kuhn 2004, upper paleolithic raw material economies at ucazi

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 431–448

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Upper Paleolithic raw material economiesat Ucagızlı cave, Turkey

Steven L. Kuhn*

Department of Anthropology, Bldg. 30, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA

Received 15 September 2004

Abstract

This paper addresses variation in lithic raw material economy within the early Upper Paleolithic at Ucagızlı cave(south-central Turkey). The stratigraphic sequence documents some 12,000 years of the early Upper Paleolithic, entail-ing changes in lithic technology, raw material exploitation, and game use. Although the same lithic raw materials wereexploited throughout the sequence to make quite similar ranges of products, there are marked changes in the ways rawmaterials from different source areas were treated, including patterns of transport and raw material consumption. Theconcept of technological provisioning is used to understand changing strategies for procuring and managing supplies offlint from different source locations. Shifts in raw material economy are argued to represent responses to changes inresidential mobility and the scale/duration of occupations at the cave itself: data on cultural features and foraging strat-egies provide independent evidence for these shifts in land use. Results have implications for more nuanced approachesto investigating of lithic raw material economies and the significance of ‘‘raw material transfers.’’� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lithic raw material economy; Upper Paleolithic; Turkey; Technological provisioning; Mobility

The study of lithic raw material economies has as-sumed an increasingly prominent role in lithic studiesand research on prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Evidencefor the procurement, transport, and management ofchipped stone raw materials has served as the basis forinferences about mobility (Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990;Amick, 1996; Blades, 1999; Feblot-Augustins, 1993;Thacker, 1996), territoriality (Delage, 2001; Demars,1998; Hovers, 1990; Wengler, 1990), exchange (Bourque,1994; Hughes, 1994; Meltzer, 1989), colonization pat-terns (Rockman, 2003; Tankersley, 1994), cognitivecapacities (Boesch and Boesch, 1984; Roebroeks et al.,

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserve

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2004.09.001

* Fax: +1 520 621 2088.E-mail address: [email protected] (S.L. Kuhn).

1988; Stiles, 1998; Wynn and McGrew, 1989), as wellas social and reproductive networks (Feblot-Augustins,1993, p. 251; MacDonald, 1999) among prehistoric for-agers and human ancestors alike.

Although there is broad agreement about the impor-tance of knowing where raw materials came from andhow far they were moved before becoming part of thearchaeological record, there is little consensus on the sig-nificance of so-called ‘‘transfer distances.’’ Many archae-ologists use the distance from find spot to source as aproxy for raw material cost. Transfer distance is treatedas proportional to the time and energy that people werewilling to or constrained to expend in getting access to aparticular type of stone. However, the distances stonewas moved in the past have no intrinsic meaning. Suchfacts are simply one frame of reference against which

d.

mailto:[email protected]

432 S.L. Kuhn / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 431–448

we can recognize and attempt to understand variation inhuman behavior. Artifacts can be transferred fromsource to site in many different ways, and the relation-ship between distance and cost varies according tohow the transfer took place. More than just where thingscame from, we want to know how members of particularcommunities, populations, or species managed to getlithic raw materials from source to places where toolswere made and used, given the particular constraintsthey experienced. The strategies people used to keepthemselves supplied with stone were influenced by a widerange of factors, from territoriality and social networksto practical limits on travel and time allocation. Analyt-ically, the relationships between material transfer dis-tances and characteristics of artifact life histories (orchaınes operatoires) are of special interest, as they can in-form us about the stages of transformation and use thatartifacts underwent during the journey from source topoint of discard.

This paper presents a case study in changing rawmaterial economy among prehistoric foragers using asingle location. The Upper Paleolithic sequence atUcagızlı cave, Turkey, documents shifts in lithic technol-ogy, raw material exploitation, and foraging occurringover a period of more than 12,000 years. The same lithicraw materials—possibly the very same outcrops—wereexploited throughout the sequence, and these flints wereused to make quite similar kinds of artifact. At the sametime, changes in how various raw materials were treatedprovide evidence of shifts in strategies for procuring andmanaging supplies of flint from different source loca-tions. The concept of technological provisioning servesas a useful framework for evaluating strategies of rawmaterial use, which are argued to have been responsesto changes in the ways the cave itself was used. The lithicevidence suggests that there was continuity in provision-ing strategies for much of the sequence, but that majorchanges occurred in the most recent Upper Paleolithiclayers. Evidence from cultural features and the zooar-chaeological record suggests that the shift in provision-ing strategies coincided with increasing intensity andduration of occupations at the site.

