craniumor the mandible (Qafzeh 3) (Smir- 89 i982, i987b). 3. There are of course some well-dated,early, unThis is a useful articleand one with whose perspective worksofart(e.g.,at Geissenklosterlein southequivocal and conclusions I am in fundamentalagreement.I have ca. 32,000 yearsb.p.[HahnI988], and westem Germany, arguedfora numberofyearsthat,at least in the specific ii in Namibia,ca. 27,500 at yearsb.p. [Wendt Apollo case of CantabrianSpain, culturalevolutionin the secI976]), but their distributionis geographicallyspotty: ond half of the Upper Pleistocene was overall gradual, cumulative, and mosaic in nature (e.g., Straus I977, some regions have "much" early art, others little or none. Not all of this variation can necessarilybe exI983, n.d.a; Strausand Heller I988). This is not to deny preservation. plained by differential the apparentlyratherabrupteffectof human abandonis whether "the transition"or even It futile to debate ment of northwesternEurope and the southwardrecesone of the transition (i.e., "symbolic behavior") aspect sion of the hominid range duringthe last glacial maxtook at one time or another.These universally place imum on populationdensitiesand hence on subsistence in and mosaic are variable timing phenomena regionally strategies,social organization,and symbolic/ceremonial in distributions and adaptanature. hominid Although activity in the Franco-Cantabrianregion after about different tions worldwide did end by the up looking very 2o,ooo yearsago (Strausn.d.b, c), but such cases ofrelaend of the Pleistocene than had at its beginthey Upper tivelyrapid change need to be identifiedand analyzed nonthis was the cumulative result of long-term, ning, individuallyand in local context. I continue to be surprisedthat archeologistsand hu- teleological,adaptive changes. Symbolismundoubtedly man paleontologistscan argue so intenselyabout no- does have adaptive value-in the context of certain tions such as "the Middle-to-UpperPaleolithic transi- physical, demographic,and social environmentssuch tion" as iftheywere real and the trueobject (as opposed as those of the resource-richbut relativelycold and to prehistorichuman adaptations)of paleoanthropolog- crowdedFranco-Cantabrianregion. It is ironic that, while the authors (correctly)imply ical research.We have not yetescaped theunilinealevothat specificattributionof individualfossilsto archaic lutionism of our scientificancestors. With each new or modern Homo sapiens sapiens is oftentenuous,they reassignmentofkeyfossils(e.g.,Skhiul,Qafzeh)or indusor juvenile retries (e.g., Chatelperronian,Szeletian, Bohunician),the seem to accept several veryfragmentary In some of the as "modern." mains addition, definitely supposed "transition"is moved in time and redefined. Middle associations of "modern" fossils with supposed We tend to jump on bandwagons,the currentone beare Paleolithic artifact (e.g., assemblages questionable paradigm.However,deing the punctuated-equilibrium pendingon one's time frame(long or short),the same BorderCave, Starosel'e Cave). Finally,the relevantdephenomena may appear to be the results of either posits at Skhiulare now "dated" by electronspin resogradualisticor punctuatedchange.We continueto make nance to ca. 90,000 B.P. (Stringeret al. I989), but,being the basic mistake of assuming that new formsof fossil based on the same theoretical assumptions as therhominidsmustbe strictlycorrelatedwithnew behaviors moluminescence dating,this need not be taken as an (and vice versa)in all or at least most domainsofhuman independentcheck on the datesfromQafzeh(Valladas et activity (this despite the Skhtul,Qafzeh, and Saint- al. I988). Cesaire discoveries).Lindlyand Clark clearlyshow the errorofthis assumptionin the supposedlycriticalrealm C. B. STRINGER of symbolicbehavior(howeverthatmay be defined). Department ofPalaeontology,Natural History A few points may be added to theirexpose: Museum, London SW7 5BD, England. 6 xii 89 i. ? VsesoyusnoyeAgentsvopo AvtorskimPravam(6a, B. Bronnaya,K-IO4Moscow I03670,U.S.S.R.).TranslatedbyTatianaDo- The realisationthat the conventionalarchaeologicaldibronitskaya. vision between Middle and Upper Palaeblithic recog- LINDLY AND nised by most archaeologistsdoes not neatlycorrespond with the distinction (whethersubspecificor specific) between anatomically non-modernand modern skeletal morphologies recognised by virtually all palaeoshould have been withus fora longtime anthropologists now. In thispaper,Lindlyand Clarkuse "symbolism"as theirmain criterionforrecognising"modern"behaviour and concludethata lack ofsymbolismpriorto the Upper Palaeolithic thereforeindicates a lack of "modern" behaviour, thus (in their opinion) supportinga multiregional model of modernhuman origins.However,they do recognizea numberoflimitationsin theirarchaeological arguments,and I will leave those to be dealtwithby othercommentators. Beforegoingon to deal with theirargumentsconcerning the originofmodernhumans,I would like to clarify a few points concerningthe sites they discuss in their useful review. First, concerningthe supposed "grave goods" with Skhiul5 and Qafzeh ii: it is true that the species representedwere common in the layers concerned outside the purportedgrave area, but it is also worth noting that the remains in question were well preserved,suggestingthat they,like the skeletons,may have been protectedby intentional burial. Regarding Skh-ul,thereis furtherevidence to link the sample with the Qafzeh hominids fromelectron-spin-resonance age estimates (Stringeret al. I989). The accuracy of the claim that the Qafzeh hominidsrepresent"the earliest dated remains of morphologicallymodern humans in the world" depends on interpretationsof a numberof Africanhominid sites. Omo Kibish i (Day and Stringer n.d.,Day, Twist, and Wardn.d.),KNM-ER 3884 (Brauer, Leakey,and Mbua n.d.), and the Klasies MSA i sample (Grin, Shackleton,and Deacon n.d.) may all be of comparable or greaterage, and this would also apply to Laetoli hominid i8 and the Singa calvaria (Grun and Stringern.d.) if they are consideredto be anatomically modern(forfurtherevidence of an archaic morphology in Singa, see Stringer,Cornish, and Stuart-Macadam I985). The datingof the Aterianhominidsof NorthAfrica also remainsunclear,withsome workersarguingfor much greaterages (>70,000 years) for Aterian assemblages (Wendorfet al. n.d.). Finally,regardingFlorisbad, it is likely that the hominid considerablypredatesthe Middle Stone Age levels above Peat 2 (Clarke I985). The implication of Lindly and Clark's argumentsis that if the archaeological evidence (which they claim supportsa multiregionalmodel) does fitwith the palaeontologicalevidence, it must be the latter,specifically what they term "replacementsystematics,"that is at fault.Here they are not just takingon advocates of replacement models but attackingthe view accepted by most workersthat there are significantmorphological differences (whetherspecificor subspecific)betweenanatomically non-modernand modern humans. As they recognise, acceptance of the latter view completely underminestheir arguments,forgiven their assertion that "behavioral change always occurs well in advance of related morphological change," such behavioural changesshould be observedin the Middle Palaeolithicof Europeand WesternAsia ifthe Neanderthalpopulations CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins 2249 therewere to transformthemselvesinto anatomically modernones. This bringsme to a veryimportantpoint stressedon numerousoccasions by Trinkaus(e.g., I986, n.d.; see also Stringern.d.), who can hardlybe characterisedas favouringoverallreplacement:ifwe do accept the realityofthe appearanceofa new, moregracileskeletal pattern with anatomically modern humans, and we also accept thatsuch a patternis a reflectionofselection and adaptationfora habitual life-style,then there bemust have been significantbehaviouraldifferences tween the Skhuil-Qafzehhominids and the Neanderthals,whateverthelithicremainsare supposedlysaying. Otherwise,why were the Neanderthals (and other archaic hominids throughoutthe Pleistocene) carrying around all that physiologicallyand nutritionallydemandingmuscle and bone? Presumably,if the more comprehensivegeneticanalyses now beingconducted(e.g.,Vigilantet al. n.d.,Long et al. n.d., Nei and Livshits n.d.) also do not fit with these Lindly and Clark's multiregionalinterpretations, too must all be at fault.AlthoughI agreethat"a satisfactoryexplanationof the originsof modernhumans must reconcilethe archaeologicaland fossilevidence and the evidence frommolecular biology,"I thinkwe are some way away fromsuch a reconciliation,and I considerit unlikely to come fromthe view that nearly everyone else has got it wrong (see also Clark I988; Clark and Lindly I989). It might come, however,froma recognition that at the momentwe are missingthingsthatwe need to achieve a resolution.Each area ofresearchneeds to recognise its own limitations,both in data and in interpretation. ERIK TRINKAUS DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofNew Mexico,Albuquerque, N.M. 87I3 I, U.S.A. 4 XII 89 The ongoingdebate on the nature,the timing,and especially the constituentprocesses of what we call "the originsof modernhumans" appearsto be becomingincreasinglypolarizedjust at a time when new data, analyses, and insightsshould be taking us away fromthe narrow,polemical, and nonproductiveargumentsformerlyjustifiableby majorgaps in our paleoanthropologThis paperby Lindly ical knowledgeand understanding. and Clark appearsto be anothercontributionto thispolarization rather than to our understandingof what mighthave happenedin the past. The substanceoftheirtextrequireslittlecomment.It is difficultto make a convincingargumentone way or theotherconcerningthe "evidence" forsymbolicbehavior among Middle Paleolithic-associated earlymodern humans based on a mix of remainsfromsome old excavations (Starosel'e, Skhful,Temara, Porc Epic, Singa), some recentcarefullydone excavations(Qafzeh,Klasies River Mouth, Mumba), mixed deposits (Darra-i-Kur), and surfacefinds(Laetoli-Ngaloba,Omo-Kibish),not all ofwhich are sufficiently completeto be morphologically diagnosticas to theiraffinitieswith late archaic versus earlymodernhumans (Darra-i-Kur,Temara, Porc Epic, 250 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number 3, JuneI990 Mumba) and some ofwhich are betterconsideredas late archaic humans (Laetoli-Ngaloba, Singa). Their argument is based on negativeevidence when thereis little ofthe sampossible confidencein therepresentativeness ples assessed. More important,they seem to be particularlyconcernedto eliminateany hint of biological determinism, as in theirstatement"it will be clear thatno correlation of modern behavior with modern morphologycan be proposed." Yet they are perfectlycontent to use supposed evidenceofbehavioralcontinuity,includingtypotechnologicaldata, archaeofaunalanalyses, and settlement-patterninferences(only the firstof which have anythingresemblinga securebasis in currentanalysesof the