SYMBOLIC MATERIAL CULTURE

CONTRIBUTORS & ROLES

Brynn:

Map: added Site 1 marker

Introduction: described the topic of interest, wrote a brief summary on site 1, and did some edits
Site 1
Conclusion: wrote the conclusion and edited
References: added references

Kara:

Map: created the map page, added Site 2 marker, embedded the image in the wiki and made the table of sites
Introduction: explained why the topic is interesting and relevant to the study of human evolution, wrote a brief summary on site 2 and did some edits to the introduction for clarity
Site 2
Conclusion: edited
References: added references and edited for consistency

Scarlet:

Wiki: created the wiki page
Map: added Site 3 marker
Introduction: explained why the topic is interesting and relevant to the study of human evolution, wrote a brief summary on site 3 and did majority of edits to the introduction for clarity
Site 3
Conclusion: edited
References: added references and edited for clarity

Teah:

Map: added Site 4 marker
Introduction: described the topic of interest, wrote a brief summary on site 4, and did some edits
Site 4
Conclusion: wrote the conclusion and edited
References: added references

MAP

An image of Google Maps with markers in France, Germany, Turkey and South Africa.

Map
Site Name	Country	Longitude	Latitude
Blombos Cave	South Africa	21.2167 degrees East	34.4123 degrees South
Hohle Fels Cave	Germany	9.7520 degrees East	48.3792 degrees North
Chauvet Cave	France	4.4159 degrees East	44.3872 degrees North
Göbekli Tepe	Turkey	38.9225 degrees East	37.22306 degrees North

INTRODUCTION

Symbolic material culture refers not only to objects used and created by humans, but specifically to those imbued with culture and abstract meaning. Symbolic evidence in particular provides insight into the mindset of early humans and helps researchers understand their actions and emotions, social systems, anatomical and cognitive advancements, and adaptations (Woodward 2007). Many archaeological sites show evidence of these different representations of symbolic material culture. Changes in these sites through time can also reveal changes in brain function, as new methods of expressing culture are linked to the evolution of cognitive abilities and behaviour (Fuentes 2015).

Symbolic material culture is relevant to the study of human evolution because it connects to behavioural modernity. A key aspect of behavioural modernity is the ability to communicate through symbols (Wurz 2012). Symbolic material culture is therefore a major indicator of modern human behaviour. Evidence of symbolism in the archaeological record can help determine when the brain was able to accommodate such behavioural changes, and how these changes allowed for cultural growth. The increased use of language, as an example of behavioural change, is thought to have prompted an increase in symbolic thought, leading to an overall increase in cultural complexity (Wolcott Paskey and Beasley Cisneros 2019).

Finding evidence of symbolic material culture helps us determine the timeline in which cognitive complexity and behavioural modernity evolved. However, with overlapping hominin groups and new discoveries, attributing symbolic evidence to a particular species is difficult. For example, Neanderthals were once thought to have no symbolic culture, but more evidence suggests that this is not the case, as they may have participated in symbolic activities, such as burying their dead (Appenzeller 2013).

Evidence of symbolic material culture has been found in a number of sites, such as Blombos Cave, Hohle Fels Cave, Chauvet Cave and Göbekli Tepe. Blombos Cave is the first site where early human drawings were discovered by researchers. This is an important aspect of symbolic material culture because it gives insight as to the cognitive abilities of early humans and when humans ancestors first began expressing themselves through the use of drawings. Hohle Fels Cave is the second example of a site that demonstrates symbolic material culture. It is best known for the discovery of the earliest figurative art and the earliest evidence of musical instruments. This site changed our understanding of the origins and development of Venus figurines. Chauvet Cave is another example of a site with great importance to symbolic material culture. Hundreds of prehistoric cave paintings at this site provide evidence for forethought and complex abstract thinking. With dates earlier than previously believed possible, this site drastically changed our understanding of human cognitive evolution. Göbekli Tepe is famously known as a site where early humans engaged in cult rituals. Evidence at the site such as massive carved towers and skulls with cut marks suggests defleshing activities, meeting the criteria of cult-like behaviour. This demonstrates that early humans had the cognitive abilities to understand religious practices, such as involvement in a cult.

