Upper Paleolithic Technology 213Supporters of the multiregional hypothesis argue that
we cannot.^28 They suggest that using a series of biological
features to represent a type of human being (Neandertals)
with certain cultural capacities (inferior) is like making
assumptions about cultural capabilities of living humans
based on their appearance. In living peoples, such an as-
sumption would be considered stereotyping or even rac-
ism. Supporters of the recent African origins hypothesis
counter that because their theory embraces African hu-
man origins, it could hardly be considered prejudicial.
While paleoanthropologists all acknowledge African
origins for the first bipeds and the genus Homo, consid-
erable disagreement exists with regard to the interpreta-
tion of the relationship between biological change and
cultural change as we approach the present. The fossil and
archaeological evidence from the Middle Paleolithic does
not indicate a simple one-to-one correspondence between
cultural innovations and a biological change preserved in
the shape of the skull.
Upper Paleolithic Technology
In the Upper Paleolithic new techniques of core prepara-
tion allowed for more intensive production of highly stan-
dardized blades and permitted the proliferation of this tool
type. The toolmaker formed a cylindrical core, struck the
blade off near the edge of the core, and repeated this pro-
cedure, going around the core in one direction until finish-
ing near its center (Figure 9.5). The procedure is analogous
to peeling long leaves off an artichoke. With this blade
technique, an Upper Paleolithic flint knapper could get
75 feet of working edge from a 2-pound core; a Mousterian
knapper could get only 6 feet from the same sized core.
Other efficient techniques of tool manufacture also
came into common use at this time. One such method was
pressure flaking, in which a bone, antler, or wooden tool
was used to press rather than strike off small flakes as the
final step in stone tool manufacture (Figure 9.6). The ad-
vantage of this technique is that the toolmaker has greater
control over the final shape of the tool than is possible with
percussion flaking alone. The so-called Solutrean laurel leaf
bifaces found in Spain and France are examples of this tech-
nique (see photo on page 214). The longest of these tools is
33 centimeters (13 inches) in length but less than a centime-
ter (about a quarter of an inch) thick. Through pressure flak-
ing, tools could be worked with great precision into a variety
of final forms, and worn tools could be effectively resharp-
ened over and over until they were too small for further use.
Although invented in the Middle Paleolithic, the burin,
a tool with a chisel-like edge, became more common in
Figure 9.6 Two methods used for pressure flaking in which a
bone, antler, or wooden tool is used to press rather than strike
off small flakes.blade technique A technique of stone tool manufacture in
which long, parallel-sided flakes are struck off the edges of a
specially prepared core.
pressure flaking A technique of stone tool manufacture in
which a bone, antler, or wooden tool is used to press, rather
than strike off, small flakes from a piece of flint or similar stone.
burin A stone tool with chisel-like edges used for working28 bone and antler.
Wolpoff & Caspari.
Figure 9.5 During the Upper Paleolithic, a new technique
was used to manufacture blades. The stone is worked to create
a striking platform; long, almost parallel-sided flakes then are
struck around the sides, providing sharp-edged blades.Direction
of forceStriking
platformBlade Corethe Upper Paleolithic. Burins facilitated the working of
bone, horn, antler, and ivory into such useful things as
fishhooks, harpoons, and eyed needles. These implements
made life easier for Homo sapiens, especially in colder