archaeological record,and that only forselect reOld World),to arguethatthere gionsofthenorthwestern must have been human biological (i.e., genetic) continuity.Isn't therea problemhere?Ifwe cannotuse past human morphologyto say anythingabout past human behavior (and I believe that in fact we can), then we should be more carefulabout using highlydebatablearchaeological inferences concerning "cultural" continuityto make inferencesabout human phylogeny. Perhapsmore concernwith sortingout the actual behavioral processes duringthe generalperiod related to the originsof modernhumans, combininghuman paleontologicaland Paleolithicarchaeologicaldata and inferences,is in order.It is becomingincreasinglyapparent that it was a considerablymore complex period of human evolutionthanmanyofus thoughteven a fewyears would be betterspentfocusago, and perhapsour efforts to anthropologing on the past ratherthan contributing ically generatedcontroversiesthattell us littleabout it. RANDALL WHITE New York University, DepartmentofAnthropology, 25 Waverly Place,New York,N.Y. I0003, U.S.A. I3 XII 89 I wish to restrictmy commentsto two subjects: (i) the of out-of-Africa hypothesisas seen fromthe perspective, the EuropeanPaleolithicand (2) EarlyUpper Paleolithic evidenceforsymboluse. Withrespectto thefirstissue, I am in substantialagreementwith Lindlyand Clark. As forthe second,I cannotimaginehow we could be farther apart,eithertheoreticallyand factually. It remainsuncertainwhetherthe out-of-Africa model of later hominid evolution will stand the test of time, althoughthereis much reason to give it serious consideration.However, in many respectsthe Aurignacianis irrelevantto the question,since dates forthe Near EasternAurignacianare substantiallylaterthan the earliest Aurignaciandates forEurope. Thus, the earlyAurignacian must be viewed as a completelyEuropean phenomenon,with some later spill-overinto the Levant.If modernhumans came to Europe as the resultof an outof-Africaradiation,it was not with already developed Aurignacianculture in hand. Archaeological evidence foran out-of-Africa radiation,ifit exists,mustbe sought in earlier European/NearEastern similaritiessuch as those between the little-knownEast EuropeanBohunician (Svoboda i990) and industriesfromBokerTachtitin Israel(KleinI990; MarksI983, i990). The successof UpperPaleolithicculturein replacingthe Mousterianis understandable,but we remainwithoutany archaeological, biological,or behavioralexplanationfora preceding movementout of Africa.The selective advantageof being an anatomicallymodernhuman is simplynot selfevident. Whetherthe out-of-Africa model provesto be a myth or a reality,I agree with Lindlyand Clark that thereis little if any pre-40,000-year-old symbolicevidence anywhere. But they imply that,if the out-of-Africa model were correct,there would be such evidence earlierin Africa.This is not a valid test implicationunless one believes that symbolicbehaviorwas necessarilya neurological/genetic correlateofthe emergenceofanatomically modernhumans. The culturaldevelopmentsofthe Aurignacian,includingthe firstknownrepresentational art and personal adornment,took place at least 50,000 years afterthe firstanatomicallymodern humans appearedin Africa.Therefore,as I have previouslyemphasized (White i982, I985, i989b), the developments across the Middle/UpperPaleolithic transitionare not susceptibleto neurological/biologicalexplanationsbut may be understood solely in cultural evolutionary terms. In a peculiar twist, Lindly and Clark go so faras to questionthe taxonomicdistinctionbetweenmorphologically modernhumans and archaic modernhumans on groundsthatneitherdemonstratessymbolicbehavior.In theirsociobiologicalview ofthings,theyhave lost sight ofthe social and ideationaldimensionsofculturalevolution. Leslie White, who had no trouble reconcilinga symbolic with an adaptational definitionof culture, would have been surprisedby theview that"the characteroffaunalassemblagesis a much moredirectmonitor of human adaptationthan art,ornamentation,or mortuary practices." In fact, the nature of faunal assemblages is directly linked to culture (no matter how defined)throughideas, beliefs,technology,and social organization. As I have recently emphasized (White was at least ig8gb:gg),the firstsymbolicrepresentation as significantadaptivelyand evolutionarilyas the first use of fireor stone tools. The consequences forinnovation and change were profound.The Aurignaciansand theirUpper Paleolithic descendentswere able to realize with increasingrapiditya wide rangeof social, technological,and ideationalpossibilities.In myview,much of this rapid evolutionarydevelopment,as is the case today,was due to the forming,manipulating,and sharing of images. But Lindly and Clark dispute the very existence of abundant symbolicevidence in the EarlyUpper Paleolithic. Here, our disagreementsare not ones of perspective but of fact. For the past four years, I have been strugglingto understandthe rich body of Aurignacian and Gravettiansymbolicevidence,especiallybodyornaments,fromWestern,Central,and EasternEurope.The LIND LY AND and most of it carries quantityof materialis staggering, provenience,in some cases with adequate stratigraphic radiocarbondates. Lindly and Clark mistakenlystate that forthe early Upper Paleolithic symbolic artifacts are dated "only on the basis of allegedlytime-sensitive 'index-fossil'tool typesand normativecharacterizations of assemblage sequences." In my view, it is undeniable entity that the Aurignacian is a culture-stratigraphic with relativelywell-definedchronologicallimits establishedbyradiocarbondates (see Mellars et al. i987). Peyrony's classic Aurignacian sequence has been much amended,but his Aurignaciani, characterizedby splitand chronologbased points,maintainsits stratigraphic ical validity,with no radiocarbondates placing it later than30,000 b.p. and severalplacingit as earlyas 33,000i989). b.p.(see CabreraValdesandBischoff 40,000 Some of the best-datedAurignaciani levels are precisely those that have yieldedthe earliestknown repreivory sentationalart,forexample,thethree-dimensional animal figuresfromGeissenklosterle,dated to well before30,000 b.p. (Hahn i986, i988), and a red-deercanine replicated in steatite from Castillo with accelerator dates (Strausi989) of 37,700-39,900 b.p. Most Aurignacian i assemblagesin which organicmaterialshave been preservedhave yieldedpersonalornamentsand/ordecorated objects,not to mentionitems of bone and antler technology.However, as in the Magdalenian,in which 90% of all the mobiliaryart in Europe comes froma in dozen or so sites, thereare greatintersitedifferences quantity. Fromthe beginningto the end of the Aurignacian(at about 28,ooo b.p.) in Europe, there are approximately 2,500 personal ornaments (see White ig8ga, Lejeune i987). Indeed, the number of basal Aurignacianbeads, identical to those recoveredfromolder excavations at several othersites, is growingrapidlywith the meticulous recoveryof dozens of these objectsfromHenriDelporte's ongoing excavations at Brassempouy.Aurignacian sites have yielded about 70 decorated,engraved,or paintedslabs (Delluc and Delluc I978), about 30 threedimensional ivory carvings (Hahn I97I, I972, I975, i983, i986, i988; White ig8gb), at least one bone flute (PassemardI944: pl. 7), and severalthousandbone, antler, and ivory tools/projectiles(cf. L6roy-ProstI975, Knechti990). made by implements Bone/antler/ivory complex grindingand polishing techniques (see White are veryabundant.For example,therewere 70 i990) split-basedantlerpointsin-theAurignaciani at Isturitz, 54 at Abri Castanet, and II4 at Abri Blanchard (H. Knecht,personal communication). The numberof such objects increases steadilyin the succeedingGravettian,withperhapsfewerbone and antler tools/weaponsand hundredsmore engravingsand paintings.It is worthnotingthatthereare morepersonal ornaments(ca. i2,ooo) fromthe 28,ooo-year-old (Hof- feckeri987, Bader I978) Gravettiansite of Sungirthan exist in all FrenchMagdalenian sites combined. These observationsclearly indicate that Lindly and Clark are unjustifiedin wishingto move the "symbolic explosion" forwardto 20,ooo-iS,ooo b.p. While I have CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins1.e5I art no doubtthatthereis an increasein representational this change is quanin the Magdalenian/Epigravettian, titative.The appearance,in the Aurignacian,ofsubstantial numbersof representationalobjects (after2.5 million years in which they apparentlydid not exist) is a qualitativeand revolutionarydevelopmentwith general evolutionaryconsequences (see White ig8ga) at least as profoundas those of such landmarksin culturalevolution as the emergenceof foodproduction. Pre-UpperPaleolithichominids,whetherin Africaor Eurasia, collected interestingformsand colors but seldom if ever createdsuch forms.One possible exception is the Bacho Kiro festoon(Marshack i982). I sharefully Chase and Dibble's (i987) skepticismand feelthatMarshack (i988) has overestimatedthe symbolicqualities of the veryfew well-provenienced"curiosities" while ignoringthe severeprovenienceproblemsofothersout of a firmlyheld belief in a gradualistversus punctuated view ofsymbolicevolution.In fact,however,thesepreUpperPaleolithicspecimenscontradicta gradualistperspective in lacking technical and formal redundanty throughtime and across space, attributesimmediately visible fromthe outset of the European Upper Paleolithic. Reply J. M. LINDLY AND G. A. CLARK Tempe,Ariz., U.S.A. 22 I 90 We thank those who have taken the troubleto address some of the implications of our paper forthe issue of modernhuman origins.It would appear that the moddebate is not forthe faintof heart. ern-human-origins Yet, although we disagree wholeheartedlywith many comments,we thinkthata resolutionoftheseproblems will only come fromsuch frankexchanges. It is unreasonable(contraTrinkaus)to expecteveryoneto agree about which data are "relevant"and what data "mean." Since data have no "meaning" (even existence)independent of the conceptual frameworks(or paradigms)that defineand contextualizethem,many of the differences concepof opinion expressedhere are due to different tions of biological and culturalevolutionarymodels (or partsthereof). Our objectivesin thisessay were considerablyless ambitious than many commentatorsperceivethem to be. If,forthe sake ofargument,one acceptstherealityofthe taxonomic infrastructure(i.e., the reality of archaic Homo sapiens, Neanderthal,and morphologicallymoderntaxonomicunits),one oftheprimaryissues becomes (or not so the relative contributionsof these different hominids to "the originsof us." Chase and different) Dibble (i987) argue for a significantlydifferentadaptation in the Middle Paleolithic than that seen in the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia, basing their case on an absence of evidence for symbolism in the Middle 2521 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3I, Number3, JuneI990 Paleolithic and its presence in the Upper Paleolithic. especially if they were