SITE 1: Blombos Cave

AUTHOR: Brynn McKenna
LOCATION: Blombos Cave is located 300km east of Cape Town and 20km west of Southern Cape, South Africa and is located on a wave cut cliff (Douze, Wurz, & Henshilwood, 2015). The site is specifically located 34.4123 degrees South and 21.2167 degrees East.

AGE: The age of the Blombos Cave site is thought to be around 70 000 - 100 000 years before present. A late stone age also occurred at the Blombos Cave site which is believed to have happened somewhere between 2000 – 300 years before present (Tribolo et al. 2006). The site is famously known for the discovery of the first drawings done by early human ancestors, as the drawings give insight as to when early humans began expressing themselves through culture.

Context

The Blombos Cave site is located in South Africa, 300km east of Cape Town and 20km west of Still Bay, with the age of the site believed to be dated somewhere between 70 000 - 100 000 years before present.

Geographically, the cave is located on a south facing wave cut cliff, 100 meters from the shoreline and 34.5 meters above sea level (Douze et al. 2015). The cave is believed to have formed by vigorous wave movements which occurred sometime during the Plio-Pleistocene period. Structurally, the cave consists of a main layer with the cave floor covering 39 meters, while on the other hand, the cave ceiling prevents access with parts falling at surface level (Douze et al. 2015). Furthermore, grassland and vegetation grow within the cave and many rainfalls hit during the colder winter half of the year. The environment of the cave can be characterized as alkaline because of the rich calcium carbonate ground, making for great conditions for preservation (Douze et al. 2015). Very few environmental changes have occurred in the cave from the past to present day.

Researchers have also divided the cave into three main layers which all contain a different artifact variety. In the first cave layer, 40 marine shell beads and two engraved ochre were recovered. In the middle layer, mostly bone points were salvaged and on the bottom cave layer, mainly shellfish residues and fragmented pieces of ochre were found (Vanhaeren et al. 2013).

History

The Blombos Cave was first discovered in 1991 by Christopher Henshilwood and his co-workers from the University of Cambridge. Originally the cave was one of the nine Holocene later stone age sites and given the name the Blombos Cave in 1997 (Douze et al. 2015). The cite contains 400 bifacial foliate points, large fish bones, shell beads, engraved ochres, and 30 bone tools (Vanhaeren et al. 2013).

This discovery was huge mainly because many of the items discovered at the Blombos Cave are not commonly found at Middle Stone Age sites. Moreover, ochres which are a common discovery in this area, had never been found engraved like they were found here before (ochres are more common in later stone age in upper Paleolithic layers) (Douze et al. 2015). Marine shell beads, fish bones, and bones points were previously unrecorded in this area entirely, making it a huge discovery. Since the discovery of the Blombos Cave, ongoing research has taken place and continues to take place today.

Relevance

The Blombos Cave plays an important role in understanding the behavioural evolution of early human ancestors. Artifacts discovered at the site give insight into the technological behaviors and cognitive abilities of early humans. (Douze et al. 2015). For example, many of the tools found at the site require a multiple step process in order to be operated. Several of the artifacts found at this site are also believed to have been used by the homo species during the Middle Stone Ages.

Moreover, cross-hatching drawings on stone pieces were also a huge discovery found at the Blombos Cave (Tribolo et al. 2006). This find showed evidence of the earliest drawings created by human ancestors, and, furthered researchers’ knowledge of early human technological behaviours and symbolic material culture, showing how it has advanced over the course of time.

Tools also found at the cave site give understanding to the cognitive abilities early humans acquired. By examining the detail craft work on these tools, researchers have been able to predict the cultural practices, behaviours and symbolic material culture of early humans (Tribolo et al. 2006). Overall, the discovery of the Blombos Cave and the artifacts founded there has greatly influenced the way researchers think human behaviour, cognition, and material culture has evolved.