Technological provisioning, mobility, and site use

The term provisioning, often invoked in studies oflithic raw material economies, has more than one mean-ing. Among Continental European researchers it oftenrefers to systems for the acquisition of raw materialssuitable for making tools (e.g., Demars, 1982; Geneste,1988a,b; Perles, 1990; Trassierra et al., 2002; Turq,1996). Such studies focus primarily on locations wherematerials were obtained and inferred patterns of trans-port from quarries to archaeological sites: commonproducts are ‘‘star diagrams’’ linking point sources with

a site at the center. A somewhat different set of concepts(and methods) is embodied in the notion of provisioningstrategies (Kuhn, 1992, 1995, 2002). Provisioning strate-gies are idealized systems for making finished tools and/or necessary raw materials available when and wherethey are needed. The concept of provisioning strategiesencompasses a variety of different pathways by whichartifacts may find their way from quarry to archaeolog-ical deposit. These are strategies only in the abstractsense, repeated patterns of behavior that limit and directthe flow of artifacts and raw materials through a techno-logical system, and it is not assumed that they existed asconscious goals in the minds of ancient people.

Three alternative strategies have been identified formaking artifacts or artifact-making potential whenand where needed. Since technological activities areinevitably associated with specific locations, one optionis to stockpile tools and/or raw materials at places onthe landscape where activities are likely to take place.Many, if not most activities involving stone tools takeplace at residential sites, but manufacture or tool usemay also occur at other kinds of locations, such as spe-cialized resource procurement or processing sites. Asartifacts must be used by people, a second potentialstrategy entails keeping individuals supplied with theartifacts and raw materials they are likely to use. Thesefirst two strategies involve a measure of planning, andas such, they represent two alternative forms of ‘‘cura-tion behavior.’’ Provisioning of individuals fits mostclosely with common understanding of the term (Bin-ford, 1979; Shott, 1997), but both entail supplying indi-viduals or places according to anticipated needs. Athird provisioning ‘‘strategy’’ actually involves little orno planning. This is termed provisioning activities, pro-ducing artifacts on an ad hoc basis as needs for themarise.

The three provisioning strategies operate under dif-ferent sets of constraints, and are expected to result incontrasting artifact life histories, that is generalized tra-jectories of raw material procurement, tool manufac-ture, maintenance and discard. In provisioningindividuals, who are by definition mobile, transport costis an important constraint. Strategies of provisioningindividuals should be based on maximizing potentialutility of artifacts relative to weight. Just how this is bestaccomplished remains a topic of some disagreement(Goodyear, 1989; Kuhn, 1994; Morrow, 1995; Nelson,1991; Roth and Dibble, 1998; Shott, 1986), but it is gen-erally agreed that those individuals will most often pro-vision themselves with finished tools rather than rawmaterials. In order to extend their utility and minimizethe amount that must be carried, artifacts used to provi-sion individuals should often be resharpened and re-shaped as their edges wear out. In some cases,significant effort may be devoted to obtaining raw mate-rials or achieving artifact forms (e.g., bifaces or Levallois

S.L. Kuhn / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23 (2004) 431–448 433

flakes) that maximize utility per unit weight (Goodyear,1989; Kelly, 1988; Kuhn, 1994).

Provisioning places requires carrying artifacts or rawmaterials from the point of procurement to the specificplace(s) being provisioned. Substantial quantities ofgoods can be amassed in permanently occupied or fre-quently visited locations and used as needed, and it is ex-pected that places will more often be provisioned withraw material in various states of manufacture, from un-worked raw materials to blanks and finished tools.Amassing a ready supply of stone in places where it willbe used also relaxes need to squeeze the last bit of useout of every artifact. Provisioning of places thereforeshould be marked by less investment in artifact manu-facture and less extensive reduction and reworking oftools than the strategy of provisioning individuals.

