Natasha Reynolds | Université Bordeaux (original) (raw)
Papers by Natasha Reynolds
Les sociétés gravettiennes du Nord-Ouest européen : nouveaux sites, nouvelles données, nouvelles lectures Gravettian societies in Northwestern Europe: new sites, new data, new readings, 2021
The word “Gravettian” is used in many different senses: as a noun (“the Gravettian”) to describe ... more The word “Gravettian” is used in many different senses: as a noun (“the Gravettian”) to describe a technocomplex, culture, time period, tradition, etc.; as a collective noun (“the Gravettians”) to describe a population; and as an adjective (“Gravettian”) applied to sites, assemblages, lithics, burials, art, and many other aspects of the archaeological record. Within our discipline, there is extraordinarily little explicit discussion of the definition of this term, and how it should be used. What is clear, however, is that this term is not used consistently. This causes significant problems for constructing robust arguments and for communication. Here, I review the usage of this term in the present day and briefly consider the distinction between its materialist and idealist conceptualisations. I suggest a formal definition for Gravettian as an adjective, which is deliberately minimal and monothetic, and give some examples of how the usage of such a definition may help to improve archaeological research questions. Finally, I suggest that the usage of “the Gravettian” and “the Gravettians” as nouns should be abandoned.
Human-elephant interactions: from past to present, 2021
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly f... more Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly found in Central and Eastern Europe. At these sites concentrations of skulls, tusks and long bones, interpreted as deliberate constructions, often occur. Rare instances of weapon tip fragments embedded in mammoth bones provide direct archaeological evidence of human hunting. Indirect evidence, such as the accumulation of mammoth bones from multiple individuals with specific ontogenetic ages, occurs more frequently. Based on the eruption sequence and wear of deciduous premolars from mammoth calves, we examined whether a season of death could be deduced from the characteristics of the dentition. Our results suggest that the mammoth hunt was not restricted to the cold half of the year.
A survey of the caves of Bishopston Valley, Gower, published previously in Cave and Karst Science... more A survey of the caves of Bishopston Valley, Gower, published previously in Cave and Karst Science (2010: Vol.37, No.2), identified cave sites with the potential to contain archaeological material within their sedimentary deposits, and assessed the conservation status of these sites. Two caves -Ogof Ci Coch and Valley Side Cave 1 -showed clear signs of recent anthropogenic and/or biogenic disturbance of their fill. Archaeological test excavation at both sites was undertaken in summer 2011, and the results are reported here. Ogof Ci Coch is demonstrated to be an archaeological cave containing Mesolithic and later prehistoric artefacts. However, archaeological material was only found within spoil deposits from a caving dig, now overlying intact but archaeologically sterile deposits near to the mouth of the cave. Archaeological interpretation of this material is therefore limited in scope. Valley Side Cave 1 was found to contain only disturbed deposits which are clearly the result of recent unauthorised excavation at the site. These findings have implications for the conservation and management of cave sites in Bishopston Valley.
Evolutionary Anthropology, 2020
Time and time again, the systematics of Paleolithic archeology have been discussed, albeit most o... more Time and time again, the systematics of Paleolithic archeology have been discussed, albeit most often in relation to specific periods or phenomena, or in difficult-to-access publications. Despite these recurring debates, however, the practice of classification and of building cultural taxonomies has changed little over the last many decades. Today, the cultural taxonomies of the Paleolithic are in crisis. 6 Still, a robust definition of the analytical taxonomic units-cultures, industries , facies, groups-used for charting cultural and behavioral change in space and time is critical. Operational taxonomic units hinge on 1. consistent criteria for their definition and delimitation, 2. a clear taxonomic system into which such archeological entities are placed, 3. agreement on the meaning of the relative ranks within such taxo-nomic system, and 4. their prehistoric reality vis-à-vis anthropological, ethnic or linguistic notions of culture. Arguably, these four requirements are essential for conducting comparative and cumulative research at a supra-regional and dia-chronic scale, and for articulating sequences of culture change in the Paleolithic with paleogenomic, paleoecological or paleoclimatic data. Most commonly, different forms of the typological method have been used to construct such archeological cultures. Taxonomic issues are by no means restricted to the Paleolithic but take on a specific quality there as our temporal scales stretch from the near-paleontological of the Middle Pleistocene to the more intuitively appreciable timescales of the Final Paleolithic. The recurring debates about Paleolithic systematics together with recent research in many parts of the world and across many of its subperiods-from the Early Stone Age to the Epipaleolithic-have shown, however, that a substantial number of traditional archeological types are no longer doing their diagnostic work and that many formally named archeological units based on such types contribute more to confusion rather than solution in regard to our core questions. These issues are at the core of the European Research Foundation-funded project entitled CLIOdynamic ARCHaeology: Computational approaches to Final Paleolithic/earliest Mesolithic archaeology and climate change (CLIOARCH: http://cas.au.dk/en/ ERC-clioarch/) and the workshop on which we report here sought to catalyze joint thinking on Paleolithic systematics in a diachronic and global perspective.
