Conclusions

Environmental Constraints

Some of the points developed above raise the question of the relevance of the cultural ecological paradigm for addressing land-use and interaction related issues. Admittedly, in WE, evidence from the Auvergne region underscores the role of ecological conditions in the development of long-term adaptive strategies across the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic divide. However, the Auvergne transfers account for only 58% of the occurrences recorded for the ]200-300km] distance class. The other occurrences are not associated with particularly exacting environmental contexts. Moreover, these source-site connections do not follow natural routes, but are mostly perpendicular to the valleys and entail crossing the hydrographical network. Whatever their interpretation, in terms of group mobility or interaction networks, the existence of these long-distance transfers, as well as the transfers >300 km arguably ascribed to a down-the-line mode of exchange, considerably weakens the supposed relationship between increasing continentality and greater magnitude of transfers. Clearly, hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies are more independent of environmental constraints than the cultural ecological interpretive framework suggests. But they are not wholly independent either, in particular when the frequencies with which certain distances are covered are considered rather than the magnitude of transfers. For instance, when the Auvergne transfers are omitted (Figure 5), the three series of MTDs are more consistent with an overall distribution across a continentality gradient. In addition, when distances of 300 km and beyond are considered, both frequency and magnitude of transfers set apart ECE from both WE and WCE. Interpreted as proxies for the maximum extent of interaction networks, these transfers are far more frequent in ECE, and their range is also greater.

Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Behavioral/ Cognitive Capacities

Other points address the question of whether observed differences between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic should be considered as the expression of fundamentally different behavioral/cognitive capacities (see Modern Humans, Emergence of). Possible arguments in favor of such an assumption are the overall dramatic increase in magnitude of Upper Palaeolithic transfers and the decrease in frequencies of <100 km MTDs (51% against 92%). These point to the development of interaction networks and to a different patterning of group mobility, involving anticipated long-distance seasonal moves. However, planned seasonal mobility has also been suggested for the Middle Palaeolithic, albeit as an adaptive response to environmental constraints (ECE and Auvergne). In the Upper Palaeolithic, such mobility strategies cannot therefore be considered novel. Rather, they appear only as more systematic, possibly because they were less situationally driven. Another major difference between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic pertains to the anticipated building up of supplies for a use that was much deferred, considering the distances over which large quantities of raw materials were transported to areas lacking suitable stone. The pattern is observed for the Upper Palaeolithic even when continuity in mobility patterns across the Middle/ Upper Palaeolithic divide can be argued for the same region (Auvergne, Moravia). Even though the acquisition cost need not have been higher if embedded procurement is considered, the cost of transport undoubtedly was. However, this is not necessarily indicative of cognitive differences between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic groups, particularly in view of the analogies between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic technological patterns of transport associated to small quantities. The possibility should be considered that the demands of Upper Palaeolithic lithic technology induced higher constraints on the quality of raw materials, therefore justifying the higher cost of transport in the absence of suitable locally available resources. This could be seen as reflecting quantitative rather than qualitative differences across the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic divide.

See also: Chemical Analysis Techniques; Cultural Ecology; Exchange Systems; Hunter-Gatherers, Ancient; Lithics: Manufacture; Modern Humans, Emergence of; Neutron Activation Analysis.