Search

For many archaeologists the term "Paleolithic" evokes long lists of stone tool types leavened only by the explosion of cave art during the peak of the Last Glaciation. This is a shame, because the Paleolithic period encompasses momentous events in human evolution. It begins more than 2.5 million years ago with a diverse array of early hominid species and culminates with the global dominion of modern humans. The Pleistocene Epoch (1.7 million to 12,500 years ago), during which the bulk of the Paleolithic drama played out, was a period of wide and frequent climate changes. Ice Age humans lived in a "lost world" that we only know indirectly, through archaeology. Europe's peninsular shape and its proximity to the Arctic Circle during Pleistocene glacial periods probably made this continent a peripheral zone of human habitation compared to Africa and South Asia. Nevertheless, the historical priority of Paleolithic research in Europe has created a richer archaeological record on this continent than in any other region. For much of the 20th century, the structure of the European Paleolithic was the model for the Paleolithic in the rest of

The Palaeolithic is traditionally described as a static period when innovation and creativity were rare. Moreover, with the accent on accounting for modern behaviour this view has stressed the late appearance of novel artefacts in Africa and elsewhere. These beads, ochre and art-works fit well with a model of the mind that emphasises its rational character; a position that underpins current approaches to the transmission of culture. This contribution examines the implications for hominin creativity that adopts a distributed or relational model of cognition. I argue that hominin creativity was not necessarily confined to making new artefacts but instead directed to the opportunities for amplification afforded by the aesthetic properties of materials and the emotional content of the senses. The outcomes for the Palaeolithic are discussed using the framework of the social brain model and the intensification of social interaction.

While it is a commonplace to state that every age gets the Neanderthals it either deserves, or wants, there has recently been a sea-change in these just-desserts and needs. It has taken 150 years for Neanderthals to emerge as humans with a difference and this difference depends not on the shape of the skulls or tools but rather in their competence as social actors. Here, I set out an approach that supplements the rational analysis of their behavior with a relational understanding of their lives. Using the social brain hypothesis I argue that the differences between these perspectives have important implications for the development of Paleolithic archaeology, and in particular the role of artifacts as material metaphors based on the experience of social life.

My aim in this paper is to put the question, ‘Where was the centre of the Upper Palaeolithic world?’. I promise no answers and I will confine the discussion to Europe.The purpose behind raising such a seemingly irrelevant problem is that its investigation leads us directly into issues of palaeolithic society, the interpretation of art in such contexts and the often opposed views of how art contributed to adaptation and change.At the outset let me declare that I amnotdealing with the origins of art and its association, or not, with language. Art for me is, however, a system of communication and includes a wide range of mediums and messages. As an act of social communication it is defined by style which, as Wiessner (1984, 191) argues, has its behavioural basis in a fundamental human cognitive process; personal and social identification through comparison. Consequently style is not just a means of transmitting information about identity but is an active tool used in building social strategies (ibid.194). It has a role in negotiation which, as I shall argue below, is the basis for defining palaeolithic society.

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

Economic Prehistory . By Grahame Clark. Cambridge University Press: 1989. Pp. 638. £50, $90. Economic Anthropology. Edited by Stuart Plattner.Stanford University Press: 1989. Pp. 487. Hbk $49.50, £29.36; pbk $16.95, £10.05