H.S. Groucutt (Ed.), Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can we Detect Populations in Prehistory?
Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on conce... more Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building. Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2019
The causes of major archaeological transitions during the Upper Palaeolithic, such as the Aurigna... more The causes of major archaeological transitions during the Upper Palaeolithic, such as the Aurignacian-Gravettian transition, remain poorly understood. In an effort to distinguish between demic and cultural diffusionary explanations for such transitions, analyses of radiocarbon and spatial data are sometimes employed. Here, we attempt to replicate a recent spatiotemporal study of the first appearance of Gravettian assemblages in Europe using linear regression analyses of radiocarbon dates and least-cost-path measurements of the distances between sites. We find that there are problems with the corpus of radiocarbon dates used and assemble two more appropriate sets of dates. We also find problems with the least-cost-path calculations and repeat these using a more appropriate method. We then repeat the regression analyses and use these as a case study to explore some of the problems with using linear regression analyses of radiocarbon and distance data for hypothesis testing where the total number of sites is very low. We conclude that this method is not capable of distinguishing the geographical origin of Gravettian traditions. We also find that this method frequently obtains false positive results, and that binning of sites may have a significant effect on the ease of obtaining positive results. Finally, we find that there is a negligible difference between the results of linear regression analyses obtained using least-cost-path measurements and those obtained using simple Euclidean distances, suggesting that the former adds little analytical value here despite its computational complexity.
Antiquity, 2019
We begin this response by thanking Antiquity for hosting this debate on the current crisis in Eur... more We begin this response by thanking Antiquity for hosting this debate on the current crisis in European Upper Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy, and by thanking the three commentators for their perspectives (Marwick 2019; Scerri 2019; Shea 2019). We note that our critique of the motley crew of contemporary cultural taxonomies and the plethora of practices producing them is positively received by all of the commentators. Importantly, Ben Marwick, Eleanor Scerri and John Shea further note that these issues are of much broader geographic concern, extending to Palaeolithic cultural taxonomies in Africa and North America. While our primary expertise and hence the focus of our original contribution lies with the European Upper Palaeolithic, classification issues evidently also beset less well-published records such as the South American Palaeoindian period (Araujo 2015), the Mesolithic of Northern Europe and, most probably, many other regions where European approaches to lithic classification have been applied. The issues that we raise appear as widespread as they are urgent.
Antiquity, 2019
A fundamental element of Upper Palaeolithic archaeological practice is cultural taxonomy—the defi... more A fundamental element of Upper Palaeolithic archaeological practice is cultural taxonomy—the definition and description of taxonomic units that group assemblages according to their material culture and geographic and chronological distributions. The derived taxonomies, such as Aurignacian, Gravettian and Magdalenian, are used as units of analysis in many research questions and interpretations. The evidential and theoretical bases defining these taxonomic units, however, are generally lacking. Here, the authors review the current state of Upper Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy and make recommendations for the long-term improvement of the situation.
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019
Free-to-read link: https://rdcu.be/bw1Ct
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000-21,000 14 C BP (c. 27,500-24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic techno-typological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Journal of Human Evolution, 2019
Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern h... more Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions. Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41–40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14’s Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39–37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki’s early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples’ chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples’ chronostratigraphic position and with the layer’s archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.
Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kos... more Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kostёnki complex of Upper Palaeolithic sites in south-western Russia. Some of these assemblages have been argued to evidence very early modern human occupation of Eastern Europe. However, Streletskian points are also recorded from younger contexts, notably at Kostёnki 11, where examples are attributed both to Layer V and the stratigraphically higher Layer III. The apparent relatively young age of Layer III has led some to view it as the latest manifestation of the Streletskian, although its assemblage has also been compared to the non-Streletskian Layer I of Kostёnki 8, with the two described together as the Anosovka-Tel’manskaya Culture.