SITE 2: Hohle Fels

AUTHOR: Kara Ren
LOCATION: Hohle Fels Cave in the Ach Valley, 20km west of Ulm and is part of the Swabian Jura. It is located 48.3792 degrees North and 9.7520 degrees East.
AGE: dates between 30k - 40kyr BP (based on Venus of Hohle Fels)

Context

Hohle Fels Cave is one of six caves in the Swabian Jura which is located in southern Germany (UNESCO). Hohle Fels Cave is near Schelklingen, Germany. There are many other finds that have been recovered that are dated to the Upper Paleolithic (Conard 2009). However, the most famous find is the Venus of Hohle Fels. All of the finds of the caves in Swabian Jura contributed to the area being listed as an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2017 (UNESCO). Today, the flood plain of the Ach sits about 7m below the cave. The cave was formed during the White Jurassic Period (Hohle Fels 2019).

History

The six caves of the Swabian Jura have uncovered finds that date from 43 000 to 33 000 years ago and have been excavated starting from the 1860s. These sites, including the Hohle Fels site, are considered to have some of the oldest figurative art in the world (UNESCO). Hohle Fels is most known as the home of the oldest Venus figurine ever uncovered (Conard 2009). Scientists from the University of Tübingen have been doing excavations at Hohle Fels since 1977 and have been focusing on the Magdalenian and Mousterian layers of the cave (Hohle Fels 2019).

From September 8^th to 15^th of 2008, six ivory fragments that form the Venus were recovered. The fragments was found 20m away from the cave’s entrance and around 3m below the current surface of the cave. More specifically, the Venus figurine “originates from a red-brown, clayey silt at the base of ~1m of Aurignacian deposits” (Conard 2009).

Relevance

Hohle Fels is most known for the oldest Venus figurine ever uncovered. The specific stratigraphy in which the Venus was found, indicates that “it is the oldest of the figurines recovered from the Swabian caves” and is considered to be “the earliest example of figurative art worldwide." Its discovery discounts the belief that Venus figurines strictly developed during the Gravettian (Conard 2009). Instead, Venus of Hohle Fels “suggests continuities of motives of figurative art and ideas between the Aurignacian and the Gravettian periods” (Porr 2010). The discovery of the Venus figurine “radically changes our view of the origins of Palaeolithic art” (Conard 2009). The presence of Venus figurines could have been evidence of early religion or cultural symbolism. The exaggerated sexual attributes could have been a “direct or indirect expression of fertility” (2009). The Venus figurine might have been a “realistic [depiction] of actual women,” or they could have had “religious significance and be depiction of priestesses” (Dixson and Dixson 2011).

A flute was also found in Hohle Fels within the Aurignacian layer of deposits. It is one of “the best preserved Aurignacien instrument so far” (Hohle Fels 2019). The flute was in the “basal Aurignacian deposits of archaeological horizon Vb” (Conard, Malina, Münzel 2009) where it was recovered in 12 separate pieces. This instrument was carved from the bones of a griffon vulture which had a wingspan that provided “bones ideal for large flutes” (2009) The presence of a flute demonstrates the symbolic culture of the occupants of the cave during the Upper Palaeolithic.

The discoveries of figurative art within the Swabia Jura region may be evidence that the occupants from Hohle Fels and neighbouring sites could’ve been “members of the same cultural group” who had “shared beliefs and practices." These finds are representatives of “one of the earliest artistic traditions worldwide." The Swabian Jura is perhaps “one of the several key areas of cultural florescence at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic” and can give us a better understanding of that time (Conard 2003).

SITE 3: Chauvet Cave

AUTHOR: Scarlet Everitt
LOCATION: Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche, Southeastern France. The cave is located 44.3872 degrees North and 4.4159 degrees East.
AGE: Dated to an average of 36,000 cal BP (using dates from earliest occupation period).