differentbut closely related Their construalof patternin the Middle Paleolithic is species. The archaeological record would, therefore, used to juxtapose this "paleocultural" systemto a cul- reflectdiscontinuitywhereverthisreplacement"event" tural system of "modern" form(i.e., the Upper Paleo- or "process" occurred.Mellars (along with some other the "nature" of commentators)appears to regardthe concept of migralithic)forthe purposeof demonstrating the Middle Paleolithic adaptation.It seems clear,how- tionas a plausible mechanismto explainhis construalof ever,that this approach can only take us so farin the pattern.We do not. With Trinkaus (i982) and Jelinek issues (i982), we considermigrationto be a density-dependent examinationofthiscomplexseriesofinterrelated and problems. phenomenonessentiallyconfinedto the latestprotohisWhatwe triedto do was to turnthe Chase and Dibble toric and historicperiods (i.e., those periodswhen huargumentaroundand look instead forevidence of sym- man population densities were locally high in some bolic behaviorin Middle Stone Age/MiddlePaleolithic areas).We simplydo not believe thatthephysicalmigrasites associated with the skeletal remainsofpre-Upper tion of peoples played a significantrole in human macPaleolithic morphologicallymodern humans. If there roevolutionand are hard-pressedto come up with a sinwere significantdifferencesin symbolic behavior be- gle instance in which a more compelling alternative tween archaic H. sapiens and morphologicallymodern explanationis not possible (includingtheAurignacianin human populations of pre-Upper Paleolithic/pre-Late Europe [see Straus i9891). It seems clear that many view symbolismas someStoneAge date,one would expectthemto be manifestin the comparisonsmade here. So faras we can tell, how- thingmodernhumans "do" as a matterof course. Deever,the patternis exactlythe same whetherthe homi- spite assertionsby Dibble and Chase, Mellars, Stringer, nids associated with Middle Paleolithic/MiddleStone and White that no one believes this anymore,we see Age archaeologicalassemblages are archaic H. sapiens, plenty of evidence to the contrary(e.g., GargettI989, Neanderthals,or morphologicallymodernhumans.This Smirnovi989). We thinkthat our surveyindicatesthat implies (i) thatthe taxonomicunits themselvesare sus- symbolic behavior is not "species-specific"but situapect (whichwe thinkverylikely)and (2) thatthe major tional in human adaptation.In otherwords,it solves an quantitativeshiftin adaptationoccurredrelativelylate adaptive problem for humans that is probablyrelated and was largelyunrelated to the perceived transition to information-processing requirementscreatedby infromthe Middle to the Upper Paleolithic.The evidence creased social complexity,population density,and/or forand against symbolismis only a small part of this subsistence uncertainty(Mithen i988a, b). We would complex equation, albeit one that,because of its ambi- suggestto Gamble that symbolic objects do not occur guity (conflictingconceptual and operational defini- duringthe colonization of the North Europeanplain in the late Upper Paleolithic or in the initial colonization tions),seems to have evoked strongfeelings. We simplydo not believe that any versionof the re- of the New Worldessentiallybecause populationdensiplacementscenario,anywherein the world,can recon- ties were so low that there was no need forthem. In cile obvious inconsistenciesin the biological and cul- otherwords,it would appearthatsymbolismofthekind tural records of Upper Pleistocene hominids. If one that would leave unambiguousempiricalreferentsconsubscribes to the "out-of-Africa"hypothesis (Cann, ferredno particularadaptiveadvantageon thesecolonizStoneking,and Wilson I987, Stonekingand Cann i989), ingpopulationsunderconditionsoflow populationdenthe implicationis thatmorphologicallymodernhumans sity.We do not contendthatsymbolicbehaviorofother replace archaicH. sapiens (orNeanderthals)throughout sortsdid not occur-only thatwe cannotmonitorit artheir range with no admixtureand thereforethe two chaeologically.In our opinion, this is the major stummust be different species bling block to the study of symbolic behavior in the species. If these two different were livingin the same regionat the same time,given remotepast; we simplydo not know what aspectsofthe what we know about evolutionaryecology,theymust total repertoireof symbolicbehaviorare likely to leave adaptations.Our pre- tracesin the archaeologicalrecord. have had fundamentallydifferent Our study concluded that evidence for "modern bevious work suggests that in southwesternAsia, and havior" (sensu Chase and Dibble i987) does not occurin probablyin Europe,theydid not (Clarkand LindlyI988; i989a, b). An absence of symbolicevidence associated the archaeologicalrecorduntil the UpperPaleolithic,realbeit cir- gardlessofthehominidassociatedwithit. As this"modwith both hominid "types" providesfurther, cumstantial,evidence fora similaradaptation.We can- ern behavior" is associated with a suite of adaptations not comprehendhow Mellars can argue that an "out- presentafter35,000 years B.P., it is logical to suppose suite of adaptationsreof-Africa"perspective,wherein anatomically modern that beforethis time a different populations migrate throughoutthe rest of the Old lated to "nonmodern"behavior(howeverdefined)must World,would not also be accompanied by discernible have existed.In these adaptationsneitherNeanderthals changes in the archaeologicalrecord.If thereare no ac- nor archaic H. sapiens nor morphologicallymodernhuforsuch an event mans appear to have utilized symbolismas partoftheir tual or conceivableempiricalreferents or process,thenit can be no more than speculation.Ac- daily existence.As we see it, we are criticizedforbeing cording to the competitive-exclusionprinciple (Mayr interestedin the variabilityof these Upper Pleistocene i950), populations coming togetherin any regionfrom adaptations,what theymightmean in termsof the ardifferent environmentsmust show adaptivedifferences, chaeological record,and how they mightbe relatedto LINDLY AND the various hominid taxa with which they are associated.While we admitto no greatadmirationforthepresent state of systematicsin human paleontology,we are manifestlynot using symbolism-a behavioraltrait-to question the identificationof fossil taxa (contra BarYosef et al., Dibble and Chase, Trinkaus,Stringer).We are using a behavioral traitin conjunctionwith other behavioral traits to examine whether human adaptations in westernEurasia duringthe Upper Pleistocene are similar or differentin respect of the fossils with which theyare associated. That Bar-Yosefet al. and Dibble and Chase take our statementabout the "evolutionary distance" between Neanderthals and moderns to mean "taxonomic distance" is troubling.Taxonomies do not evolve; individuals in a population do. By attemptingto monitor one aspect of the adaptationsof pre-Upper Paleolithic hominids in conjunction with what we alreadyknow about otheraspectsoftheseadaptations,we feelbetterable to assess similaritiesand differencesin orderto beginto understandthe evolutionary relationshipthatmighthave obtainedbetweenthehominids themselves. We think that archaeologists (and many paleoantendto take biologicaltaxonomicunits at thropologists) face value. Doing so oftenconstrainsdebate along the lines established by the taxonomic categories themselves. Althoughwe would think it obvious, it is very importantto emphasize that taxonomic categoriesdo not always correspond to biological categories (Fu- CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins1253 and in possession of a common essence," ratherthan because they do not interbreed.Lest we be accused of we hasten to being overlycriticalof paleoanthropology, add that thereare clear parallels in those Old Worldarchaeological systematicsthat use retouched-stone-tool typologiesas iftheywere somehow "real" or "meaningful" in theirown right(or more meaningfulthan other categoriesof evidence) (BartonI988; Clark and Lindly I989C; Dibble I987, I988). In orderto identifyspecies, one must firstdetermine whetherindividualscould have interbredundernatural conditions. Characteristicsthat preventinterbreeding are known as isolating mechanisms,and these can be and/orbemorphological,physiological,environmental, havioral in nature. In evolutionarybiology,behavioral criteria are perfectlyacceptable for assisting in the identificationof species by assessingthe likelihoodthat interbreedingmight have taken place between them. This is especiallytrueof subspecies (such as H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis)-a concept that most evolutionary biologists consider arbitrary I979:205). (Futuyma in thisessaywe examine Although one particularaspect of behavior(symbolism),we have elsewhere examined others (Clark and Lindly I988; i989a, b). In our opinion,thereis no compellingbiological evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans could not have interbredand,giventheirnearlyidentical adaptations,much to suggestthat theydid. Dibble and Chase in particularconfusethe taxonomic is concerned and biological species concepts by contendingthat diftuymaI979:507). Most of this literature with the taxon "species." Biologists define species as ferentiationof species depends solely on biological natural evidence. In addition, they mistakenlyclaim that we "groupsof actually or potentiallyinterbreeding populations, which are reproductivelyisolated from suggestthatsymbolismcauses themorphologicaldifferothersuch groups"(MayrI942). Morphologyby itselfis ences between archaic and modernhumans. This is renot the only criterionfor the identificationof species lated to a misconstrualofevolutionaryprocess.Behavior I 979: I 90). Dependence ontaxonomies created need not promote speciation or enhance reproductive (Futuyma with referenceto morphologicaltraits in attemptsto success to be importantto the survivalofa species. Symunderstandevolutionaryrelationships(as suggestedby bolic behavior is contextual. It was probablya latent Bar-Yosefet al., Dibble and Chase, Stringer,and Trin- capacity in all later Upper Pleistocene hominids,"ackaus) is preciselywhat is wrongwith the cladistic ap- tivated"when it was adaptivelyadvantageousto do so. proaches to taxonomythat are currentlyso popular in Granted,modernhumans have a multitudeof different replacementsystematics.Taxonomy is a means to an adaptationsand degreesto which evidence of symbolic end,not an end in itself.That Trinkaus,who has consis- behavior is reflectedarchaeologically.Yet there is no tently produced credible functional explanations for question thatwe comprisea single species morphologimorphologicalfeaturesgroundedin behavioralchanges, cally,physiologically,and behaviorally.It is, moreoyer, shouldmake thisparticularcriticismis especiallyworri- quite an inferentialleap to argue that two populations some. Perhaps we are missing somethinghere, but it with nearlythe same morphologyand exactlythe same seems entirelyinconsistentwith his