Radiocarbon dates of 24–23,000 BP (c. 28,500–27,000 cal BP) for a wolf burial associated with Layer III of Kostёnki 11 confirm the layer as younger than other Streletskian assemblages at Kostёnki. New radiocarbon dates for Kostёnki 8 Layer I show that the two layers are broadly contemporary, and that both are close in age to assemblages of Kostёnki’s (Late Gravettian) Kostёnki-Avdeevo Culture. In the light of these new radiocarbon dates the context of the Streletskian point from Kostёnki 11 Layer III is considered. Although firm conclusions are not possible, unresolved stratigraphic problems and the lack of technological context for this single artefact at the very least leave a question mark over its association with other material from the layer.
присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым осно... more присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым основанием всегда было основанием для поиска связей этой индустрии со значительно более древней стрелецкой культурой. Полученная в радиоуглеродной лаборатории Университета Оксфорда новая серия радиоуглеродных дат для третьего слоя, а также для геологически одновременного I слоя Костёнок 8, подтверждает относительно молодой возраст этих памятников. Основываясь на получен-ных датировках, данных стратиграфии и технико-типологических характеристиках коллекции, в работе обсуждаются вопросы отношения III культурного слоя Костёнок 11 к стрелецким памятникам и его возможной культурной связи с I слоем Костёнок 8.
Antiquity, 2017
Palaeolithic burials are few and far between, and establishing their chronology is crucial to gai... more Palaeolithic burials are few and far between, and establishing their chronology is crucial to gaining a broader understanding of the period. A new programme of radiocarbon dating has provided a revised age estimate for the Palaeolithic burial at Kostënki 18 in European Russia (west of the Urals). This study reviews the need for redating the remains, and contextualises the age of the burial in relation to other Upper Palaeolithic funerary sites in Europe and Russia. The new date, obtained using a method that avoided the problems associated with previous samples conditioned with glue or other preservatives, is older than previous estimates, confirming Kostënki 18 as the only plausibly Gravettian burial known in Russia.
Here we document striking platform preparation at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Sungir' (Vladimi... more Here we document striking platform preparation at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Sungir' (Vladimir Oblast, Russia) comparable to the en éperon (spurring) technique. Its employment has resulted in butts with particularly large and wide spurs. Such preparation was apparently used during creation and maintenance of blade debitage surfaces, but not during plein débitage blade production. This may relate to the often poor raw materials worked at Sungir'. The same technique is evident on one blade in the small assemblage from nearby Rusanikha.
Conscious of the difficulty of reliably dating Pleistocene-age bone we re-examine the British rec... more Conscious of the difficulty of reliably dating Pleistocene-age bone we re-examine the British record of radiocarbon-dated fauna from mid-to-late Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 and early MIS 2, largely known from carnivore accumulations at cave sites. Although the data does not allow for firm conclusions, some observations can be made. An apparent dearth of remains c. 39 ka cal BP may reflect environmental deterioration during Greenland Stadial 9. A last occurrence of hyaena shortly before 35 ka cal BP is earlier than that proposed previously, and their extirpation probably helps to explain a paucity of dated remains <34 ka cal BP; however, we do not confidently rule out their presence 32–31 ka cal BP. The records of hyaena and wolf raise the possibility that their ranges were partially separate, with wolf thriving when climatic downturns brought greater snow-cover. From 34 ka cal BP a more restricted range of taxa is attested. This change coincides with climatic deterioration observable in ice-core and terrestrial records.
It is now well established that many previously obtained radiocarbon dates for the earlier part o... more It is now well established that many previously obtained radiocarbon dates for the earlier part of the Upper Palaeolithic are problematic, and that archaeological chronologies based on such dates may require revision. In order to help address this problem for the Gravettian of European Russia, eight new radiocarbon dates were obtained on samples of bone from Kostënki 8 Layer II, Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5. The dates for Kostënki 8/II agree with the most ancient date previously obtained for the layer and confirm the dating of the assemblage to ca. 32 000-31 000 calBP, or early Greenland Stadial (GS) 5. The new dates for both Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5 are markedly more ancient than those previously published. They indicate that both sites are ca. 2 000 years older than formerly believed, and that both date to ca. 29 500-28 500 calBP, i.e. the very end of GS 5 or Greenland Interstadial (GI) 4. The dates suggest that Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5 are both older than the sites of the Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture, with which they previously seemed to be contemporary. The revised chronology suggests that cold stadial conditions were associated with a relatively low number of archaeological sites in Russia, but also that a notably greater geographical distribution and number of sites may have been associated with GI 3 than with the preceding GI 4. This means that a straightforward correlation between climatic conditions and site numbers should not be postulated based on present evidence.
