The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    1/17

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    Marcel Otte

    Abstract An historical approach to the study of Paleolithic cultural evolution considers it a longsequence linking universally relevant events thatlead to change in human behavior. However, amore general approach reflects the role of humanawarenessan ongoing and increasingly intensivefactor for behavioral changeas shown, for exam-ple, by the independent invention of agriculture indifferent parts of the world.

    The most important of these developmentalphases concerns what has been considered bysome archaeologists to have been the optimaladaptation of hunter-gatherers to their environments(see Sahlins, 1972 and subsequent debate). In Eur-ope, Asia, and North America, this is particularlyevident during the Late Glacial period, but otherexamples exist elsewhere in the world and fromboth earlier prehistoric periods and modern hunter-gatherer groups (e.g., the Khoi San, Amazon, andPolynesian tribes) (Cziesla, 1992; Conte, 2000; Dea-con and Deacon, 1999). In this developmental phaseat the end of the Paleolithic, technological culture ischaracterized by the geometrization of microlithsmade on bladelet segments, and the generalized useof the bow and arrow. Yet, on a metaphysical plane,the transformation is much stronger: human repre-sentations show man in narrative scenes and inaction, dominating animals and nature, well beforedomestication (e.g., in British Columbia). Withrespect to subsistence economy, the range of fauna

    hunted is much broader than during the Paleolithic,and plant food resources broaden as well, making itpossible to lead to sedentism prior to the adoption of agriculture (e.g., Natufian, Capsian).

    Keywords Settlers Hunters Sociology Religion Evolution

    Introduction

    There are only a limited number of processesproposed by archaeologists to account for orexplain the forms of transformation during thePaleolithic. The first makes reference to the evalua-tion of the degree of cognitive capacity , as has beenapplied to the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transi-tion. The second concerns the accomplishment orrealization of capacities applied to comparison of the expression of different Upper Paleolithic cul-tures (Gravettian-Solutrean in Europe, Clovis inNorth America, or Wilton in Africa). The thirdcategory combines these two types of processesapplied to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transi-tion. All three kinds of processes take place withinenvironmental contexts that permitted the choicesthat were made, without being deterministic: cul-tures vary much more than climates and biotopes.

    The transition from the Paleolithic to theMesolithic belongs to the third category. In ourview, this is the most significant transition thatoccurred in human history; not only was it universalin scope (as if it were contained within the humanspirit), but it was also the basis for the subsequentNeolithic food producers (Bar-Yosef, 1983, Cauvin,

    M. Otte ( * )Service de Pre histoire, Universite de Lie ge, Lie ge, Belgium

    M. Camps, P. Chauhan (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions , DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_35,Springer Science Business Media, LLC 2009

    537

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    2/17

    1978; Valla, 1988). Moreover, this transition can beobserved, even today, in different parts of the world.It combines both changes in cultural aptitudes andadaptation to dramatically changing climatic condi-tions. We consider that this phase more particularlycorresponds to a radical change in the structure of thinking, in which humans developed an entirelydifferent view of their relationship to nature. Someexamples presented here will illustrate this phenom-enon (Fig. 1).

    Chronology

    The dating of this transition begins with the chron-ological patterning in which the Paleolithic alwaysprecedes the Mesolithic, as if the Mesolithic ineach area of the world developed from the Paleo-lithic. We also note the much shorter durationof the Mesolithic period in comparison with thePaleolithicalso apparently in all regions of theworld. In consequence, the evaluative rhythm fol-lowed by the succession of cultural traditionsappears to be much more elevated during the Meso-lithic than during the Paleolithic; even during theEpi-Paleolithicits final phase. This phenomenonmay be due to a demographic increaseitself

    caused by new ways of lifeor the development of denser exchange networks during the Mesolithic thanpreviously. Because the developmental phases of theMesolithic are both more rapid and more clearlyseparated, it is thus possible to distinguish themwith greater facility than for those of the Paleolithic.