functionalmor- adaptationare different species (i.e., do not interbreed) phologicalapproach(an approachwe regardas the most simplybecause theyhave been classifiedas such. That defensiblein a field litteredwith the wreckageof dis- humans are extremelyflexible in their behavior and creditedempiricistsystematics).We do not believe it is variablein theirmorphologydoes not mean thatwe can possible nor are we interestedin tryingto understand ignore similaritiesand differencesin adaptation if we the dynamic evolutionary relationships of hominid hope to understandevolutionaryrelationships.In short, species strictlyin termsofsterileclassificationsystems. we think that the approach advocated by Dibble and To suggestthattaxonomiesare somehow "real" is remi- Chase and by Bar-Yosefand his colleagues ignoresthe niscentof the typologicalthinkingin biologicalsystem- interplaythat must exist between archaeological,moratics pilloriedby Mayr (i963) more than 25 years ago. phological,and molecular evidence. beWe are also remindedofMaynardSmith's(i988:9) refer- Stringersuggeststhat,ifmorphologicaldifferences and ence to essentialism,whereinspecies are identifiedbe- tween modernsand Neanderthalsat Qafzeh,Skhful, cause they are "obviously different fromone another, Kebara are an indicationof different adaptations,there 254 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 31, Number 3, fune I990 manifestin the skeleton mightbe behavioraldifferences and not reflectedin the archaeological record (essentially the reverse of what we are arguing).This is an to test.The only interesting idea but one thatis difficult kindoftestthatwe would imagineto be widelyconvincing would be one based on significantdifferencesin functionalmorphology,and Trinkaus,who has studied most of the westernAsian material,does not detectany such differences.How much morphologicalvariation is enough to suggest major differencesin adaptation? Stringerseems to think that enough variationcan alreadybe documentedbetween these two taxa to allow forthe possibilityof different adaptations.We disagree, but ifhe is correctarchaeologistswill have to reevaluate what our data and theoriescan reallytell us about the past. We remain optimistic that the archaeological recordis at least as informative about UpperPleistocene hominid adaptationas is the morphologyof the hominids themselves. The point, though,is that we really need both perspectivesto address these evolutionary questions adequately. Dibble and Chase, Mellars, and White,while emphatically agreeingthat thereis no discerniblerelationship betweensymbolismand fossiltaxa,cannothelp remarking the apparentuniqueness and significanceof symbolic objectsassociated with the AurignacianofEurope. The "abruptappearance" of the Aurignacianin Europe, allegedly bolsteredrecentlyby early (ca. 40,000 years B.P.) accelerator dates fromL'Arbredaand El Castillo caves in Spain, can be interpretedin several ways (Bischoffet al. I989, CabreraValdes and BischoffI989; cf. Straus I989). Mellars suggeststhatthe earlydates could signifya rapid replacementof indigenousNeanderthals by a dispersingpopulationofmoderns.In our opinion,it is just as likely that the Aurignacian "representsa simultaneous technological development,largely the productof convergence"(StrausI989:477). These dates, at the far westernend of the Aurignaciangeographical are as old as or olderthanearlyAurignacian distribution, dates fromeastern Europe (Svoboda and SimainI989). The "facts" evidentlydo not "speak for themselves," and the Spanish dates could mean many things:(i) that the dates fromeasternEurope are too youngand older dates will eventuallybe found,(2) that the conventionally dated early Upper Paleolithic sites in western Europe are too youngand will turnout to be a good deal older when the acceleratortechnique is more widely used, or (3) that Aurignaciantechnologydeveloped in times in different situ at different places out ofthe local Middle Paleolithic technology(Straus I989). We think that a good case can be made for multiregionalcontinuityand in situ development,at variablerates,ofAurignaciantechnologyin Europe. No human fossils are associated with the dated early Aurignacianlevels at these sites, and if fossilswith Neanderthalmorphology are eventuallyfoundthe replacementscenariowill collapse like a house of cards. The same will be true if fossilsof modernmorphologyare eventuallydiscovered in a Chatelperroniancontext.White appearsto support thepossibilityofan in situ Europeandevelopmentofthe Aurignacian,but we see no evidenceto suggestthe "ancestral" relationshiphe suggestsbetweenthe European Aurignacianand the industriesof Boker Tachtit in the Levant(MarksI983, I985; Marks and Volkman I983), or the Bohunician of easternand centralEurope (Svoboda and Siman I989). These industriesare based on Levallois reduction strategiesthat are not usually seen in the EuropeanAurignacian. we neversuggested Gargett'sassertionto the contrary, that the evidence forearly Upper Paleolithic symbolic behaviorin Europeshouldbe ignored.We onlywishedto pointout thatthe "early" evidenceis, forthe most part, undatedordatedin termsoffossilesdirecteursthat,contra White,are manifestlynot an accurate means of arrangingarchaeological assemblages in a chronological sequence (Straus I987, Straus and Heller I988, Simek and Snyder I988). Although the numbers of objects "dated" to the early Upper Paleolithic are impressive, we remainunconvincedthatmost of themcan be accudated show ratelyplaced in time. Those radiometrically a patternof relativelyfew early Aurignacianobjects, with an increase in frequencyin the later Aurignacian and Gravettian.This factdoes not diminishthe importance oftheseobjectsor theirsignificanceto thestudyof early Upper Paleolithic adaptationsbut only indicates thatsymbolicbehaviorbecame moreimportantthrough time and that the trendcontinuesunabated (in fact,accelerates)in the later Upper Paleolithic. It is clear that we do not know as much about the Aurignacianas we in retouchedshould and thatdependenceon differences tool-typefrequenciesand undated"art" objectsdoes not presenta completepictureofthe relationshipoftheAurignacianto the Chatelperronian,the late Middle Paleolithic,or even the Gravettian. We are pleased that Jacobs,Smirnov,and Straus support our argumentfor a significantadaptive shift at around 2o,000 B.P. ratherthan at the beginningof the Upper Paleolithic.In addition,Jacobs'sresearchon concurrenthuman morphologicalchange duringthe late Upper Paleolithic complementsthe archaeologicaldata in suggestingmajor adaptive change. Dibble and Chase claim thatour construalofbioculturalevolutionarypatternscannotbe reconciledwith a mosaic configuration. We emphatically disagree. Our viewpoint is entirely consistent with mosaic evolution-with the crossing of behavioral and biological "thresholds" (however defined)at differenttimes in differentregions (Clark n.d.). Differencesin rates of change do not contradict and in factare predictedby themultiregional-continuity model. Bar-Yosefet al., Mellars, and Stringerthink that we undervaluethe "gravegoods" associated with the Skh-ul V and Qafzeh i i burials,yet theyare unable to explain why these "offerings"are any more significantthan similar objects associated in similarways with archaic H. sapiens that are dismissed as "utilitarian"and/oras inadvertentlyincluded in grave fills. We think that Gargett(i989) is correctin questioningthe intentionality of Middle Paleolithic burials, many of them enshrined in the literatureas if they were established LINDLY AND "facts."In respectofQafzeh and Skhiul,however,we are questioningnot the burialsthemselvesbut onlythepurported"grave goods." Finally,contraryto Bar-Yosefet al., it is crystalclear fromMcCown's comments and from his illustration (taken from a photograph)that SkhualV, while probablya grave,was in factdisturbed. We welcome the comments of Smirnov,who represents a researchtraditionquite different fromour own. He embracesa more eclectic view than ours (and most othercommentators')in respectofwhat can be regarded as "symbolic" in the Upper Pleistocene archaeological record (especially the evidence forritual treatmentof several of the Qafzeh and Skhiulburials). Althoughwe have not been able to evaluate these claims directly,we adopta more conservativestance. Taphonomicresearch overthe past decade has forceda much-neededreassessment of conventionallyaccepted evidenceforcannibalism,ritual,burial,etc.,and has provideda rangeofalternative interpretations as to what such evidence might "mean.'/ Straus'spointregardingthe scarcityofgravegoods and unambiguous graves even in the Upper Paleolithic is well taken. Ratherthan acceptingon faiththe conclusions of earliergenerationsof prehistorians, we have an obligationto reanalyzegravecontextsand possible associated objects on a case-by-casebasis. We agree with Jacobsthat the reasons behind apparentdifferencesin the frequencyof Middle and Upper Paleolithic burials need to be explored(see also Clark and Neeley I987). Gargett and Mellars contend that the Howieson's Poortindustryfoundin the MSA sequence of South Africais very"modern"in appearance,butwe do not know what thatmeans. Ifit is the presenceofprismaticblades that makes a lithic industry"modern" in appearance, thenthereare numerousexamples of "modern"-looking industriesin the Middle Paleolithic of southwestern Asia and Europe,and industrieslackingblades are found all over the world and throughoutprehistory.Gargett's assertionsabout a correlationbetweenmodernbehavior and morphologycannot be testedin defaultofadequate operationaldefinitionsof "modem" behaviorand morphology. We agreewith Jacobsand Strausthatthe dichotomies utilizedin themodern-human-origins debate(Middlevs. Upper Paleolithic, archaic vs. modernmorphology)are too restrictiveforthe investigationofwhat was surelya dynamicprocessratherthan a series ofmoreor less discrete stages. We also share Jacobs's concern that the underlyingevolutionarydynamicsbe examinedand discussed. The biological and culturaltransitionsmust be studied as transitions.En bloc comparisonsbetween normativecharacterizationsof the Middle and Upper Paleolithic or between archaic and modernH. sapiens cannot fail to throw differencesinto sharp relief,but theytell us nothingabout process. Trinkaustakes issue with our inclusion in the survey of certain fossils whose "early modern" status is debated.It should be clear,however,thatone mustdepend on the published accounts of these finds.It is simplya factthat the taxonomic status of some of them is con- CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins| 255 tested by reputable scholars. One of the things that is just how poor the fossilevistruckus veryforcefully dence really is for pre-Upper Paleolithic morphologically modern humans. It amounts to almost nothing, and it is characterizedby the most inadequate time/ space gridimaginable.The impressionconveyedbygeneral and popular accounts is that thereis a lot of solid, unequivocal evidence for early