The provisioning of activities as needs present them-selves is subject to a somewhat different set of limitationsand advantages. With any sort of planned strategy thereis always the chance of over-anticipating needs, collect-ing, manufacturing and carrying artifacts that are neveractually used (Surovell, 2003), so making artifacts onlywhen there are immediate needs for them eliminatesrisks of overproduction. Because making tools in reac-tion to an immediate need places the toolmaker undermore severe time constraints, we expected provisioningof activities to involve minimal investment in manufac-ture and to focus on locally plentiful materials. Relianceon ad hoc manufacture also places people at the mercyof the geological environment. Where raw materialsare not ubiquitous ad hoc provisioning of activities isrisky or potentially costly, as there is a strong possibilityof being left without the artifacts needed to carry out atask effectively. Ad hoc production is reliable only whereraw materials are known to be available close to wheretools are used. Alternatively, it is a low-cost option forsomeone prepared to do without tools at all.

No human group is expected to rely exclusively on asingle mode of technological provisioning, and no twogroups are expected to show exactly the same mix ofstrategies. We can also expect individuals within groupsto have adopted different mixes of strategies, althoughmuch less attention has been paid to intra-group varia-tion to date. The relative importance of each strategy de-pends on the interaction of several variables, includingthe distribution and qualities of raw materials, residen-tial mobility, labor scheduling, and the nature of theactivities conducted. Raw material distributions forman essentially passive backdrop, a fixed set of constraintsthat can be reconstructed to a large degree based onmodern geology. The human variables are more interest-ing from an anthropological perspective.

Patterns of labor allocation and the characteristics ofindividual activities favor different strategies for main-taining a supply of usable artifacts. Artifacts used intasks conducted frequently and at unpredictable times

and places must be available at all times, and should of-ten form parts of toolkits carried by individuals. In con-trast, the requirements of activities associated withspecific times and locations, such as the processing ofseasonally or spatially restricted resources, can effec-tively be serviced with tools that have been provisionedto that place. Tasks such as hunting large game are char-acterized by high levels of ‘‘time stress’’—narrow win-dows of opportunity—(Torrence, 1983, 1989), andmust be carried out with pre-made artifacts provisionedto individuals or places. Tools for tasks with less severelogistical constraints can be supplied in a variety ofways; if suitable material is found nearby, artifactsmay even be produced on the spot. For example, amongearly Paleoindian groups, successful hunting of largegame depended on spears with stone points that weretransported and maintained over long periods, probablyas part of individuals� personal gear. If suitable rawmaterials were present, the more relaxed job of butcher-ing could be carried out using quickly produced andquickly discarded tools made from local stones (e.g., Fri-son and Stanford, 1982).

Mobility and land use can have pronounced influenceon the viability of different strategies provisioning toolsand raw materials. The relationship between mobilityand technological provisioning is approached in termsof an informal sort of optimality model, identifyingstrategies or strategic mixes that should be most advan-tageous under different conditions. Residential mobilitydirectly influences the predictability of the locationswhere activities will be conducted, and hence the utilityof alternative provisioning strategies. The more seden-tary a group is, the more predictable are the loci of activ-ities, and the greater are potential advantages ofprovisioning places. The inverse relationship betweenlevels of investment and maintenance of stone toolsand degrees of sedentism in the Americas (Parry andKelly, 1987) is a general expression of this tendency.Where the frequency of residential mobility is very highand occupational events very short, it is much morepractical to provision individuals. At the same time var-iability is expected within any group. The duration andpredictability of residential locations and levels of indi-vidual mobility vary over the course of a year and acrossthe territory of all but the most sedentary peoples. Con-sequently, strategies for managing supplies of tools andraw material may be more dependent on local factorssuch as the nature of a particular occupation than onbroader strategies of moving around the landscape.

Both general levels of residential mobility and theduration of occupations should also affect how distanceto source relates to the actual cost of artifacts and rawmaterials, and how both variables correlate with artifactlife histories. In the case of extremely brief occupationspeople may have to rely entirely on transported toolkits,but as the length of a residential stay lengthens it be-

naty

Resaltado


comes more practical to provision the residential site it-self with chippable stone. All other things being equal,we can expect foraging catchments—and by extension,the catchment area for provisioning a place withstone—to expand as occupations become more pro-longed and local resources are used up (Surovell,2000). Thus, in the case of provisioning places transferdistances for raw materials should reflect duration ofoccupation to some degree. Moreover, because rawmaterials are moved more-or-less directly from sourceto the place of use there should be a direct relationshipbetween transfer distances and raw material cost, and,all other things being equal, we can expect economizingbehavior of toolmakers to reflect this.

