Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic

Steven L Kuhn, Nicolas Zwyns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage from the site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combines elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with features more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest definition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central and Eastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithic technologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified cultural phenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSA Levallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local origins with subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become too broad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a more explicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-38
Number of pages10
JournalQuaternary International
Volume347
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Paleolithic
Mousterian
homology
artifact

Keywords

  • Blade technology
  • Early upper paleolithic
  • Hominin dispersals
  • Levallois

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Earth-Surface Processes

Cite this

Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic. / Kuhn, Steven L; Zwyns, Nicolas.

In: Quaternary International, Vol. 347, No. 1, 2014, p. 29-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kuhn, Steven L ; Zwyns, Nicolas. / Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic. In: Quaternary International. 2014 ; Vol. 347, No. 1. pp. 29-38.
@article{c4bf808265af4f8aaf99d97538d5248a,
title = "Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic",
abstract = "The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage from the site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combines elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with features more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest definition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central and Eastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithic technologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified cultural phenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSA Levallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local origins with subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become too broad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a more explicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages.",
keywords = "Blade technology, Early upper paleolithic, Hominin dispersals, Levallois",
author = "Kuhn, {Steven L} and Nicolas Zwyns",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "347",
pages = "29--38",
journal = "Quaternary International",
issn = "1040-6182",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic

AU - Kuhn, Steven L

AU - Zwyns, Nicolas

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage from the site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combines elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with features more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest definition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central and Eastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithic technologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified cultural phenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSA Levallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local origins with subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become too broad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a more explicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages.

AB - The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage from the site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combines elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with features more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest definition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central and Eastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithic technologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified cultural phenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSA Levallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local origins with subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become too broad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a more explicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages.

KW - Blade technology

KW - Early upper paleolithic

KW - Hominin dispersals

KW - Levallois

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923264147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923264147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

DO - 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84923264147

VL - 347

SP - 29

EP - 38

JO - Quaternary International

JF - Quaternary International

SN - 1040-6182

IS - 1

ER -