In Foulds, F.W.F., Drinkall, H.C., Perri, A., Clinnick, D.T.G. and Walker, J.W.P. (eds.) Wild Thi... more In Foulds, F.W.F., Drinkall, H.C., Perri, A., Clinnick, D.T.G. and Walker, J.W.P. (eds.) Wild Things: Recent advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research. Proceedings of the Where The Wild Things Are conference, Durham, March 23-24, 2012. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Calls for Papers by Natasha Reynolds
Session description: The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 led to the historic Paris ... more Session description: The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 led to the historic Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 2°C and pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5°C. According to the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on limiting warming to 1.5°C, released in October 2018, the world has no time to lose in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Further, while warming can still be limited to 1.5°C, doing so will require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
The archaeological community has long appreciated the relationship between human activity and long term environmental change. Archaeologists are already responding to the severe threats to global cultural heritage posed by climate change and are often highly engaged in wider debates concerning impacts and adaptation. We have gathered data and stories of how past societies have responded to past climatic change and gained deep understandings of the origins of the modern socio-economic systems that have delivered modern anthropogenic climate change. But archaeology itself is suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance, as the field continues to expand practices such as carbon-intensive conferences and remote fieldwork (Reynolds 2018).
Transformational change is necessary within archaeology as part of the transition to a lowcarbon economy. By rising to this challenge, we have an opportunity to provide leadership and act as an exemplar to the global community. This session will tackle the question of: how can the knowledge and practice of archaeology be used and transformed to effect rapid and ambitious decarbonization, within our discipline and beyond? Creative approaches and analyses will be welcome.
Proposals for oral presentations (6 slides in 6 minutes) and other types of contributions welcome; please get in touch if you wish to discuss the possibilities.
Abstracts can be submitted at www.e-a-a.org/EAA2019 until 14 February 2018.
Lithic artefacts are a principal source of information for reconstructing the cultural traditions... more Lithic artefacts are a principal source of information for reconstructing the cultural traditions, movement, behaviours and diets of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic people. While it is generally assumed that these artefacts were designed and used to carry out a wide range of specific tasks, in most cases we know little about the precise past functions of individual artefacts or artefact types.
Our current poor understanding of the function of many tool types means that the epistemological challenge laid down decades ago by the influential calls for the development of middle-range theory (Binford 1962) remains largely unanswered. It also poses stumbling blocks for archaeological practice more widely, as a lack of understanding of artefact function stymies attempts to create robust artefact typologies, with consequent problems for the construction of cultural taxonomies.
Nevertheless, piecemeal progress continues to be made in understanding archaeological artefact functions. New research methodologies and studies have generated unexpected results that have broadened our understanding of prehistoric subsistence strategies, technological habits and lithic material use.
The aim of this session is to review current understandings and outstanding questions concerning archaeological and interdisciplinary approaches to identifying lithic tool use by past hunter-gatherer societies, including use-wear quantification and residue characterisation, experimental approaches and ethnoarchaeological studies. We invite papers focusing on methodological and interpretive questions and innovations, ideally supplemented with case studies expressing an engagement with questions of broad archaeological significance. We also welcome papers based on work by, collaborations with and ethnographies of contemporary and historical hunter-gatherer communities and their members. We intend the eventual publication of papers from this session as a special journal issue or collection.
Proposals for oral presentations (15 mins) and posters welcome; please get in touch if you have any questions. Abstracts (150-300 words) can be submitted at www.e-a-a.org/EAA2019 until 14 February 2018.