    This chronological uniqueness, in relation toPaleolithic traditions often lasting several thou-sands of years, did not take place everywhere atthe same time, but the approximate equivalentscan be observed. For example, in Europe, a chron-ological gradient is observed from southeast tonorthwest, in which this transition took place fromthe 8th millennium BC (in the southeast) to the4th millennium BC (in the northwest), dependingon the adaptation rates of the food-producing waysof life that followed. In the Near East, this transi-tion begins earlier, during the 12th millennium BC(the Natufian), and is quickly replaced by theEarly Neolithic which developed directly from thepreceding Natufian (in contrast to Europe).The schema is fairly similar in North Africa, withthe Capsian. But, in our view, in the modern world,entire regions still practiced what could be consid-ered to be Mesolithic ways of life until the firstEuropean contacts: British Columbia, SouthAfrica, Amazonia (Lavalle e, 1995; Deacon andDeacon, 1999) (Figs. 2 and 3).

    Fig. 1 Introduction. Left :Lepenski Vir head (Serbia)(after Gimbutas, 1991).Right : divinity statuette(Polynesia) (after Collective,1972 )

    538 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    3/17

    Fig. 2 Chronology. Top left : (after Johnsen et al., 1997 and J oris and Weninger, 2000, in Street et al., 2001). Top right : (afterAlojz Sercelj, 1996). Bottom : (after Honegger, 2005)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 539

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    4/17

    Fig. 3 Extension. Top : European population distribution (after Plumet, 2004). Bottom : Oceanic population distribution(after Conte, 2000)

    540 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    5/17

    Environment

    In a general manner, the Paleolithic-Mesolithic tran-sition also corresponds to significant changes in cli-matethe transition from dry and cold conditions tomore temperate and humid environments that were

    more variable. It is difficult to determine a cause-effect relationship between cultural factors and ecolo-gical conditions, even less so since certain populationsseem to have preserved their Paleolithic values andways of life nearly until modern times (e.g., AustralianAborigines, Pygmies, Inuits). Even in the archaeolo-gical record, we observe this Paleolithic persistence,continuing in parallel with Mesolithic innovations(Central Africa, South America, China). Thus, wecan argue that the ecological context of the LateGlacial and Post-Glacial permitted the transition tothe Mesolithic, but was not deterministican argu-ment that can be applied to all of human history. Inaddition, these climatic changes occurred innumer-able times during the Paleolithic without significantcultural changes comparable to the development of the Mesolithic. With R. Braidwood, who alluded tothe emergence of the Neolithic, we have to accept,although fairly vaguely, that humanity was readyand that climatic change served only to accentuate atrend that was, in any case, inevitable.

    The transition was also dramatic on a geographicscale. The global rise in sea level led to the alterationof coasts that now penetrated deep into formerlyterrestrial territories (Fischer, 1995). New aquaticresources became available and new settlementswere thus installed near coasts and along rivers.This, in turn, led to considerable demographicchange because, apart from seacoasts, the rise inprecipitation also created lakes, increased the size of estuaries, and led to the compartmentalization of landscapes by the expansion of hydrological net-works. The human-nature relationship was thus pro-foundly marked by aquatic environments.

    Techniques

    For the archaeologist, the most easily accessibledata are relevant to technology. This indirectly evi-dences the universality of changes in thought pro-cesses, oriented in the same sense across the globe

    regardless of contextthe transition was simulta-neously, global, fundamental, and irreversible. Thegeneral tendency is toward the diminution in blanksize, which changes from Paleolithic blade or flake tobladelets and microlithic tools. This increased thequantity of blanks from a single raw block, fist-

    sized, which could itself be exported where needed,depending on hunting demands. Once at a huntingsite, the core could then be knapped to produce finebladelets that would be systematically broken intosegments that were directly retouched into micro-liths. The lightness of lithic products worked wellwith the propulsion method generally adopted dur-ing the Mesolithic, although sporadically presentduring the Paleolithic. The bow and arrow wasmuch better adapted to the denser forest cover: itwas precise, rapid, and silent. But more significantly,it corresponded to an entirely new metaphysicalrelationship to naturethe bow overcame the con-straints of speed, distance, and precision. Humanswho mastered this technique came close to beingnatural gods by borrowing part of natures power.It is this that defines the veritable transition tothe Mesolithica more advanced level of humandominance, due to the ability to think over the forcesof nature (Fig. 4).