modems, but it just isn't so. Pike-Tay, apparentlymaking a distinctionbetween culturaladaptationand biological adaptation,chastises us foremphasizingthe latter.We readilyadmit to an "adaptationist"bias in respectofhuman social behavior (Binford I962, I964, I965), (Binford I972: I33; mainlybecause"adaptation" has realisticempiricalreferents whereas many construals of "culture" do not. Obviously,much dependshere on what is meant by "culture" and what is meant by "biology."We defineadaptationas evolutionarybiology does (see n. 2). Behaviorcan be viewed as the "dynamics ofadaptation"-a strategyforsurvivaland reproduction SmithI978, Jochim see also Maynard Foley I987b). Natural selection operates on the behavior,morphology,physiology,and biochemistryof an organism,throughreproductivesuccess, to minimize or solve problemsposed by an organism'sphysicaland social environment(Foley i 987b:6I). Culture, in contrast,is so ambiguous a concept that it has defiedany consensusdefinitionforovera century(andis, therefore, analyticallyuseless). At a minimum,Pike-Taymust tell us what she means by "cultural adaptation."In a backhandedway, though,she has put herfingeron an important conceptual issue: can we in fact neatly separate biologicaland culturalcomponentsofadaptation,and,if so, what are the empiricalreferentsof each? In modern-human-origins research, one might be temptedto look for "cultural origins" in an effortto differentiate "culture" from "paleoculture," as Chase and Dibble (i987) have done. In our opinion,however, this is a dangerous tack because of the generallyacknowledged mosaic character of cultural evolution. What aspects of behavior are to be consideredexclusively"cultural"?How manysuch traitsmust a population exhibitbeforeit can be said to be "cultural" rather than "paleocultural"? Even assuming that one could for"culcome up withunambiguousempiricalreferents ture" and "paleoculture" (whichwe regardas an impossibility),thereis no parsimonioussolution to this problem, since it is based on a false dichotomy.Behavior usually considered"cultural" can be foundin a number of nonhominidprimates(Foley I987b). Some chimpanzees make, use, and transporttools and therebyexhibit displacement (a capacity to take futurecontingencies into account). Some (perhapsall) chimps have the capacity to symbol and can be taught to communicate throughsign language. Lowly vervetmonkeys have a communicationsystemwith vocalizations that are the functionalequivalentsofwordsin human speech (Foley I987b:4). Many animals exhibit learned behavior to a greateror lesser degreeand so can transmit(to a greater or lesser degree)adaptive behaviorfromone generation I98I, 256 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume3I, Number3, funeI990 in Prehistoric Kur,Afghanistan, researchin Afghanistan to the next. In short,we agree with Foley (I987b) that (I959i966), editedbyL. Dupree.TransactionsoftheAmericanPhiloculture is not a useful concept in the studyof human sophical Society 62:54-56. originsbecause the ambiguityof its empiricalreferents ARAMB de Duruthya OUROU, R. I978. Le gisement pr6historique obscures our perceptionsof the dynamic development Sorde-l'Abbaye. Memoires de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise and evolutionofbehaviorin the archaeo/paleontological I3. [LGS] BADER, 0. N. I978. Sungir'verkhnepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka. record. Moscow:Nauka. [RW] We are astonishedthat Gargett,Pike-Tay,and White BAHN, P. i988. Triple Czech burial. Nature332:302-3. (in part)take issue with our contentionthat faunal re- BARTON, C. M. i988. Lithicvariabilityand MiddlePaleolithic mains are a comparativelydirectmonitorof adaptation behavior:New evidencefromtheIberianPeninsula.BritishArSeries408. chaeologicalReportsInternational and with our conclusion that subsistencepatternsover the Middle/UpperPaleolithictransitionin Europedem- BAR-YO SEF, O. I987. PleistoceneconnectionsbetweenAfricaand southwest Asia: An archaeological perspective.AfricanArchaeonstrate continuity (Clark I987, Clark and Lindly ologicalReview5:29-38. the data available to evaluate this i989a, b). Admittedly, oftheLevantineMiddlePalaeo. i989. "Geochronology propositionare somewhat inadequate (thoughbetterin lithic,"in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland biological on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. Editedby perspectives Europe than anywhereelse), but (contra Pike-Tay)we P. Mellarsand C. Stringer, pp. 6I I-25. Edinburgh: Edinburgh are not basing our conclusions on anythingso simPress.[OB, DL, JS] University pleminded as species lists (Chase I986, Clark I987, . n.d. "UpperPleistocenehumanadaptationin south-west StrausI986). NeitherGargettnorPike-Taypresentsdata Asia," in Corridors,cul-de-sacs,and coalescence: The bioculturalfoundationsofmodernpeople.EditedbyErikTrinto contradictour findings.We, too, have read Stiner kaus. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. In press. (i98 a, b),and to us her results,froman analysis of age BAR-YOSEF, O., AND L. MEIGNEN. i989. LevantineMousterian profilesacross the late-Middle/early-Upper-Paleolithic in thelightofnew datesfromQafzehandKebara variability transitionin Italy,appearto suggestcontinuitybetween at the54thannualmeetingofthe Caves,Israel.Paperpresented these periods. Subsistence organizationis indeed diffi- SocietyforAmericanArchaeology, Atlanta,Ga.,April5-9. i98i. "Notes concult to understand,but we would remindGargettthatall BAR-YOSEF, O., AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. cerningthe possible age of the Mousterian layers in Qafzeh we can do is to utilize the data in hand. While White's cave," in Pr6histoiredu Levant, pp. 28i-86. Colloque Internalinkageof subsistenceorganizationand cultureis sometionalCNRS 598. times (although not always) demonstrablein ethno- BAR-YOSEF, O., B. VANDERMEERSCH, P. B. ARENSBURG, E. TCHERNOV, H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, AND GOLDBERG, graphiccontexts,our inabilityto identify"cultures"unA-M. TILLIER. I986. New dataon theoriginofmodernmanin ambiguouslymakes it impossible to link these aspects theLevant.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:63-64. of adaptationarchaeologically. The fossilfaunaoftheWadiElBATE, D. I937. "Paleontology: One mightimaginethatthislast greathominidtransi- Mugharacaves,"in The StoneAge ofMountCarmel.Editedby tionwould be thebest-understood ofall, but,as thepresD. Garrod and D. Bate, pp. I39-227. Oxford: Clarendon. P. ig80. On theage ofBorder Cave hominidsI-5. ent controversyshows, there is as much diversityof BEAUMONT, Palaeontologia Africana 23:2I-33. the as ever. If ever we are goingto understand opinion AND J. VOGEL. P., H. DE VILLIERS, I978. Modern transitionto modernhumans, it must be studied as a BEAUMONT, manin sub-Saharan Africapriorto 49,000 B.P.: A reviewand transition.We can no longeraffordto compartmentalize evaluationwithparticularreference to BorderCave. SouthAfrican Journalof Science 74:409-I9. and molecularit into archaeology,paleoanthropology, biology components. Preconceptionsabout biological B E L F E R - C O H E N, A. I 988. "The appearanceofsymbolicexpresPleistocene of the Levant as compared to evolution have importantconsequences for interpre- sion in the Upper in western Europe," L'homme de N6andertal, vol. 5, La pensee. tations of the archaeological record (and vice versa), Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef,pp. 25-29. Liege: ERAUL. and archaeologists can ignore the findingsof other BETTINGER, R. ig80. Explanatory predictive modelsofhunterdisciplines only at their peril. The ancestors of modgatherer adaptation.Advancesin ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory 3:I89-255. [AP] ern humans representa long-lastingadaptive phase as anthropology. AmericanAnimmediately preceding us. To claim that they were BINFORD, L. I962. Archaeology tiquity 28:I7-25. extinguishedwithout issue over most of their range . i964. A consideration ofarchaeological researchdesign. withoutcomingup with a plausible explanationof why American Antiquity 29:425-4I. . i965. Archaeological andthestudyofculture and how does little to engenderconfidencein the exsystematics process. American Antiquity 3 I:203-Io. planatorypotentialof anthropologicalresearchdesigns. modelbuilding:Paradigms andthe . I972. "Contemporary current stateofPaleolithicresearch,"in Modelsin archaeology. EditedbyD. L. Clarke,pp. iog-66. London:Methuen. . I979. Organization and formationprocesses: Looking at ReferencesCited V. P. I976. PositionoftheStarosel'ye findin the hominidsystem.Joumnal ofHumanEvolution5:4I3-2I. ALLEN, J., C. GOSDEN, AND J. P. WHITE. I989. HumanPleistoceneadaptationsin thetropicalislandPacific:RecentevidencefromNew Ireland,a greater Australianoutlier.Antiquity ALEXEYEV, curatedtechnologies. Journal Research ofAnthropological 35:255-73. . I 989. Stylesofstyle.Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 8(I):5 I-67. BINFORD, L., AND J. SABLOFF. i982. Paradigms, systematics, and Journal Research38: I 37-53. archaeology. ofAnthropological BISCHOFF, J. L., N. SOLER, J. MAROTO, AND R. JULIA. i989. AbruptMousterian/Aurignacian boundary at ca. 40 ka bp: Accelerator14CdatesfromL'ArbredaCave (Catalunya,Spain). Journal ofArchaeologicalSciencei6. In press.[PM] 63:548-6I. [CG] AN GEL, J. I972. A MiddlePaleolithictemporal bonefromDarra-i- B 6 EDA, E. I988. "Le conceptlaminaire:Ruptureet filiationavec LINDLY AND le conceptLevallois,"in L'hommede N6andertal,vol. 8, La mutation.EditedbyM. Otte,pp.4I-60. Liege:ERAUL. BOUCH U D, J. I974. Etudepr6liminaire de la fauneprovenant de la grottedu Djebel Qafzehpresde Nazareth(Israel).Pal6orient I:87-IO2. BRACE, C. L. i964. The fateofthe"classic" Neanderthals: A con- ofhominid CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY sideration catastrophism. 5:3-43. . i967. Thestagesofhumanevolution.EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall. . i986. Modemhumanorigins:Narrowfocusorbroadspectrum.AmericanJournal ofPhysicalAnthropology 69:I 8o. . i988. The stagesofhumanevolution:Humanand culturalorigins.EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall. . i988. Punctuationism, cladistics,andthelegacyofmedieval neo-Platonism. Human Evolution 3:I2I-38. BRACE, C. L., F. BOOKSTEIN, S. SMITH, K. HUNT, AND P. HOLCK A rearendview. n.d.Neanderthal to modemcranialcontinuity: ofMichigan,Ann MS, MuseumofAnthropology, University Arbor,Mich. BRAUER, G. i984. "A craniological approachto theoriginofanatomicallymodernHomo sapiensin Africaandtheimplications fortheappearanceofmodemhumans,"in Theoriginsofmodernhumans:A worldsurveyofthefossilevidence.EditedbyF. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 327-4io. New York: Alan R. Liss. G., R. E. LEAKEY, AND E. MBUA. n.d."A first reporton theER-3884cranialremainsfromIleret/East Turkana,Kenya," in Continuity Controversies in Homo sapiens orreplacement? evolution.EditedbyG. BrauerandF. H. Smith.Rotterdam: Balkema.In press.