Artifacts used to provision individuals may also betransported long distances as a function of individualmobility. Such artifacts are not carried to locations somuch as carried along with people, so the distance tosource may say much more about scales of individualmobility than about use of the site itself. Moreover, be-cause the tools are carried along as part of transportedtoolkits, distance to source and cost are not equivalent.Generally speaking, we might expect artifacts from moredistant sources to show greater evidence for reductionand reworking since those artifacts would have been inuse for a long time before being deposited in the site.However, in the case of provisioning individuals therelationship between artifact life history and distanceto source depends more on the route of movement thanactual distance (e.g., Hofman, 1991) and less on the ac-tual cost of procurement.

A case study: Ucagızlı cave

Ucagızlı (‘‘three mouths’’) cave is located on theMediterranean coast of the Hatay region of southernTurkey, around 15 km south of the mouth of the Asi(Orontes) river, in the extreme northeast corner of theMediterranean basin (Fig. 1A). The area aroundUcagızlı cave is characterized by dramatic relief, andtopography would not have been radically different dur-ing the Pleistocene. The coast is very steep in the vicinityof the cave—the sea-floor reaches a depth of 200 m with-in 5 km of the present-day shoreline—so even duringperiods of very low sea level associated with Oxygen Iso-tope stage 3 the site would always have been within afew kilometers of the shore.

The vault of Ucagızlı cave collapsed at some time inthe past, resulting in the loss of roughly 3 m of archaeo-logical deposits to erosion. Intact archaeological depos-its are preserved in two areas within the site (Fig. 1B).The narrow, tubular chamber at the south end of the sitecontains at least a meter of heavily cemented UpperPaleolithic sediments: this area was excavated by a pre-vious investigator during the late 1980s (Minzoni-Der-

oche, 1992). A deeper stratigraphic sequence ispreserved at the north end of the site along what wasformerly the back wall of the cave, and this is wherethe current project has concentrated its efforts (Kuhnet al., 1999, 2004). Sediments at the extreme north endof our excavation trench reach a depth of more than4.5 m. Early Upper Paleolithic cultural materials areabundant in the uppermost 3 m or so of the sequence,while artifacts and bone are quite scarce below approx-imately 350 cm below datum.

The lithology of the stratigraphic sequence atUcagızlı cave (Fig. 2) is fairly homogeneous. The maingeogenic sedimentary component is reddish clay or siltyclay, the well-known terra rosa sediment typical of kar-stic terrain in the Mediterranean basin. Individual layersare differentiated primarily on the basis of the abun-dance and character of anthropogenic elements such asash and charcoal, artifacts, and bone, and only second-arily based on subtle variations in the clay matrix. Somelayers consist mainly of terra rosa clay with a relativelyminor amounts of ash. Other units are marked by amuch more evident anthropogenic component, rangingfrom massive deposits of ash to closely superimposedash and charcoal lenses. These distinctions certainly re-flect a combination of factors. Layers composed mostlyof terra rosa with little ash may represent less intensiveoccupations, but they may also derive from periodswhen more clay was flowing into the cave from outside.

Patterns of human occupation appear to have variedeven among the layers with the strongest anthropogenicsignals. At the bottom of the sequence, in layers H2-3and the upper part of layer I, for example, ash, charcoal,artifacts, and bones are concentrated in relatively thin,discrete lenses, separated by bands or stringers of clay.This finely divided structure suggests that human occu-pation consisted of a series of many relatively briefevents. In contrast, layer B1-B4 is dominated by a mas-sive ‘‘dump’’ of ash, lithics, and bone that suggests amuch more continuous deposition of anthropogenic sed-iment and perhaps a more prolonged occupation. Thiscontrast will be important in understanding changingtechnological provisioning strategies at Ucagızlı cave.

During excavation, many layers were further subdi-vided into a series of lenses or facies with designationssuch as B1, B2, or H3, based on variation in the amount,character, and distributions of ash and other material.Because they reflect human actions, these sub-units sel-dom extended over more than a few square meters: someat least partially overlap in time as well. In the analysesbelow some of these finer units have been combined intounits B1-B4, Fa/Fb, and H2/H3 to provide greaterstratigraphic and chronological separation of the analyt-ical units. Results presented also represent a subsampleof the total artifact assemblage derived from Ucagızlıcave. The materials discussed below come from a blockof 8 m2 units at the north end of the excavation trench.

Fig. 1. Location (A) and layout (B) of Ucagızlı cave. Shaded areas show flint-bearing limestones closest to the site. Geological datafrom 1:500,000 Olcekli Turkiye Jeoloji Haritası, Hatay, and Adana quads. Maden Tektik ve Arama Genel Mudurlugu, Ankara, 2002.