    This amplification of mechanical powers is iden-tical not only across the world, but also in all materialcategories. Vegetal materials were abundantlyexploited in conjunction with stone: arrowheads,lamps, and bows, as well as woven fishing baskets,canoes, and containers. Bone materials continued tobe exploited, especially as axes to work wood, but hadless importance than before the transition (Fig. 5).

    The most spectacular change in the technicaldomain lies in the shaping of terra cotta containers(e.g., the ceramics of Limburg, La Huguette,and Erteb olle). These exist from Normandyto Kamchatka to the Americas, in the same culturalcontexts. The mobility of the groups supports theirlimited structure and highly fragmentary state: themain containers were made of vegetal material.

    Resources

    With respect to diet, the transition to the Mesolithicis characterized by broadening the range of resources made possible by the more clemental

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 541

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    6/17

    climatic conditions, a better adaptation of techni-ques to new environments (e.g., fishing baskets),and the crucial contribution of proteins from aqua-tic contexts (from mollusks to whales). Dietarydiversity was staggered throughout the differentseasons and included a significant vegetal

    component: leaves, fruits and roots that were nearlyinaccessible during the Paleolithic. Hunting is spe-cialized and a social aspect is added to the searchfor subsistence, serving to give an individual a spe-cific role within the group. Astuteness, courage, andability are recognized in a selective hunting strategy

    Fig. 4 Lithic technology(after Cziesla, 1992)

    542 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    7/17

    of single animals more than a strategy orientedtowards herds, as was practiced during thePaleolithic.

    Resource-gathering was thus varied and abun-dant, implying the existence of a greater diversity of tasks, and included the participation of women andchildren, with large-game hunting being limited toyoung adult males. The guarantee of resources, andthus survival, became a largely collective task, rein-forcing social links as can be seen in artistic andreligious domains, for which the basis became manhimself and (less clearly) nature.

    The varying access to different resourcesthroughout the years has a symmetrical counter-part: seasonal migrations following herds(e.g., reindeer, horses, and bison) lost their eco-nomic importance and were limited to the sphereof traditional customs. The ethnic landscape of the

    Mesolithic was more parceled out, with a greaterdegree of regional differences, than during thePaleolithic. The Paleolithic-Mesolithic transitionthus has a social value (Fig. 6).

    Habitations

    Associated with such new ways of life, the greaterethnic division of the landscape, and the broadeningof the resource base, settlements accentuate

    more permanent aspectsin particular, by theconcentration of tasks. More durable structuresappear, for long-term use and to protect a widerange of activitiescrushing and grinding of mate-rials included. Remaining circular, like transport-able tents, such structures were permanent. Circularand vertical postholes show evidence of posts tosupport walls made of clay and stone. The tradi-tional heritage is thus one of nomads, living inportable tents, but the definitive transition ismarked by their fixity that would be later given to

    the orthogonal houses of the Neolithic.This change from mobile to fixed led to a com-

    pletely different relationship to the landscape.Although it remained exploited in its wild andnatural state, land was from then on owned bythe clan, family or lineage, because it was alreadythe main source of life and reproduction. Thisperpetuity can also be observed by the grouping of burials in cemeteries close to semipermanentvillages of the living; this would be further devel-oped by the complete integration of burial places and

    habitations. Isolated skulls, and at other times entirebodies, were sometimes physically interred into thehabitation floors, as if to mark the permanence of this dominance over the obstacles from life to death.The Mesolithic habitation forms a symbol of thisnew idea, like the use of the bow is for prey. Thepossession of such powers, symbolic and technical,evidence both a spiritual conquest of man over bio-logical constraints and a will to be freed relative tocaloric procurement (Fig. 7).