[CBS] BRAUER, G., AND M. MEHLMAN. i988. Hominidmolarsfroma MiddleStoneAgelevelat theMumbaRockShelter,Tanzania. AmericanJournal ofPhysicalAnthropology 75:69-76. An introduction to BRAIN, C. I98I. Thehuntersor thehunted? ofChicagoPress. Africancave taphonomy. Chicago:University B R E N N A N, M. U. I 9 86. Hypoplasias in theMiddleandUpper Paleolithic.Paperpresentedat the85thannualmeetingofthe AmericanAnthropological Association,Chicago,Ill. [AP] BRO O KS, A. I988. New perspectives on westernEuropeanprehistory.Paperpresentedat the 53rdannualmeetingoftheSociety forAmericanArchaeology, Phoenix,Ariz.,April27-May I. BUTZER, K. I982. "Geomorphology and sedimentstratigraphy," in TheMiddleStoneAge at KlasiesRiverMouthin SouthAfrica.EditedbyR. SingerandJ.Wymer, pp. 33-42. Chicago: BRAUER, CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins1257 on theblackskull(WT-I7000,A. . I988. Observations in human assessmentofsystematics boisei):An archaeological AmericanAnthropologist paleontology. 90:357-7 I . [CBS] modelsofPleistocenebioculturalevo. I989a. Alternative lution:A responseto Foley.Antiquity63:I5 3-6I. . I989b. "Romancingthestones:Biases,style,andlithicsat approachestolithicanalysis.Edited La Riera,"in Alternative Papersof byD. Henryand G. Odell,pp. 27-50. Archaeological AssociationI. theAmericanAnthropological C L A R K, G. A ., A N D J. M. L I N D L Y. I 988. The biocultural transi- tionandtheoriginofmodemhumansin theLevantandwesternAsia. Pal6orient I4: I 5 9-67. on thebioObservations . I989a. "The case forcontinuity: in EuropeandwesternAsia,"in Thehuman culturaltransition on theorirevolution:Behaviouraland biologicalperspectives ginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. EditedbyP. Mellarsand C. Press. University Edinburgh Stringer, pp. 626-76. Edinburgh: . Ig89b. Modernhumanoriginsin theLevantandwestern evidence.AmericanAnthroAsia: The fossiland archaeological pologist9I (4). In press. The evidence . I989. Commenton: Graveshortcomings: forNeandertalburial,byRobertH. Gargett.CURRENT ANTHRO- POLOGY 30:I78-79. CLARK, G. A., AND M. NEELEY. in I987. "Social differentiation EuropeanMesolithicburialdata,"in MesolithicNorthwest M. ZveleEurope:Recenttrends.EditedbyP. Rowley-Conwy, pp. I2I-27. Sheffield: JohnR. Collis. bil,andH. P. Blankholm, hunterCLARK, G. A., AND L. G. STRAUS. I983. "LatePleistocene adaptationsin CantabrianSpain,"in Hunter-gatherer gatherer EditedbyG. A Europeanperspective. economyin prehistory: Press. University Bailey,pp. I 3 I-48. Cambridge:Cambridge and conclusions,pt. i: UpperPaleolithic . I986. "Synthesis subsistencein northern Spain," andMesolithichunter-gatherer adaptationsin in La RieraCave: StoneAgehunter-gatherer northern Spain.EditedbyL. Strausand G. Clark,pp. 35 i-66. ResearchPapers Anthropological ArizonaStateUniversity 36. "The culturesoftheMiddlePaleolithic/Middle StoneAge,"in The CambridgehistoryofAfrica:Fromearliesttimesto c. Soo B.C. EditedbyJ.D. Clark,pp. 248-34I. Press. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ofculturechangein theearlylater . I983. "The significance and southernAfrica,"in TheMoustePleistocenein northern rianlegacy:Human bioculturalchangein the UpperPleisUniversityof Chicago Press. tocene.EditedbyE. Trinkaus,pp. I-I2. BritishArchaeological BUTZER, K., P. BEAUMONT, AND J. VOGEL. I978.Lithostratig- ReportsInternational Seriesi64. raphyofBorderCave,Kwazulu,SouthAfrica:A MiddleStone . I988. The MiddleStoneAgeofEastAfricaandthebegin2: c. I95,000 B.P. Journal Agesequencebeginning ofArchaeologJournal ofWorldArchaeology ningsofregionalidentity. ical Science5: 3I 7-4 I . 23 5-305. CABRERA VALDES, V., AND J. L. BISCHOFF. i989.Accelerator CLARKE, R. I985. "A new reconstruction oftheFlorisbadhuman I4C ages forbasal Aurignacian at El Castillo (Spain). Journalof Archaeological Science I6:577-84. [PM, RW] CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L., A. PIAZZA, P. MENOZZI, AND J. MOUN- TAIN. i988. Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringingtogethergenetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proceedings oftheNationalAcademyofScience,U.S.A. 85:6002-6. [CG] AND A. WILSON. CANN, R., M. STONEKING, i987. Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325:3I-36. CHASE, P. I986.ThehuntersofCombeGrenal.BritishArchaeo- logical Reports InternationalSeries 286. . i989. "How different was MiddlePaleolithicsubsistence? A zooarchaeological on theMiddleto UpperPaleoperspective lithictransition," in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. biologicalperspectives pp. 32I-37. Edinburgh: EditedbyP. Mellarsand C. Stringer, Press. Edinburgh University CHASE, P., AND H. DIBBLE. i987. MiddlePaleolithicsymbolism: A review of currentevidence and interpretations.JournalofAn- thropological Archaeology 6:263-96. to theMetalAges: CLARK, G. A. i987. "FromtheMousterian Long-termchanges in the human diet of northernSpain," in Editedby0. ThePleistoceneOld World:Regionalperspectives. Soffer,pp. 293-3i6. New York: Plenum Press. CLARK, J. D. i982. cranium, with notes on the site," in Ancestors: The hard evi- dence.EditedbyE. Delson,pp. 30I-5. New York:Alan R. Liss [CBS] M. i987a. New approachesin the searchformeaning? A review of research in "Paleolithic art." Journalof Field Archaeology I4:4I3-30. regional . I987b. "Interpretiveproblems in hunter-gatherer CONKEY, pp. studies,"in ThePleistoceneOld World.Editedby0. Soffer, 63-77. New York:Plenum Press. [AP] . n.d. "Magic, mythogram,and metaphorsformodernity: The interpretationof Paleolithic art," in Handbook ofhuman symbolicevolution.EditedbyA. Lockand C. Peters.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. In press. C. i962. The originofraces.London:Cape. [CG] COON, DAVIDSON, I., AND W. NOBLE. tion. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY DAY, M., AND C. STRINGER. I989. 30:I25-5 The archaeology ofpercep5. [CG, RHG] n.d.The Omo Kibishcranialre- mains and classification within the genus Homo. L'Anthro- pologie94. In press.[CBS] n.d.The Omo I (Kibish)postcranialremains.L'Anthropologie 94. In press.[CBS] recordin South DEACON, J. I990. "Changesin thearchaeological Africaat I8,000 B.P.," in The worldat I8,ooo B.P.,vol. 2, Low DAY, M., M. TWIST, AND S. WARD. 258 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume31, Number3, funeI990 GRINE, F., AND R. KLEIN. latitudes.EditedbyC. Gambleand 0. Soffer, I985. Pleistocene pp. I70-88. LonandHolocenehuman remainsfromEquus Cave, SouthAfrica.Anthropology don:UnwinHyman.[CG] 8:55-98. DEBENATH, A. I975. D6couverte de resteshumainsprobablement GRUN, R., AND C. STRINGER. n.d.ESR age estimatesforthe Singahominidsite(Sudan).In preparation. ateriena Dar-es-Soltane (Maroc).ComptesRendusde l'Aca[CBS] GRUN, R., N. SHACKLETON, demiedes Sciencesde Paris,S6rieD 28i:875-76. AND H. DEACON. n.d.ESR dating oftoothenamelfromKlasiesRiverMouthmainsite,SouthAfDELLUC, B., AND G. DELLUC. I978. Les manifestations grasursupportrocheuxdes environsdes phiquesaurignaciennes rica,CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY. In press.[CBS] HAH N, J. I97I. La statuettemasculinede la grottedu HohlenEyzies(Dordogne).Gallia Pr6histoire2I:2I3-438. [RW] steinstadel(Wiirttemberg). F. I983. Les faunesdu Paleolithiquesup6rieur L'Anthropologie dansle DELPECH, 75:233-44. [RW] . I972. Aurignacian signs,pendants,and artobjectsin sud-ouestde la France.Cahiersdu Quaternaire 6. 3:252-66 DELPECH, F., AND J-PH. RIGAUD. I974. "Etudede la fragmenta- Centraland EasternEurope.WorldArchaeology [RW] tionet de la r6partition des restesosseuxdansun niveaud'habiDer Vogelherd: .I975. Eine WohnhohlederAltsteinzeit in L'industriede l'os dansla pr6histoire. tationpal6olithique," im Lonetalbei Stetten,GemeindeNiederstotzingen Ldkr. pp.47-55. Aix-en-Provence: EditedbyH. Camps-Fabrer, UniHeidenheim.Kulturdenkmale in Baden-Wiirttemberg, kleine versit6de Provence.[AP] Fuhrer,i6. [RW] D 'E R R I C O, F R A N C E S C O. I989. Palaeolithiclunarcalendars: . I983. "EiszeitlicheJager zwischen35000 und I 5000 vor A case ofwishfulthinking? CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:II7EditedbyH.-J. in Baden-Wiirttemberg. i8. [RHG] heute,"in Urgeschichte Theiss.[RW] pp. 273-330. Stuttgart: Muller-Beck, D I B B LE, HAR O L D. I987. The interpretation ofMiddlePaleolithic AmericanAntiquity52:I09-I7. scrapermorphology. . I986. KraftundAggression. InstitutfurUrTiubingen: 1i988. "Typological aspectsofreductionandintensity of geschichte.[RW] utilizationoflithicresourcesin theFrenchMousterian," in Up. I988. Das Geissenklksterle I. Stuttgart: Theiss.[LGS, RW] perPleistoceneprehistory ofwesternEurasia.EditedbyH. Dib- HARROLD, F. I980. A comparative analysisofEurasian ble andA. Montet-White, pp. I8 I-96. Philadelphia:University Paleolithicburials.WorldArchaeologyI 2: I 9 5-2 I I. [LGS] ofPennsylvania Press. HOFFECKER, j. I987. UpperPleistocene loess stratigraphy and L. I972. Tentativeconclusions DUPREE, andtentativechronologPaleolithicsitechronology on theRussianPlain.Geoarchaeolical charts,in Prehistoric researchin Afghanistan (i959-66), ogy2:25 9-84. [RW] editedbyL. Dupree.TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophF. C. I984. "Introduction," HOWELL, in The originsofmodern ical Society62:74-82. humans:A worldsurveyofthefossilevidence.EditedbyF. H. DUPREE, L., AND R. DAVIS. I972. The lithicandbonespecimens SmithandF. Spencer,pp.xiii-xxii.New York:Alan R. Liss. fromAq Kuprukand Darra-i-Kur, in Prehistoric researchin Af[PM] ghanistan(i959-i966), editedbyL. Dupree.Transactions ofthe JACOB S, K. I985. Evolutionin thepostcranialskeletonofLate AmericanPhilosophicalSociety62:I4-32. Glacial and earlyPostglacialEuropeanhominids.Zeitschrift fur FEDER, K., AND M. PARK. I989. Human antiquity. Mountain Morphologie undAnthropologie 75:307-26. [KJ] View,Calif.:Mayfleld. A. I977. The LowerPaleolithic:Current JELINEK, evidenceand D. I976. Les resteshumainsateriens FEREMBACH, de Temara interpretations. AnnualReviewofAnthropology 6:II-32. (campagneI975). BulletinetM6moiresde la Societed'An. I98I. "The MiddlePaleolithicin thesouthern Levant de Paris,SerieI3, 3:I75-80. thropologie fromtheperspective ofTabtunCave," in Pr6histoire du Levant. C. R. I975. "The Aterian in NorthAfrican FERRING, prehistory," EditedbyJ.Cauvinand P. Sanlaville,pp. 265-80. ColloquesInin Problemsin prehistory: NorthAfricaand theLevant.Edited du CNRS 598. ternational andA. Marks,pp. II3-26. Dallas: Southern byF. Wendorf . i982. "The MiddlePaleolithicin thesouthern Levant, MethodistUniversity Press. withcommentson theappearanceofmodernHomo sapiens," R. I987a. Hominidspeciesand stonetoolassemblages: FOLEY, in The transition fromLowertoMiddlePaleolithicand theoriHow aretheyrelated?Antiquity6i:380-92. ginsofmodernhumans.EditedbyA. Ronen,pp. 57-IOI. Brit. I987b. Anotheruniquespecies:Patternsin humanevoluish Archaeological SeriesI 5 I. ReportsInternational tionaryecology.Essex:Longman. JO C H IM M. A. I 98 I. Strategies ofsurvival.New York:Academic A. A. I983. K probleme FORMOZOV, "ochagovpervobytnogo isPress. kusstva"(Concerning theproblemof"centersofprimitive art"). JONES, R. I990. "FromKakaduto Kutikina:The southern contiSovetskayaArkheologia, no. 3, pp. 5-I3. [Ys] nentat I8,ooo yearsago,"in The worldat I8,ooo B.P.,vol. 2, FUTUYMA, DOUGLAS J. I979. Evolutionary biology.Sunderland: Low latitudes.EditedbyC. Gambleand 0. Soffer, pp. 264-95. SinauerAssociates. London:UnwinHyman.