Context

Chauvet Cave is located in Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, in the Ardèche department of Southeastern France (Sadier et al. 2012). The site is currently thought to have two main periods of occupation, the first from 37,000-33,500 cal BP (during the Aurignacian period) and the second from 31,000-28,000 cal BP (during the Gravettian period) (Quiles et al. 2016).

The landscape surrounding Chauvet cave during the Aurignacian period was similar to the landscape today. Geological erosion had already been working over six million years to create the high cliffs and plateaus of Urgonian limestone and the karstic cave systems (French Ministry). The only major geological difference today is that the prehistoric entrance to the cave no longer exists, likely due to a series of rockfalls (Quiles et al. 2016).

Ecologically, southern France had a mosaic of steppes and tundra during the Aurignacian period, which allowed for large herds of herbivores such as reindeer, horses, and woolly mammoths (French Ministry). Carnivores such as lions, hyenas and cave bears also inhabited the area. Some of these species have since gone extinct, and some relocated with changes in the local climate.

History

The site was discovered by three speleologists, Jean-Marie Chauvet, Éliette Brunel and Christian Hillaire, on December 18^th, 1994 (French Ministry). They were hiking along the Cirque d’Estre when they decided to enter a small, previously identified cave. At the end of this cave, Chauvet noticed a slight breeze coming from between some fallen rocks, which prompted further investigation. Behind the rocks, they discovered a new cave, in which they found a high-ceilinged chamber, animal bones, and hundreds of paintings and engravings on the rock walls.

With the stunning discovery, preservation was a top priority. So, in 1995, the French Ministry of Culture and Communication determined that the cave would remain closed to the public, and in 1998, they began financing a multidisciplinary team to study the cave. The team could only move along designated walkways, were prohibited from digging, and had to carefully select samples to keep the artwork well preserved.

Many studies of the artworks have since been conducted at the site, with multiple different dating techniques used to develop a timeline of occupation. The site was first dated to the Solutrean period using stylistic comparison methods between other known cave paintings, but later radiocarbon dates suggested a much older period of around 32,000-30,000 BP (Quiles et al. 2016). These conflicting dates provoked further testing, and the site is currently thought to have two main periods of occupation, as detailed in the prior section.

Relevance

The major discovery within the cave was more than 420 well-preserved paintings and engravings (Cuzange 2007). Most of these paintings depict animals, with the most common animals being rhinoceroses, lions, and mammoths. Some of these animals are isolated, while some are small pieces of much larger compositions.

The colour scheme consists of red, black and white. The white images on the cave walls are actually engravings, as opposed to the pigments applied to the walls for the black and red images (Fritz and Tosello 2015). Some of the engraved lines are too deep and fine to be created by fingers, suggesting that tools, such as fragments of wood or bone, were also used to create certain artistic effects. Additionally, complex techniques are showcased, such as blending, as well as creating dots by spraying pigment on the surface via mouth or tube (Fritz and Tosello 2015). Some lines are so regular that a brush may have even been used to create them.

These paintings are important because they are the oldest known figurative cave paintings in Europe and are much more elaborate and advanced than expected for the time (Sadier et al. 2012). Their discovery revolutionized our understanding of human cognitive evolution by showing that complex abstract thought and sophisticated artistic techniques developed much earlier than previously believed (Cuzange 2007). Studies of certain wall panels, such as the "Panneau des Cheveaux”, have revealed that the artist(s) planned their compositions, as they reserved spaces in earlier stages of the painting for a later overlapping addition. Furthermore, in the "Alcove des Lions", the figures are interwoven, showing that the artist(s) were capable of careful consideration for each piece and its role in the narrative as a whole (Fritz and Tosello 2015).