    Fig. 5 Ceramics. Top : Erteb olle (Denmark, 5th mill. BC)(after Fischer, 1995). Center : Limburg pottery (Mesolithic, 6thmill. BC) (after Jadin et al., 1991). Bottom : Pottery of northernEurasian hunters (after Groot, Sugihara and Serizawa)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 543

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    8/17

    Fig. 6 Resources. Top : (after J. Woodman). Bottom : (after Lee Junker, 2002)

    544 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    9/17

    Cultural Traditions

    As reflected in technical methods, Mesolithic cul-tural traditions seem to explode across the land-scape and through time. Countless groupsappeared, defined by stylistic criteria, covering Eur-ope like patchwork during the short climatic phases

    of the Holocene. Such regionalism is clearer thanduring the Paleolithic, defined on the basis of sec-ondary but permanent criteria (armature types,lateralization, geometric forms, retouch types).Such cultural diversity can be observed outside Eur-opefor example, in the Capsian of North Africa,the Natufian of the Levant, the cultures of the

    Fig. 7 Habitations. Top : Mureybet (Syria) (after Cauvin, 1978). Bottom : Lepenski Vir (Serbia) (after Sailer, 1997)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 545

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    10/17

    Amazon, the north of the Far East, and especiallythe abounding production of armatures in East andSouth Africa (to modern times in the case of thelatter) (Fig. 8).

    For each region in Europe, vertical devel-opmental charts have been constructed todemonstrate variation in both time and space.

    Certain constants can be seen within this diver-sity, however, such as the geometrization of microliths or expansion of core reduction bythe pressure technique. These demonstrate theimpact of the circulation of effective technicalconcepts, despite traditional and geographic bar-riers (Fig. 9).

    Fig. 8 Northwest Europeantraditions (after Guillotet al., 1997)

    546 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    11/17

    The transition is here attached to the decompo-sition of the large ethnic and cultural units of thePaleolithic, replaced by social boundaries indi-cated by connections of highly specialized techni-cal practices and, in consequence, intimately linkedto the self-identification values of a group (Figs. 10and 11 ).

    Art

    The rupture with the Paleolithic is perhapsstrongest in this category of activities. Severalmajor trends appear and emphasize the impactof the new epoch. The first consists in a form of inertia from the Paleolithic in which artistic

    Fig. 9 Traditions. Top :Brazil (after Lavalle e, 1995).Center : Japan (afterInamura, 1996). Bottom :South Africa (after Deaconand Deacon, 1999)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 547

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    12/17

    values slip in their material importance. Animalmotifs that dominated Paleolithic mythologydescend from monumental walls and are found

    as harmless objects, such as handle decorationson sickles in the eastern Levant or amber pen-dants in Scandinavia (Clark, 1975). The savagenature of animals has clearly lost its importancein the symbolism expressed by the image, as if separated from its potency, thus accentuating thedemarcation between the natural world andhuman society. Another trend highlights thistransitionthe increase in the number of imagesof humans, in engraved bone in Scandinavia,statuettes in the Levant, and veritable permanent

    statues sculpted at the entrances of the housesat Lepenski Vir in Serbia (Sailer, 1997). Thisphenomenon is observed everywhere that hasa way of life comparable to the EuropeanMesolithicthe tikis of Oceania and Africanand Amazonian statuettes. Such art materializesa totally new power given to humanity by theimage, as if the nascent gods were comparableto humans and thus gave humans their powerand value by their image. Finally, art became

    animated during this transition; we nowobserve scenesa network of relationships thatunite the figures (men, women, animals) in a

    significant way (Spanish Levant, Sahara, SouthAfrica). From then on, this became the per-ceived, recounted, and understandable realitythat took its first steps toward a world idealizedby the mythological practice of the Paleolithic(Figs. 12 and 13).

