Has the Notion of “Transitions” in Paleolithic Prehistory Outlived Its Usefulness? The European Record in Wider Context

Abstract

The archeological emphasis on ‘‘the transition’’ between ‘‘the’’ Middle Paleolithic and ‘‘the’’ Upper Paleolithic implies that these two putative cultural stages were real entities defined in absolute contradistinction to one another and that the passage between them was sharp and abrupt. While perhaps continuing to have value as heuristic devices when discourse demands reductionism, it is increasingly clear that each of these archeological concepts (or constructs) is characterized by great geographic and temporal variability and that many of the idealized attributes of the one are often found in the other, while others may be absent from sites of the timerange in which they ‘‘should’’ be present. While there was cultural change in Europe between 45 and 25 kya, there had also been much during the c. 250,000-year course of the Middle Paleolithic and there would continue to be much during the remaining 15,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic—and beyond—as hominids continually (albeit at varying rates) adapted to major environmental and demographic changes. Change did not come uniformly across space or time and can be described as having been mosaic ratherthan monolithic in character. Of course, the situation is muddied by the parallel debate over the replacement (total or partial, fast or slow) of the Neandertals—a subject that is best left out of the purely archeological debate, at least at this time, since there is currently no actual proof for the presence of anatomically ‘‘modern’’ humans in Europe until 35 kya.