SITE 4: Göbekli Tepe

AUTHOR: Teah Bryce
LOCATION: Southeastern Anatolia region in Turkey. It is located 37.22306 degrees North and 38.9225 degrees East.
AGE: 9th-10th millennium BCE

Context

Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old and located in southeastern Turkey. It contains about 200 towers and arranged in 20 circles which sit on a plateau and overlooks the Harran plane, Balikh River and Taurus mountains. Due to the many geographically different areas surrounding Göbekli Tepe, it is expected there are several ecological habitats in this location, however this is not the case. The average rainfall of around 500mm annually allows for an arid forest with little vegetation except for a few thorn bushes and a mulberry tree that sits on top of the plateau. Along with the mulberry tree, there is a thin layer of soil covering the floor of the site, which contributes to sparse amounts of vegetation. Furthermore, slopes of the plateau are abundant in barley, which grows well in dry conditions and grass. The lower foothills contain a single pistachio tree and are also abundant in barley. Overall, there is very sparse vegetation at the Göbekli Tepe site due to the little amount of rainfall in southeastern Turkey. The geography and ecology of the site is similar to how it was 12,000 years ago (Neef 2003).

History

Göbekli Tepe was first investigated and studied by archaeologists like Jaques Cauvin and Savak Yildiz, who was Göbekli Tepe's founder, however only 5 percent of the site has been unearthed (Schmidt 1998). Artifacts, like the Göbekli Tepe towers, carvings and bones are makeup most of that 5 percent.

The Göbekli Tepe towers were founded in 1994 by Klaus Schmidt, a member of the German Archeological Institute in Berlin, who had been looking for a site to excavate. He came across a brief description of Göbekli Tepe, took interest in it and began to excavate the site a year later with 6 other workers. They uncovered several massive T-shaped towers 3 meters high above ground. Having seen similar structures in his previous excavations and by radiocarbon dating and tool comparisons, Schmidt acknowledged these towers are megaliths, which are prehistoric stones and slabs. The relative dating of the slabs and stone, suggest they date back to 12,000 years ago, which was the beginning of the Neolithic time period. Additionally, the towers were arranged in circles and had many carvings, ranging from stylized arms to snakes, spiders, boars, birds and foxes (Curry 2008). Furthermore, fragmented human bones that were deposited around the towers were discovered there (Gresky et al. 2017).

Relevance

The building of the towers in a circular manner by members of the Neolithic communities represented ritual practice. For instance, once the towers were built, they would be carved and there would be a giant feasting (Dietrich et al. 2012). Afterwards, the towers would be buried and this process would happen on a regular basis (Warburton 2012). Ritual practice indicated cult-like behaviours, but this theory wasn’t confirmed until skull and bone fragments were found (Gresky et al. 2017).

Overall, about forty skulls have been found at Göbekli Tepe along with other bone fragments that stem from the skull. Ten percent of the bone fragments found had cut marks from defleshing activities. Furthermore, decapitation processes are evident at the site as cervical vertebrae with cut marks were also discovered. Study of taphonomic features indicated there were four types of intentional modification to skulls by members of the cult. One modification they used is drill perforation, carvings, application of color and smaller cut marks. With all of this evidence, especially the bone fragments, it was concluded the members who built the towers at Göbekli Tepe were in a cult, particularly a skull cult (Gresky et al. 2017).

People of the Neolithic era believed that cult behaviour would provide them with religious experience and they were reinforced through communal gatherings and rituals (Biehl 2011), indicating why cult-life was common during this time period.

Advanced religious practice (such as participating in cult rituals) gives insight to the cognitive abilities humans during the Neolithic era had. Religion is a difficult concept to understand as there are many different religions and many different theories within those religions on how it should be practiced. Communal gatherings, rituals and cutting of skulls indicate that these humans could cooperate, somewhat communicate and build tools, which are more signs of a fairly complex cognitive system. Furthermore, cooperation is a group behaviour meaning these humans had social systems and dominance hierarchies (Doyle, lecture, 28 May 2020). Therefore, there must have been a group leader in the cult who set the rules. Overall, archaeologists believe members of the cult at Göbekli Tepe were part of hunter-gatherer societies as these people live in and interact with society just like humans today (Curry 2008).