    Religion

    Man was thus placed at the center of spiritual pre-occupations after this fundamental transition. Nat-ure beat a retreat and, by his action transposed inimages, man continued to master his natural be-havior while still remaining (in part) in the naturalworld. This is comparable to burials that remindone of the Paleolithic period, and to animal fetishesthat were introduced (teeth, antlers). The religion of the Mesolithic did not eliminate nature; manyrepresentations evidence this fact and, moreover,

    Fig. 10 African traditions(after Clark, 1977)

    548 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    13/17

    the demographic equilibrium was (and still is) main-tained in this societal mode. The Mesolithic is prop-erly transitional, and in this sense is both funda-mental (the Neolithic derives from the Mesolithic)and perfectly balanced (many populations livetoday with this way of life) (Fig. 14).

    By showing humans as dominant in artisticscenes, art restored a religion in which the humanconscience is displayed and takes on a new privi-leged status. Man took on a crucial importance, asmuch in images as the quite real force obtained bythe use of the bow. Aiming long and precisely, he

    Fig. 11 Mobile art. Top and center-left : Denmark (afterClark, 1975). Center-right :Kebara (Israel) (after BarYosef, 1983). Bottom-left :Russia (after Plonka, 2003).Bottom-right : Hayonim

    (Israel) (after Bar Yosef,1983)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 549

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    14/17

    Fig. 12 Arts. Top :Levantine art (Valencia,Spain) (after J. Jelinek,1978). Bottom : Khoi San art(South Africa) (afterD. Lewis-Williams)

    550 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    15/17

    physically extended the power of thought; mandeveloped as a demonstration of this dazzlingpower accorded to the spirit as to weapons. Manwas freed from biological constraints and demon-strates this in religious thought as in his visualizedreflections. Classical religions would soon be devel-oped to complete this process, while gods would bein the image of man and animals would be reducedto the rank of attributes. The symbolism of arrowsbecame omnipresent (e.g., Diana the Huntress) anduniversal because they symbolize not only the

    deferred power of the human will, but also the spiritof justice, clarity, and messenger remaining in com-munication with the cosmos.

    Conclusion

    The transition to the Mesolithic has a critical impor-tance in the human adventure. It corresponds to avery specific period, both fundamental and

    Fig. 13 Religions. Top :Teviec (Brittany, France)(after M. and St-J. Pe quart,1954). Bottom-left : Denmark(Albrethsen, Petersen, 1976,Excavation of a mesolithiccemetry at Vedbaek,

    Denmark, ActaArchaeologica, 47). Bottom-right : Ofnet (Bavaria,Germany) (after Cziesla,1992 ). Burials (PEQUARTM. et S.J., Hoedic, deuxiemestation-necropole dumesolithique cotierarmoricain, Anvers, DeSikkel)

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 551

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    16/17

    universal. Like all transitions, it has both Paleolithicsouvenirs, Neolithic potentialities, and intermedi-ate particularities that support its autonomous sta-tus as a period on its own. Certain populationstoday have kept the same Mesolithic way of lifeover the millennia.

    Among the principal factors that characterize thisheavenly epoch, we note the perfect adaptation bypredatory paths, in extremely varied environments,across space and through time. This harmony withthe savage world evokes that described for Eden inthe Old Testament: the Neolithic could only be thesubsequent period when humans became farmersand earned their bread by the sweat of their brow.During the Mesolithic, we thus observe the desire toconserve a hunting way of life and to maintain har-mony between demographic development and per-petually under-exploited capacities offered by thesavage world. In this sense, the Neolithic breaksthis alliance and we suffer the inconveniences today more than ever.