[CG] C. I983. "Cultureand societyin theUpperPalaeolithic JULIAN, GAMBLE, M. i982. Les harponsmagdaleniens. Gallia Pr6histoire, ofEurope,"in Hunter-gatherer economyin prehistory. Edited I8th suppl. byG. Bailey.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.[HLD, R. I965. The MiddlePaleolithicoftheCrimea.ArcticAnKLEIN, PGC] thropology 3:34-68. ThePalaeolithicsettlement .I986. ofEurope.Cambridge: KLEIN, S. I990. "Humancognitivechangesat theMiddleto UpCambridge Press. University perPalaeolithictransition: The evidenceofBokerTachtit,"in GAMBLE, C., AND 0. SOFFER. I990. "Pleistocene polyphony: Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland biologicalperspectives The diversity ofhumanadaptationsat thelastglacialmaxon theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. 2. EditedbyP. Mellars. imum,"in The worldat i8,ooo B.P.,vol. I, Highlatitudes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.[RW] Editedby0. Soffer and C. Gamble,pp. I-23. London:Unwin H. I990. "Production KNECHT, and designofAurignacian antler Hyman.[CG] in BeforeLascaux: Re-examining projectiletechnology," the GAR G E TT, R. I989. Graveshortcomings: The evidenceforNeanearlyUpperPaleolithic,EditedbyH. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and dertalburial.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:I5 7-77, I84-90. R. White.Caldwell,N.J.:TelfordPress.In press.[RW] J-M. I988. "Systemesd'approvisionnement en GENESTE, v. I. I973. Paleonevrologia KOCHETKOVA, Mos(Paleoneurology). au Pal6olithiquemoyenet au Pal6olithique matierespremieres cow: MGU. [ys] en Aquitaine,"in L'hommede NMandertal, vol. 8, La sup6rieur KOZLOWSKI, approachto theorigins J. K. n.d. "A multi-aspectual mutation.EditedbyM. Otte,pp. 6I-70. Liege:ERAUL. oftheUpperPalaeolithicin Europe,"in Theemergence ofmodGONZALEZ J.I988. "Decorativepatterns in the ECHEGARAY, ernhumans:An archaeologicalperspective. EditedbyP. MelMousterianofCueva Morin,"in L'hommede NMandertal, vol. lars.Edinburgh: Press.In press.[PM] Edinburgh University pp. 37-42. Liege:ERAUL. 5, La pensee.Editedby0. Bar-Yosef, KUMAN, K., AND R. J. CLARKE. New investigaI986. Florisbad: man.Antiquity j. I987. The comingofmodern GOWLETT, tionsat a MiddleStoneAgehominidsitein SouthAfrica.Geo6i:2i0-i9. archaeologyI:I03-25. LINDLY AND CLARK Symbolismand Modern Human Origins | 259 datingofFrenchUpper Radiocarbonaccelerator Paleolithicsites.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 28:i28-3 3. [RW] MELLARS, P., AND C. STRINGER. Editors.I989. Thehumanrevoon theorigins lution:Behaviouraland biologicalperspectives University Edinburgh ofmodernhumans,vol. I. Edinburgh: Press. UpperPaleolithicart MITHEN, S. I988a. Lookingand learning: WorldArchaeologyI9:297-327. gathering. andinformation . I988b. To huntorto paint:Animalsandartin theUpper Paleolithic.Man 23:67I-95. 53:279-9-2. of relationships n.d."Evolutionary AND C. BOEHM, S. ANTONARAKIS, LONG, J., A. CHAKRAVARTI, NEI, M., AND G. LIVSHITS. ofhumanbeta-globin haplotypes H . K A Z A Z I A N. n.d. Phylogeny Europeans,Asians,andAfricansat themolecularlevel,"in Popand itsimplications forrecenthumanevolution.American ulationbiologyofgenesand molecules.EditedbyN. Takahata [CBS] Springer. In press.[CBS] Journal ofPhysicalAnthropology. andJ.Crow.Tokyo:Baifukan/Heidelberg: Descriptionand excava- OTTE, M. Editor.I988. L'hommede N6andertal,vol. 8, La mutaMCCOWN, T. I937. "Mugharet es-Skhiul: tions,"in The StoneAge ofMountCarmel.EditedbyD. Garrod tion.Liege:ERAUL. andD. Bate,pp. 9I-I07. Oxford:Clarendon. PARKINGTON, j. n.d."A critiqueoftheconsensusviewofthe MCCOWN, T., AND A. KEITH. I939. TheStoneAgeofMountCarage ofHowieson'sPoortassemblagesin SouthAfrica,"in The mel. Vol. 2. Oxford:Clarendon. ofmodernhumans:An archaeologicalperspective. emergence Press.In University Edinburgh in A. I983. The Middleto UpperPaleolithictransition MARKS, EditedbyP. Mellars.Edinburgh: theLevant.Advancesin WorldArchaeology press. 2:5 I-98. en PaysBasque.Pr6. I985. "The LevantineMiddleto UpperPaleolithictransi- PASSEMARD, E. I944. La caverned'Isturitz tion:The pastandpresent,"in Studidi paletnologiain onorede histoire9:I-84. [RW] in theUpperPaleolithicof SalvatoreM. Puglisi.EditedbyM. Liverani,M. Palmieri,and R. PIKE-TAY, A. I989. Red deerhunting Peroni,pp. I23-36. Rome:Universitadi Roma. SouthwestFrance:A seasonalitystudy.AnnArbor:University MARKS, A., AND P. VOLKMAN. I983. "Changingcorereduction Microfilms. [AP] Orin theUpperPerigordian: shiftfromtheMiddleto theUpper strategies: A technological . I990. "Huntingstrategies in BeforeLasperspectives," Paleolithicin thesouthernLevant,"in TheMousterianlegacy. ganizationalandtechnological theearlyUpperPaleolithic.EditedbyH. ReEditedbyE. Trinkaus,pp. I3-33. BritishArchaeological caux: Re-examining portsInternational Seriesi64. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and R. White.Caldwell,N.J.:Telford . I990. "The Middleand UpperPaleolithicoftheNearEast Press.In press.[AP] deshommesdu Pal6olithique andtheNile Valley:The problemofculturaltransformations," QUECHON, P. I976. "Les s6pultures in La pr6histoire fran,aise.EditedbyH. de Lumley, in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland biologicalperspecsup6rieur," tiveson theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. 2. EditedbyP. Melvol. I, pp. 728-33. Paris:CNRS. [LGS] Africa," Press.[RW] lars.Edinburgh: University Edinburgh RIGHTMIRE, G. P. I984. "Homo sapiensin sub-Saharan ofbonefromthe fragment MARSHACK, A. I982. "Non-utilitarian in Theoriginsofmodernhumans:A worldsurveyofthefossil MiddlePalaeolithiclayer,"in Excavationin theBacho Kiro evidence. Edited by F. Smith and F. Spencer,pp. 295-325. New cave (Bulgaria):Finalreport.EditedbyJ.Kozlowski,p. I 7. York:Alan R. Liss. fromLowertoMiddle Warsaw:PanstowoweWydawnictwo Naukowe. A. Editor.i982. The transition RONEN, and theirhumancapacityfor . I988a. "The Neanderthals Paleolithicand theoriginofmodernman. BritishArchaeologSeriesI 5I. aspectsof symbolicthought:Cognitiveandproblem-solving ical ReportsInternational jourto stylein lithicarchaeology. Mousteriansymbol,"in L'hommede N6andertal,vol. 5, La SACKETT, j. I982. Approaches ArchaeologyI: 59- I I 2. pp. 57-92. Liege:ERAUL. pensee.Editedby0. Bar-Yosef, nal ofAnthropological 0. BAR-YOSEF, . I988b. La pens6esymboliqueet l'art.DossiersHistoireet SCHWARCZ, H., R. GRUN, B. VANDERMEERSCH, Arch6ologie I24:80-90, 97, 98. H. VALLADAS, AND E. TCHERNOV. I988. ESR datesforthe ofHumanEvo. n.d.Evolutionofthehumancapacity:The symbolicevihominidburialsiteofQafzehin Israel.Journal dence.YearbookofPhysicalAnthropology 33. In press. lutionI7:733-37. N. i982. "Stratigraphyand chronologyof the KRM MAY, F. I986. Les s6pultures Etudecritique.Paris: SHACKLETON, pr6historiques: deposits:Oxygenisotopeevidence,"in TheMiddleStoneAge Editionsdu CNRS. at KlasiesRiverMouthin SouthAfrica.EditedbyR. Singerand MAY NARD S M I T H, J. I 978. Optimization theoryin evolution. J.Wymer,pp. I94-99. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 9:3 I-56. AnnualReviewof Ecologyand Systematics associstudyofthelithicindustries SHEA, j. I989. "A functional . I988. Games,sex,and evolution.London:Harvesteratedwithhominidfossilsin theKebaraandQafzehCaves,IsWheatsheaf. rael,"in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland biological and theoriginofspecies.New York: MAYR, E. I942. Systematics on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. Editedby perspectives Press.[OB, DL, JS] ColumbiaUniversity Edinburgh pp. 6I I-25. Edinburgh: P. Mellarsand C. Stringer, in fossilhominids.Cold . I950. Taxonomiccategories Press.[OB, DL, JS] University SpringHarborSymposiaon QuantitativeBiologyI5:IO9-I8. changein Perigord Harvard SIMEK, J., AND H. PRICE. n.d."Chronological . I963. Animalspeciesand evolution.Cambridge: in The emergence ofmodernhulithicassemblagediversity," Press. University EditedbyP. Mellars. PaleoP. I973. "The character mans:An archaeologicalperspective. oftheMiddle-Upper MELLARS, Press.In press. University Edinburgh in southwestFrance,"in The explanationof lithictransition Edinburgh: assemblagediversity I988. "Changing culturechange.EditedbyC. Renfrew, pp. 255-76. London: J., AND L. SNYDER. SIMEK, of in UpperPleistoceneprehistory archaeofaunas," in Perigord Duckworth. pp. in the westernEurasia.EditedbyH. Dibble andA. Montet-White, . I985. "The ecologicalbasis ofsocial complexity Press. ofPennsylvania Philadelphia:University 32I-32. France,"in Prehistoric UpperPaleolithicofsouthwestern Edited SINGER, R., AND J. WYMER. i982. TheMiddleStoneAge at The emergence ofculturalcomplexity. hunter-gatherers: of KlasiesRiverMouthin SouthAfrica.Chicago:University byT. D. Priceand J.A. Brown,pp. 27I-97. Orlando:Academic Press. ChicagoPress. humanburial:MiddlePaleoSMIRNOV, YU. A. I989. Intentional . I988. The originsand dispersalofmodernhumans.CURJournal ofWorldPrehistory RENT ANTHROPOLOGY lithic(LastGlaciation)beginnings. 29:i86-88. M. I987. L'artmobilierpal6olithique et mesolithique en Belgique.Treignes:Editionsdu Centred'Etudeset de DocumentationArch6ologiques. [RW] Esosseusede l'Aurignacien: LEROY-PRO ST, C. I975. L'industrie Gallia sai regionalde classification, Poitou,Charente,P6rigord. I8:65-I56. [RW] Pr6histoire L I N D L Y, J., A N D G. C L A R K. I 987. A preliminary lithicanalysisof theMousteriansiteof'AinDifla(WHS site634)in theWadi ofthePrehistoric Society Ali,west-central Jordan. Proceedings LEJEUNE, . I989. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:349-85. MELLARS, P., H. M. BRICKER, J. A. J. GOWLETT, AND R. E. M. H ED GE S. I987. [YS] 3:I99-233. O. I985a. The UpperPaleolithicoftheCentralRussian Plain.New York:AcademicPress. SOFFER, 260 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume31, Number3, funeI990 as seenfromtheUpper . Ig8sb. "Patternsofintensification PaleolithicoftheCentralRussianPlain,"in Prehistoric huntergatherers: The emergence ofculturalcomplexity. Editedby T. D. PriceandJ.A. Brown,pp. 235-70. Orlando:Academic Press.[PM] . i987. "UpperPaleolithicconnubia,refugia, andthearchaeologicalrecordfromeasternEurope,"in ThePleistocene Old World.Editedby0. Soffer, pp. 333-48. New York:Plenum Press.[KJ] ofUpperPleisM. i989a. Mortality patternsas indicators STINER, tocenehumanpredator niche:A comparative perspective. Paper presented at the54thannualmeetingoftheSocietyforAmerican Archaeology, Atlanta,Ga. [AP] . i989b. The use ofmortality patternsin archaeological studiesofhumanpredatory adaptations.MS. [AP] originsofhuman STONEKING, M., AND R. CANN. i989. "African vol. I. Edited mitochondrial DNA," in Thehumanrevolution, pp. I7-30. Edinburgh: Edinburgh byP. Mellarsand C. Stringer, University Press. L. G. I977. "Of deerslayers andmountainmen:PaleoSTRAUS, lithicfaunalexploitation in CantabrianSpain,"in Fortheory EditedbyL. Binford, pp.4I-76. New buildingin archaeology. York:AcademicPress.