CONCLUSION

Symbolic material culture has played important roles in how humans have expressed themselves throughout evolution, as made evident by historical sites such as Blombos Cave, Hohle Fels Cave, Chauvet Cave, and Göbekli Tepe. These historical sites have all significantly contributed to how culture is expressed and understood today. Remains of different forms of art and bones have been found at these sites, which has given researchers ideas of what the lifestyle (behaviour and communication methods) of an early human looked like. Early human drawings were first discovered at Blombos Cave, which exhibits the early emergence of altered cognitive capabilities in human ancestors. Similarly, evidence of early human cognitive abilities were found at Hohle Fels Cave, which displays early evidence of human expression through music. Furthermore, cave paintings found at Chauvet Cave illustrate complex and abstract thought evolving in early humans. Artifacts of damaged skulls found at Göbekli Tepe also show a different type complex human thinking, as cult rituals were believed to have taken place at this site. All of these findings have contributed to what is known about early human life, and indicate to researchers how our species has advanced and changed over time, through a process known as human evolution.

One of the main advancements of human evolution that has occurred regards the human cognitive system. As represented by the sites, the level of cognitive abilities a species has often reflects their behaviour and practices. For example, as seen by the Gobekli Tepe site, humans who lived during the Neolithic era had reasonably complex cognitive abilities and therefore were able to participate in cult rituals and feastings, which is considered an advanced form of behaviour. However, species living in a period before the Neolithic era may have not been able to participate in such activities. These complex behavioural changes within species is known as behavioural modernity. Some other key signs of behavioural modernity are seen through advancements of language, symbols, communication, complex religious rituals, and tool creation. For example, an increase in communicative skills represents another behavioural change, as humans once were only able to communicate using symbols, whereas now, modern day humans can communicate in several different ways, including language. Overall, symbolic material culture, with its many different forms, plays a key role in understanding how human evolution has occurred.

REFERENCES

Appenzeller, Tim. 2013. “Neanderthal Culture: Old Masters.” Nature 497 (7449): 302–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/497302a.

Biehl, Peter F. 2011. “9 Meanings and Functions of Enclosed Places in the European Neolithic: A Contextual Approach to Cult, Ritual, and Religion.” Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21, no. 1:130–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01041.x.

Conard, Nicholas J. 2003. "Palaeolithic Ivory Sculptures from Southwestern Germany and the Origins of Figurative Art." Nature 426 (6968) (Dec): 830-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02186.

Conard, Nicholas J. 2009. "A Female Figurine from the Basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in Southwestern Germany." Nature 459 (7244) (May 14): 248-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07995.

Conard, Nicholas J., Maria Malina, and Susanne Münzel C. 2009. "New Flutes Document the Earliest Musical Tradition in Southwestern Germany.” Nature 460 (7256) (Aug 06): 737-40. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08169.

Curry, Andrew. 2008. Seeking the Roots of Ritual. Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.319.5861.278.

Cuzange, Marie-Thérèse, Emmanuelle Delqué-Količ, Tomasz Goslar, Pieter Meiert Grootes, Tom Higham, Evelyne Kaltnecker, Marie-Josée Nadeau, et al. 2007. “Radiocarbon Intercomparison Program for Chauvet Cave.” Radiocarbon 49, no. 2: 339–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200042272.

Derrico, Francesco, Christopher Henshilwood, Marian Vanhaeren, and Karen Van Niekerk. 2005. “Nassarius Kraussianus Shell Beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for Symbolic Behaviour in the Middle Stone Age.” Journal of Human Evolution 48, no. 1: 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.002.

Dietrich, Heun M, Notroff J, Schmidt K and Zarnkow M 2012 The Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity, 86(333), 674-695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047840.

Dixson, Alan F., and Barnaby J. Dixson. 2011. “Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?” Journal of Anthropology 2011: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/569120.

Douze, Katja, Sarah Wurz, and Christopher Stuart Henshilwood. 2015. “Techno-Cultural Characterization of the MIS 5 (c. 105 – 90 Ka) Lithic Industries at Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa.” Plos One 10, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142151.