Les sociétés gravettiennes du Nord-Ouest européen : nouveaux sites, nouvelles données, nouvelles lectures Gravettian societies in Northwestern Europe: new sites, new data, new readings, 2021
The word “Gravettian” is used in many different senses: as a noun (“the Gravettian”) to describe ... more The word “Gravettian” is used in many different senses: as a noun (“the Gravettian”) to describe a technocomplex, culture, time period, tradition, etc.; as a collective noun (“the Gravettians”) to describe a population; and as an adjective (“Gravettian”) applied to sites, assemblages, lithics, burials, art, and many other aspects of the archaeological record. Within our discipline, there is extraordinarily little explicit discussion of the definition of this term, and how it should be used. What is clear, however, is that this term is not used consistently. This causes significant problems for constructing robust arguments and for communication. Here, I review the usage of this term in the present day and briefly consider the distinction between its materialist and idealist conceptualisations. I suggest a formal definition for Gravettian as an adjective, which is deliberately minimal and monothetic, and give some examples of how the usage of such a definition may help to improve archaeological research questions. Finally, I suggest that the usage of “the Gravettian” and “the Gravettians” as nouns should be abandoned.
Human-elephant interactions: from past to present, 2021
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly f... more Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly found in Central and Eastern Europe. At these sites concentrations of skulls, tusks and long bones, interpreted as deliberate constructions, often occur. Rare instances of weapon tip fragments embedded in mammoth bones provide direct archaeological evidence of human hunting. Indirect evidence, such as the accumulation of mammoth bones from multiple individuals with specific ontogenetic ages, occurs more frequently. Based on the eruption sequence and wear of deciduous premolars from mammoth calves, we examined whether a season of death could be deduced from the characteristics of the dentition. Our results suggest that the mammoth hunt was not restricted to the cold half of the year.
A survey of the caves of Bishopston Valley, Gower, published previously in Cave and Karst Science... more A survey of the caves of Bishopston Valley, Gower, published previously in Cave and Karst Science (2010: Vol.37, No.2), identified cave sites with the potential to contain archaeological material within their sedimentary deposits, and assessed the conservation status of these sites. Two caves -Ogof Ci Coch and Valley Side Cave 1 -showed clear signs of recent anthropogenic and/or biogenic disturbance of their fill. Archaeological test excavation at both sites was undertaken in summer 2011, and the results are reported here. Ogof Ci Coch is demonstrated to be an archaeological cave containing Mesolithic and later prehistoric artefacts. However, archaeological material was only found within spoil deposits from a caving dig, now overlying intact but archaeologically sterile deposits near to the mouth of the cave. Archaeological interpretation of this material is therefore limited in scope. Valley Side Cave 1 was found to contain only disturbed deposits which are clearly the result of recent unauthorised excavation at the site. These findings have implications for the conservation and management of cave sites in Bishopston Valley.
Evolutionary Anthropology, 2020
Time and time again, the systematics of Paleolithic archeology have been discussed, albeit most o... more Time and time again, the systematics of Paleolithic archeology have been discussed, albeit most often in relation to specific periods or phenomena, or in difficult-to-access publications. Despite these recurring debates, however, the practice of classification and of building cultural taxonomies has changed little over the last many decades. Today, the cultural taxonomies of the Paleolithic are in crisis. 6 Still, a robust definition of the analytical taxonomic units-cultures, industries , facies, groups-used for charting cultural and behavioral change in space and time is critical. Operational taxonomic units hinge on 1. consistent criteria for their definition and delimitation, 2. a clear taxonomic system into which such archeological entities are placed, 3. agreement on the meaning of the relative ranks within such taxo-nomic system, and 4. their prehistoric reality vis-à-vis anthropological, ethnic or linguistic notions of culture. Arguably, these four requirements are essential for conducting comparative and cumulative research at a supra-regional and dia-chronic scale, and for articulating sequences of culture change in the Paleolithic with paleogenomic, paleoecological or paleoclimatic data. Most commonly, different forms of the typological method have been used to construct such archeological cultures. Taxonomic issues are by no means restricted to the Paleolithic but take on a specific quality there as our temporal scales stretch from the near-paleontological of the Middle Pleistocene to the more intuitively appreciable timescales of the Final Paleolithic. The recurring debates about Paleolithic systematics together with recent research in many parts of the world and across many of its subperiods-from the Early Stone Age to the Epipaleolithic-have shown, however, that a substantial number of traditional archeological types are no longer doing their diagnostic work and that many formally named archeological units based on such types contribute more to confusion rather than solution in regard to our core questions. These issues are at the core of the European Research Foundation-funded project entitled CLIOdynamic ARCHaeology: Computational approaches to Final Paleolithic/earliest Mesolithic archaeology and climate change (CLIOARCH: http://cas.au.dk/en/ ERC-clioarch/) and the workshop on which we report here sought to catalyze joint thinking on Paleolithic systematics in a diachronic and global perspective.