    The transition to the Mesolithic thus corre-sponds principally to a phenomenon of change in

    metaphysical thought. The Upper Paleolithic seemscharacterized by all-powerful natural laws acting onhuman destiny. The Mesolithic, in contrast, is aperiod of definition of this condition, against thecontrol of natural laws, attempting to render manthe master of his destinybut in revenge, confer-ring on him a terrible responsibility.

    References

    Albrethsen, P., 1976, Excavation of a mesolithic cemetry atVedbaek, Denmark, Acta Archaeologica, 47.

    Bar-Yosef, O., 1983, The Natufian in the Southern Levant.In The hilly flanks and beyond , edited by C.T. Young, P.L.E. Smith & P. Mortensen, p. 1142. Universityof ChicagoPress, Chicago.

    Cauvin, J., 1978, Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine duIXe au VIIe mille naire av. J. C. CNRS, Paris.

    Clark, G., 1975, The earlier stone age settlement of Scandina-via, Cambridge University Press.

    Collective, 1972, La de couverte de la Polyne sie. Paris, Socie te des Amis du Muse e de lHomme.

    Conte, E., 2000, L0arche ologie en Polyne sie francaise.Esquisse d 0un bilan critique . Tahiti, Au vent des les.

    Fig. 14 Arts. Top : NorthAfrica (after Alonso andGrimal in J.-L. Le Quellec,1998). Bottom : South Africa(after Clottes et Lewis-Williams, 1996, Leschamanes de la prehistoire,

    Seuil, Paris)

    552 M. Otte

  • 7/23/2019 The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition

    17/17

    Cziesla, E., 1992, Ja ger und Sammler. Die mittlere Steinzeitim Landkreis Pirmasens , Linden Soft Verlag Bru hl.

    Deacon, H.J. and Deacon J., 1999, Human beginnings inSouth Africa. Uncovering the secrets of the stone age .David Philip Publishers, Cape Town & Johannesburg.

    Fischer, A., 1995 (ed.), Man and sea in the Mesolithic.Coastal settlement above and below present sea level ,

    Proceedingsof the International Symposium, Kalundborg,Denmark, 1993. Oxbow Monographs 53, Oxford.Gimbutas, M., 1991, The Civilization of the Goddess . Harper,

    San Francisco.Guillot, G., Guillot, O., Hans, J.M., Pressager, G., Spier, F.

    and The venin A., 1997, Le me solithique moyen de Lor-raine dans un cadre ge ographique e largi. In Actes de laTable ronde de Metz, nov. 1996. Bulletin de la Socie te pre historique luxembourgeoise 19:167183.

    Inamura, K.I., 1996, Prehistoric Japan . UCL Press, London.Jadin, I., Spier, F., and Cauwe N., 1991, Contribution a

    le tude du Ne olithique ancien de la Moselle : le village

    rubane de Weiler-la-Tour-Holzdreisch (Grand-Duche deLuxembourg). Notae Praehistoricae 10:6167.

    Jelinek, J., 1978, Encyclopedie de lhomme prehistorique,Grund, Paris.

    Lavalle e, D., 1995, Promesse dAme rique. La pre histoire delAme rique du Sud , Hachette, Paris.

    Le Quellec, J.-L., 1998, Art rupestre et prehistoire du Sahara,

    Payot, Paris.Pequart, M., and Pequart, S.J., 1954, Hoedic, deuxiemestation-necropole du mesolithique cotier armoricain,De Sikkel, Anvers.

    Plumet, P., 2004, Des mythes a la prehistoire; Peuples duGrand Nord, 2 vol. Paris, Errance.

    Sahlins, M., 1972, Stone Age Economics . Aldine, Chicago.Sailer, M.,1997, Studien zur LepenskiVir-Kultur. Darstellung

    und Interpretation der Kulturmerkmale und Befunde. Jah-resschr. Mitteldeutsche Vorgesch . 79:9109.

    Valla, F.R., 1988, Les premiers se dentaires de Palestine, LaRecherche 199:576584.

    The Paleolithic-Mesolithic Transition 553