French Ministry of Culture. “The Ardèche Valley.” The Chauvet-Pont d'Arc Cave. Accessed June 10th, 2020. https://archeologie.culture.fr/chauvet/en/environment.

Fritz, Carole, and Gilles Tosello. 2015. “From Gesture to Myth: Artists’ Techniques on the Walls of Chauvet Cave.” Palethnologie, no. 7. https://doi.org/10.4000/palethnologie.876.

Fuentes, Agustín. 2015. “Integrative Anthropology and the Human Niche: Toward a Contemporary Approach to Human Evolution.” American Anthropologist 117, no. 2: 302–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12248.

Gresky, Julia, Juliane Haelm, and Lee Clare. 2017. “Modified Human Crania from Göbekli Tepe Provide Evidence for a New Form of Neolithic Skull Cult.” Science Advances 3, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700564.

“Hohle Fels.” University of Tübingen, November 25, 2019. https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/faculties/faculty-of-science/departments/geosciences/work-groups-contacts/urgeschichte-naturwissenschaftliche-archaeologie/research-department/early-prehistory-and-quaternary-ecology/research/excavations/germany/hohle-fels/.

Neef, Reinder. 2003. “Overlooking the Steppe Forest: Preliminary Report on the Botanical Remains from Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe (southern Turkey).” Neo-lithics 2003(2): 13–15. http://exoriente.org/docs/00046.pdf.

Porr, Martin. 2010. “Palaeolithic Art as Cultural Memory: a Case Study of the Aurignacian Art of Southwest Germany.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20, no. 1: 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774310000065.

Quiles, Anita, Hélène Valladas, Hervé Bocherens, Emmanuelle Delqué-Količ, Evelyne Kaltnecker, Johannes Van Der Plicht, Jean-Jacques Delannoy, et al. 2016. “A High-Precision Chronological Model for the Decorated Upper Paleolithic Cave of Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardèche, France.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 17: 4670–75. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523158113.

Sadier, Benjamin, Jean-Jacques Delannoy, Lucilla Benedetti, Didier L. Bourles, Stephane Jaillet, Jean-Michel Geneste, Anne-Elisabeth Lebatard, and Maurice Arnold. 2012. “Further Constraints on the Chauvet Cave Artwork Elaboration.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 21: 8002–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118593109.

Schmidt, Klaus. 1998. “Beyond Daily Bread: Evidence of Early Neolithic Ritual from Göbekli Tepe.” Neo-Lithics 1998(2): 1–5. http://www.exoriente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_1998_2.pdf.

Tribolo, C., N. Mercier, M. Selo, H. Valladas, J.-L. Joron, J.-L. Reyss, C. Henshilwood, J. Sealy, and R. Yates. 2006. “Tl Dating of Burnt Lithics From Blombos Cave (South Africa): Further Evidence for The Antiquity Of Modern Human Behaviour*.” Archaeometry 48, no. 2: 341–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00260.x.

UNESCO. “Caves and Ice Age Art in the Swabian Jura.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1527.

Warburton, David A. 2012. Architecture, Power, and Religion: Hatshepsut, Amun & Karnak in Context. Zurich: LIT.

Wolcott Paskey, Amanda and AnnMarie Beasley Cisneros. 2019. "Chapter 11. Archaic Homo." In Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology, edited by Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Lara Braff and Kelsie Aguilera. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

Woodward, Ian. 2007. Understanding Material Culture. London: SAGE.

Wurz, Sarah. 2012. “The Transition to Modern Behavior.” Nature Education Knowledge 3, no. 10: 15. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-transition-to-modern-behavior-86614339/.

Youngblood, Bethany. 2013. “Gobekli Tepe.” Gobekli Tepe: The Buried Temple. The Genius of Ancient Man. Digital Picture. http://geniusofancientman.blogspot.com/2013/10/gobekli-tepe-buried-temple.html.