H.S. Groucutt (Ed.), Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can we Detect Populations in Prehistory?
Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on conce... more Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building. Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2019
The causes of major archaeological transitions during the Upper Palaeolithic, such as the Aurigna... more The causes of major archaeological transitions during the Upper Palaeolithic, such as the Aurignacian-Gravettian transition, remain poorly understood. In an effort to distinguish between demic and cultural diffusionary explanations for such transitions, analyses of radiocarbon and spatial data are sometimes employed. Here, we attempt to replicate a recent spatiotemporal study of the first appearance of Gravettian assemblages in Europe using linear regression analyses of radiocarbon dates and least-cost-path measurements of the distances between sites. We find that there are problems with the corpus of radiocarbon dates used and assemble two more appropriate sets of dates. We also find problems with the least-cost-path calculations and repeat these using a more appropriate method. We then repeat the regression analyses and use these as a case study to explore some of the problems with using linear regression analyses of radiocarbon and distance data for hypothesis testing where the total number of sites is very low. We conclude that this method is not capable of distinguishing the geographical origin of Gravettian traditions. We also find that this method frequently obtains false positive results, and that binning of sites may have a significant effect on the ease of obtaining positive results. Finally, we find that there is a negligible difference between the results of linear regression analyses obtained using least-cost-path measurements and those obtained using simple Euclidean distances, suggesting that the former adds little analytical value here despite its computational complexity.
Antiquity, 2019
We begin this response by thanking Antiquity for hosting this debate on the current crisis in Eur... more We begin this response by thanking Antiquity for hosting this debate on the current crisis in European Upper Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy, and by thanking the three commentators for their perspectives (Marwick 2019; Scerri 2019; Shea 2019). We note that our critique of the motley crew of contemporary cultural taxonomies and the plethora of practices producing them is positively received by all of the commentators. Importantly, Ben Marwick, Eleanor Scerri and John Shea further note that these issues are of much broader geographic concern, extending to Palaeolithic cultural taxonomies in Africa and North America. While our primary expertise and hence the focus of our original contribution lies with the European Upper Palaeolithic, classification issues evidently also beset less well-published records such as the South American Palaeoindian period (Araujo 2015), the Mesolithic of Northern Europe and, most probably, many other regions where European approaches to lithic classification have been applied. The issues that we raise appear as widespread as they are urgent.
Antiquity, 2019
A fundamental element of Upper Palaeolithic archaeological practice is cultural taxonomy—the defi... more A fundamental element of Upper Palaeolithic archaeological practice is cultural taxonomy—the definition and description of taxonomic units that group assemblages according to their material culture and geographic and chronological distributions. The derived taxonomies, such as Aurignacian, Gravettian and Magdalenian, are used as units of analysis in many research questions and interpretations. The evidential and theoretical bases defining these taxonomic units, however, are generally lacking. Here, the authors review the current state of Upper Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy and make recommendations for the long-term improvement of the situation.
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019
Free-to-read link: https://rdcu.be/bw1Ct
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000-21,000 14 C BP (c. 27,500-24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic techno-typological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Journal of Human Evolution, 2019
Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern h... more Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions. Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41–40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14’s Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39–37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki’s early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples’ chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples’ chronostratigraphic position and with the layer’s archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.
Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kos... more Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kostёnki complex of Upper Palaeolithic sites in south-western Russia. Some of these assemblages have been argued to evidence very early modern human occupation of Eastern Europe. However, Streletskian points are also recorded from younger contexts, notably at Kostёnki 11, where examples are attributed both to Layer V and the stratigraphically higher Layer III. The apparent relatively young age of Layer III has led some to view it as the latest manifestation of the Streletskian, although its assemblage has also been compared to the non-Streletskian Layer I of Kostёnki 8, with the two described together as the Anosovka-Tel’manskaya Culture.
Radiocarbon dates of 24–23,000 BP (c. 28,500–27,000 cal BP) for a wolf burial associated with Layer III of Kostёnki 11 confirm the layer as younger than other Streletskian assemblages at Kostёnki. New radiocarbon dates for Kostёnki 8 Layer I show that the two layers are broadly contemporary, and that both are close in age to assemblages of Kostёnki’s (Late Gravettian) Kostёnki-Avdeevo Culture. In the light of these new radiocarbon dates the context of the Streletskian point from Kostёnki 11 Layer III is considered. Although firm conclusions are not possible, unresolved stratigraphic problems and the lack of technological context for this single artefact at the very least leave a question mark over its association with other material from the layer.
присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым осно... more присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым основанием всегда было основанием для поиска связей этой индустрии со значительно более древней стрелецкой культурой. Полученная в радиоуглеродной лаборатории Университета Оксфорда новая серия радиоуглеродных дат для третьего слоя, а также для геологически одновременного I слоя Костёнок 8, подтверждает относительно молодой возраст этих памятников. Основываясь на получен-ных датировках, данных стратиграфии и технико-типологических характеристиках коллекции, в работе обсуждаются вопросы отношения III культурного слоя Костёнок 11 к стрелецким памятникам и его возможной культурной связи с I слоем Костёнок 8.
Antiquity, 2017
Palaeolithic burials are few and far between, and establishing their chronology is crucial to gai... more Palaeolithic burials are few and far between, and establishing their chronology is crucial to gaining a broader understanding of the period. A new programme of radiocarbon dating has provided a revised age estimate for the Palaeolithic burial at Kostënki 18 in European Russia (west of the Urals). This study reviews the need for redating the remains, and contextualises the age of the burial in relation to other Upper Palaeolithic funerary sites in Europe and Russia. The new date, obtained using a method that avoided the problems associated with previous samples conditioned with glue or other preservatives, is older than previous estimates, confirming Kostënki 18 as the only plausibly Gravettian burial known in Russia.
Here we document striking platform preparation at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Sungir' (Vladimi... more Here we document striking platform preparation at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Sungir' (Vladimir Oblast, Russia) comparable to the en éperon (spurring) technique. Its employment has resulted in butts with particularly large and wide spurs. Such preparation was apparently used during creation and maintenance of blade debitage surfaces, but not during plein débitage blade production. This may relate to the often poor raw materials worked at Sungir'. The same technique is evident on one blade in the small assemblage from nearby Rusanikha.
Conscious of the difficulty of reliably dating Pleistocene-age bone we re-examine the British rec... more Conscious of the difficulty of reliably dating Pleistocene-age bone we re-examine the British record of radiocarbon-dated fauna from mid-to-late Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 and early MIS 2, largely known from carnivore accumulations at cave sites. Although the data does not allow for firm conclusions, some observations can be made. An apparent dearth of remains c. 39 ka cal BP may reflect environmental deterioration during Greenland Stadial 9. A last occurrence of hyaena shortly before 35 ka cal BP is earlier than that proposed previously, and their extirpation probably helps to explain a paucity of dated remains <34 ka cal BP; however, we do not confidently rule out their presence 32–31 ka cal BP. The records of hyaena and wolf raise the possibility that their ranges were partially separate, with wolf thriving when climatic downturns brought greater snow-cover. From 34 ka cal BP a more restricted range of taxa is attested. This change coincides with climatic deterioration observable in ice-core and terrestrial records.
It is now well established that many previously obtained radiocarbon dates for the earlier part o... more It is now well established that many previously obtained radiocarbon dates for the earlier part of the Upper Palaeolithic are problematic, and that archaeological chronologies based on such dates may require revision. In order to help address this problem for the Gravettian of European Russia, eight new radiocarbon dates were obtained on samples of bone from Kostënki 8 Layer II, Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5. The dates for Kostënki 8/II agree with the most ancient date previously obtained for the layer and confirm the dating of the assemblage to ca. 32 000-31 000 calBP, or early Greenland Stadial (GS) 5. The new dates for both Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5 are markedly more ancient than those previously published. They indicate that both sites are ca. 2 000 years older than formerly believed, and that both date to ca. 29 500-28 500 calBP, i.e. the very end of GS 5 or Greenland Interstadial (GI) 4. The dates suggest that Kostënki 4 and Borshchëvo 5 are both older than the sites of the Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture, with which they previously seemed to be contemporary. The revised chronology suggests that cold stadial conditions were associated with a relatively low number of archaeological sites in Russia, but also that a notably greater geographical distribution and number of sites may have been associated with GI 3 than with the preceding GI 4. This means that a straightforward correlation between climatic conditions and site numbers should not be postulated based on present evidence.