[LGS] . i982. Observations on UpperPaleolithicart:Old problems and new directions.Zephyrus 34/35:7I-80. [LGS] . i983. "FromMousterianto Magdalenian:CulturalevolutionviewedfromVasco-Cantabrian Spainand Pyrenean France,"in TheMousterianlegacy.EditedbyE. Trinkaus,pp. 73-I IiI. BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational SeriesI 64. [LGS] . i986. LateWiirmadaptivesystemsin CantabrianSpain: ArThe case ofeasternAsturias.Journal ofAnthropological chaeology 5:330-68. . I987a. Paradigmlost:A personalviewofthecurrent state ofUpperPaleolithicresearch.Helinium 27:I57-7I. . I987b. The Paleolithiccave artofVasco-Cantabrian Spain. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology6: I49-63. . i989. Age of the modern Europeans. Nature 342:476-77. [RW] . n.d.a. "The earlyUpperPaleolithicofsouthwestern Europe,"in The emergence ofmodernhumans:An archaeological perspective. EditedbyP. Mellars.Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.In press. University . n.d.b."The last glacialmaximumin CantabrianSpain: The Solutrean,"in Hunter-gatherers at thelast glacialmaxLondon:UnwinHyimum.EditedbyC. Gambleand 0. Soffer. man.In press.[LGS] . n.d.c."Southwestern Europeat thelast glacialmaxEditedbyA. ApSimon imum,"in ThePleistoceneperspective. and S. Joyce.London:UnwinHyman.In press. S T R A U S, L ., A N D C. H E L L E R. I 988. "Explorations ofthetwilight zone: The earlyUpperPaleolithicofVasco-Cantabrian Spain and Gascony,"in The earlyUpperPaleolithic:Evidencefrom and C. Wolf, Europeand theNear East. EditedbyJ.Hoffecker pp. 97-I33. BritishArchaeological Series ReportsInternational 437- A reevaluationofthefossilhumancalvaria fromSinga,Sudan.BulletinoftheBritishMuseumofNatural History(Geology)32:77-93. STRINGER, C. I979. I988. The dates of Eden. Nature 33I:565-66. n.d. "Documentingtheoriginofmodemhumans,"in The emergence ofmodernhumans.EditedbyE. Trinkaus.CamPress.In press.[CBS] bridge:CambridgeUniversity STRINGER, C., AND P. ANDREWS. I988. Geneticandfossilevidencefortheoriginsofmodernhumans.Science239:I263-68. via: A reviewoftherecentevidence,"in L'hommede Neandertal,vol. 8, La mutation.EditedbyM. Otte,pp. i69-92. Liege: ERAUL. . I990. "The complexoriginoftheUpperPaleolithicin Czechoslovakia,"in BeforeLascaux: Re-examining theearly UpperPaleolithic,EditedbyH. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,andR. White.Caldwell,N.J.:TelfordPress.In press.[RW] . n.d. "OriginsoftheUpperPaleolithicin Czechoslovakia," in The emergence ofmodernhumans:An archaeologicalperspective.EditedbyP. Mellars.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.In press. SVOBODA, J., AND K. SIMAN. I989. The Middle-Upper Paleolithictransition in southeastern CentralEurope(Czechoslovakia andHungary). Journal ofWorldPrehistory 3:283-322. T C H E R N O V, E. I 988. "The biogeographical historyofthesouthernLevant,"in Thezoogeography ofIsrael.EditedbyY. YomTov andE. Tchernov,pp. i59-25 I. Dordrecht:Junk.[OB, DL, JS] TRINKAU S, E. I982. "Evolutionary continuityamong archaic Homo sapiens,"in The transition fromLowertoMiddlePaleolithicand theoriginofmodernman. EditedbyA. Ronen,pp. 30I-I4. BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational SeriesI 5I. . I984. "Western Asia," in Theoriginsofmodernhumans. EditedbyF. SmithandF. Spencer,pp.25 I-94. New York:Alan R. Liss. . I986. The Neanderthals andmodernhumanorigins.Annual ReviewofAnthropology I 5: I 9 3-2 I 8. . I989. Commenton: Graveshortcomings: The evidence forNeandertalburial,byRobertH. Gargett.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:I83-84. [OB, DL, JS] . n.d.a. Corridors, cul-de-sacs,and coalescence:The bioculturalfoundationofmodernpeople.Cambridge:Cambridge Press.In press. University . n.d.b."The UpperPleistocenetransition," in Theemergenceofmodernhumans:An archaeologicalperspective. EditedbyP. Mellars.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. In press.[CBS] VALLADAS, H., J. REYSS, J. JORON, YOSEF, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. G. VALLADAS, 0. BARI988. Thermolumines- cencedatingofMousterian"Proto-Cro-Magnon" remainsfrom Israeland theoriginsofmodernhumans.Nature33I:6I4-I6. VANDERMEERSCH, B. I969. Les nouveauxsquelettes moust6riensd6couverts a Qafzeh(Israe) et leursignification. Comptes RendusHebdomadairesdes Seancesde l'Academiedes Sciences268:2562-65. [Ys] . I970. Une s6pulture moust6rienne avec offrandes d6couvertedansla grottede Qafzeh.ComptesRendusHebdomadairesdes Seancesde l'Academiedes Sciences270:29830I. . I98I. Les hommesfossilesde Qafzeh(Israel1). Paris: CNRS. H. HARPENDING, VIGILANT, L., R. PENNINGTON, T. KOCHER, AND A. WILSON. n.d.Mitochondrial DNA sequencesin single hairsfroma southernAfricanpopulation.Proceedings ofthe NationalAcademyofSciences,U.S.A. In press.[CBS] P. I989. On theevidenceforNeandertal VILLA, burial.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:324-26. [OB, DL, JS] VOLMAN, T. I984. "Earlyprehistory ofsouthern Africa,"in Southern Africanprehistory and paleoenvironments. Editedby R. Klein,pp. I69-220. Rotterdam:Balkema. R. SCHILD, H. SCHWARCZ, WENDORF, F., A. CLOSE, G. MILLER, K. KOWALSKI, H. KROLIK, D. ROBINS, AND R. GRUN. n.d.The last interglacial in theeasternSahara.L'Anthropologie. In press. [CBS] WENDT, W. I976. "Artmobilier"from theApolloI I Cave,southwestAfrica:Africa'soldestdatedworksofart.SouthAfrican ArchaeologicalBulletin3I: 5-II . AND P. STUART-MACADAM. STRINGER, C., L. CORNISH, I985. WHALLON, R. I989. "Elementsofculturalchangein theLater andfurther Preparation studyoftheSingaskullfromSudan. Palaeolithic,"in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland BulletinoftheBritishMuseumofNaturalHistory(Geology) biologicalperspectives on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. 38:347-58. [CBS] EditedbyP. Mellarsand C. Stringer. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniAND P. GOLDBERG. STRINGER, C., R. GRUN, H. SCHWARCZ, versityPress.[HLD, PGC, RHG] in Israel. I989. ESR datesforthehominidburialsiteofEs-Skhuil R. I982. Rethinking WHITE, theMiddle/Upper PaleolithictransiNature 338:756-58. [CBS, LGS] tion.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23: I69-92. S V 0 B C D A, j. I 988. "EarlyUpperPaleolithicindustries in Mora- LINDLY AND . I985. Somethoughts on social relationships andlanguage in hominidevolution.Journal ofPersonaland Social Relationships2(I):95-II5. [HLD, PGC, RW] . I989a. "Productioncomplexity in and standardization bead andpendantmanufacture: earlyAurignacian Evolutionary in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland implications," biologicalperspectives on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. i. EditedbyP. Mellarsand C. Stringer, pp. 366-go.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. . I989b. Visualthinking in theIce Age.Scientific American 26i(I):92-99. . I990. "Toward a contextual understandingof the earliest bodyomaments,"in Patternsand processesin laterPleistocene human emergence.Edited by E. Trinkaus. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. [RW] CLARK WILSON, Symbolismand Modern Human OriginsI 26i E. I975. Belknap. Sociobiology:Thenewsynthesis.Cambridge: H. M. I990. "Minitimeandmegaspacein thePalaeolithic at i8K andotherwise," in The worldat i8,ooo B.P.,vol. 2, Low latitudes.EditedbyC. Gambleand 0. Soffer, pp. 322-34. London:UnwinHyman.[CG] WOLPOFF, M. I980. Paleoanthropology. New York:Knopf. . I989. "Multiregional evolution:The fossilalternative to Eden,"in Thehumanrevolution:Behaviouraland biological perspectives on theoriginsofmodernhumans,vol. I. Editedby P. Mellarsand C. Stringer, pp. 62-i08. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press. University WOBST, WOLPOFF, FRAYER. M., J. SPUHLER, R. ECKHARDT, F. SMITH, J. RADOVCIC, G. POPE, D. AND G. CLARK. I988. Modernhuman origins. Science24I:77 2-74. Calendar I990 in African Kenya.Theme: The Role ofAnthropology Development.Write:Paul Nchoji Nkwi, University JuneI8-July 20. National Endowmentforthe ofYaounde, P.O. Box 755, Yaounde, Cameroon,or HumanitiesInstituteon Perspectiveson the A. B. C. Ocholla-Ayayo,InstituteofPopulation Indo-EuropeanWorld,Austin,Tex., U.S.A. Write: Studies,UniversityofNairobi,Nairobi,Kenya. EdgarC. Polome, Orientaland AfricanLanguagesand September3-9. InternationalAssociationforthe Literatures,UniversityofTexas at Austin,260I Historyof Religions,i6th Congress,Rome, Italy. UniversityAve., Austin,Tex. 78712, U.S.A. Theme: The Notion of "Religion" in Comparative July2 8-3 1. InternationalSymposiumon Primates, Research.Write:XVI InternationalCongressofthe Delhi, India. Write:P. K. Seth,Departmentof Historyof Religions,Dipartimentodi Studi Anthropology, UniversityofDelhi, Delhi II0 007, Storico-Religiosi, Facolta di Letteree Filosofia, India. Universitadi Roma "La Sapienza," Piazzale Aldo August2-5. LanguageOriginsSociety,6thAnnual Moro, 5, I-OOI85Rome, Italy. Meeting,Volendam,The Netherlands.Write:J.Wind, September18-23. 4th InternationalSymposiumon the InstituteofHuman Genetics,FreeUniversity,P.O. Mesolithic ofEurope,Leuven,Belgium.Write:Pierre Box 7I6I, Amsterdam,The Netherlands. M. Vermeersch,Mesolithic Symposium, August 19-23. 7thInuit Studies Conference,Fairbanks, Redingenstraati6bis, B-3000 Leuven,Belgium. Alaska, U.S.A. Theme: Lookingto the Future.Write: University I99I LydiaBlack,DepartmentofAnthropology, ofAlaska, Fairbanks,Fairbanks,Alaska 99775, U.S.A. August26-30. EuropeanAnthropologicalAssociation July7-Il. 47th InternationalCongressofAmericanists, [concernedmainlywith human biology],7th New Orleans,La., U.S.A. Write:SecretariadoICA Congress,Wroclaw,Poland. Write:Tadeusz Bielicki, i99i, RogerThayerStone CenterforLatin American Zaklad Antropologii,Polish Academyof Sciences,ul. Studies,Tulane University,New Orleans,La. 70II8Kuznicza 35, 5o-9 5I Wroclaw,Poland. 5698, U.S.A. August3 i-September 2. EuropeanAssociationof SeptemberI-7. InternationalUnion of Prehistoricand I st conference,Coimbra, Social Anthropology, ProtohistoricSciences, I.2th Congress,Bratislava, Portugal.Themes: HistoricalApproachesin Czechoslovakia. Theme: Archaeology-Present-FuAnthropologicalAnalysis (KirstenHastrup, ture.Write:Archeologickyu'stavSlovenskej convener),ConceptualizingSociety(Adam Kuper, XII. kongresuUISPP, 949 akademie vied, Sekretariait convener),EmergingTrendsin the Anthropological .2 Nitra-hrad,Czechoslovakia. StudyofGender(Teresa del Valle, convener), I992 Ritual (Daniel de Coppet,convener), Understanding with a day set aside forpanels and groupsproposed September7-IO. EuropeanAnthropologicalAssociaand organisedby members.Write:Daniel de Coppet, tion,8th Congress,Madrid,Spain. Write:Maria DoEcole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 44, rue lores Garralda,Seccion de Antropologia,Facultad de de la Tour, 75I I 6 Paris,France. Biologia,UniversidadComplutensede Madrid, Augustor September.Pan-AfricanAssociationof Ciudad Universitaria,28040 Madrid,Spain. Ist Annual Meeting,Nairobi, Anthropologists,