In Foulds, F.W.F., Drinkall, H.C., Perri, A., Clinnick, D.T.G. and Walker, J.W.P. (eds.) Wild Thi... more In Foulds, F.W.F., Drinkall, H.C., Perri, A., Clinnick, D.T.G. and Walker, J.W.P. (eds.) Wild Things: Recent advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research. Proceedings of the Where The Wild Things Are conference, Durham, March 23-24, 2012. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Session description: The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 led to the historic Paris ... more Session description: The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 led to the historic Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature rise to 2°C and pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5°C. According to the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on limiting warming to 1.5°C, released in October 2018, the world has no time to lose in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Further, while warming can still be limited to 1.5°C, doing so will require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
The archaeological community has long appreciated the relationship between human activity and long term environmental change. Archaeologists are already responding to the severe threats to global cultural heritage posed by climate change and are often highly engaged in wider debates concerning impacts and adaptation. We have gathered data and stories of how past societies have responded to past climatic change and gained deep understandings of the origins of the modern socio-economic systems that have delivered modern anthropogenic climate change. But archaeology itself is suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance, as the field continues to expand practices such as carbon-intensive conferences and remote fieldwork (Reynolds 2018).
Transformational change is necessary within archaeology as part of the transition to a lowcarbon economy. By rising to this challenge, we have an opportunity to provide leadership and act as an exemplar to the global community. This session will tackle the question of: how can the knowledge and practice of archaeology be used and transformed to effect rapid and ambitious decarbonization, within our discipline and beyond? Creative approaches and analyses will be welcome.
Proposals for oral presentations (6 slides in 6 minutes) and other types of contributions welcome; please get in touch if you wish to discuss the possibilities.
Abstracts can be submitted at www.e-a-a.org/EAA2019 until 14 February 2018.
Lithic artefacts are a principal source of information for reconstructing the cultural traditions... more Lithic artefacts are a principal source of information for reconstructing the cultural traditions, movement, behaviours and diets of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic people. While it is generally assumed that these artefacts were designed and used to carry out a wide range of specific tasks, in most cases we know little about the precise past functions of individual artefacts or artefact types.
Our current poor understanding of the function of many tool types means that the epistemological challenge laid down decades ago by the influential calls for the development of middle-range theory (Binford 1962) remains largely unanswered. It also poses stumbling blocks for archaeological practice more widely, as a lack of understanding of artefact function stymies attempts to create robust artefact typologies, with consequent problems for the construction of cultural taxonomies.
Nevertheless, piecemeal progress continues to be made in understanding archaeological artefact functions. New research methodologies and studies have generated unexpected results that have broadened our understanding of prehistoric subsistence strategies, technological habits and lithic material use.
The aim of this session is to review current understandings and outstanding questions concerning archaeological and interdisciplinary approaches to identifying lithic tool use by past hunter-gatherer societies, including use-wear quantification and residue characterisation, experimental approaches and ethnoarchaeological studies. We invite papers focusing on methodological and interpretive questions and innovations, ideally supplemented with case studies expressing an engagement with questions of broad archaeological significance. We also welcome papers based on work by, collaborations with and ethnographies of contemporary and historical hunter-gatherer communities and their members. We intend the eventual publication of papers from this session as a special journal issue or collection.
Proposals for oral presentations (15 mins) and posters welcome; please get in touch if you have any questions. Abstracts (150-300 words) can be submitted at www.e-a-a.org/EAA2019 until 14 February 2018.
Session description: The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic/Neolithic transitions in Europe... more Session description: The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic/Neolithic transitions in Europe have long been major foci of research attention. But what about the changes that occurred between these two important transformations? In the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic record, we see clear evidence for changes through time in social organisation, technologies, hunting strategies, mobility, and cultural practices. Describing and interpreting these changes is of major interest, despite the challenges. More precise and robust chronologies and the ever-increasing volume of archaeological data have strengthened our understanding of the modern human hunter-gatherer past. Environmental and climatic changes as well as the appearance and spread of new technologies are often seen as key to understanding cultural change. Beyond this, our discussions of mechanisms and meaning behind changes seen in the archaeological record seem quite limited, and there is scope for improving our interpretations and theoretical frameworks. Questions we wish to address are:-What kind of methodological and theoretical problems do we face when trying to compare periods and how do we overcome them?-How do we conceptualise units of comparison (periods, cultures) and to what degree do these heuristics determine our research outcomes?-What lessons does current research teach us about our understanding of change in the hunter-gatherer past? In this session, we seek to provoke an epistemological debate using Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic case studies. Therefore, papers that address methodological and theoretical issues are particularly welcome. Through this session, we hope to improve our understanding of a principal concept used in archaeology: change.