These squares, which yielded the majority of archaeolog-ical materials from the site, sample all or most of thestratigraphic column, and this horizontally continuoussubsample was considered most appropriate for the pur-poses of examining change over time.

In terms of common chronostratigraphic units, theUcagızlı cave sequence documents a transition betweenan Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) technological systemand the Ahmarian, a more classic early Upper Paleo-

lithic industry. Assemblages from layers B, B1-B4, andC are typically Ahmarian in character, whereas layersF, Fa, Fb/Fc, G, H, H2/H3, and I fall within the InitialUpper Paleolithic (Fig. 2). Due to the small sizes of theassemblages and the atypical nature of many artifacts,the assemblages from C/D, D, and E are somewhatmore difficult to characterize, but they are certainly clo-ser to the Ahmarian than to the IUP. The range ofassemblages represented at Ucagızlı cave is very similar

Fig. 2. Ucagızlı cave stratigraphy, showing approximate depth ranges of major chronostratigraphic units.


to that found in Ksar �Akil shelter, layers XXII-XVI(Azoury, 1986; Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990). A suiteof AMS radiocarbon determinations from Ucagızlı indi-cates that the entire suite of Upper Paleolithic assem-blages spans a period from roughly 41,000 to 28,000(uncalibrated) radiocarbon years BP. A small Epipaleo-lithic sample, stratigraphically unconnected with the restof the sequence, is not discussed here.

The Initial Upper Paleolithic at Ucagızlı cave (layer Fand below) is characterized by wide, flat blades andpoints with broad facetted platforms. Few specimensfit a strict definition for Levallois products but the gen-eral configuration of both blanks and cores is highlyreminiscent of Levallois method, particularly in layersG through I. Dorsal scar patterns on blanks reflect pre-dominantly unidirectional parallel or convergent orien-tation of detachments, and most cores have a singlestriking platform. The large platforms and pronouncedbulbs of percussion suggest that hard-hammer percus-sion was the dominant technique. Endscrapers, espe-cially short, thick specimens with faceted butts, are themost common retouched tool forms. Burins are alsomoderately abundant (Fig. 3, 11–17). Chanfreins, anartifact type characteristic of the IUP in Lebanon (Azo-ury, 1986; Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990), are clearlypresent only in layer I.

The Ahmarian assemblages of layers B, B1-B4, and Cat the top of the sequence are characterized by very reg-ular blade blanks produced from bidirectional prismaticcores. The morphologies of both cores and blades sug-gest that soft hammer or indirect percussion was usedat least in the final stages of blank production: platformson blades are small, sometimes invisible, and often showevidence of extensive preparation by grinding. Elon-gated simple endscrapers on blades are the most com-mon tool forms in the Ahmarian assemblages. Otherrelatively common tool forms include retouched and/or pointed blades (Ksar �Akil or el Wad points) (Fig.3, 1–10). Burins are very rare, as are typical Aurignacianforms such as Dufour bladelets and carenated pieces.

These changes in blade production technology arequite significant in terms of Levantine Upper Paleolithicsequences. Overall, however, the Ucagızlı cave sequenceis characterized by a notable degree of continuity. Withthe sole exception of the earliest layer (I), the majority oftools are made on blade blanks, and although the tech-nological attributes of these blades changed over timetheir basic sizes remained relatively constant. Retouchedtool inventories are also remarkably consistent. End-scrapers are the dominant tool for in every stratum ex-cept layer I. Pointed blades increase over time whereasburins become scarcer, but neither artifact class ac-

Fig. 3. Artifacts from Ucagızlı cave: 1–10, Ahmarian (layers B-C); 11–17, Initial Upper Paleolithic (layers F-I).


counts for more than 20% of retouched tools in anylayer.

Conditions of organic preservation at Ucagızlı caveare very good, and a range of artifacts and materials be-yond chipped stone is represented. Simple bone tools,mainly polished points, needles, and rods, are presentin small numbers in most levels. Shell ornaments are

abundant throughout the Upper Paleolithic sequence,although the composition and diversity of the ornamentassemblages changed over the time (Kuhn et al., 2001).Most layers also yielded rich faunal assemblages.

Changes in foraging over the long sequence atUcagızlı cave are also subtle but significant. Despite thesite�s proximity to the sea, medium to large terrestrial


ungulates were the predominant prey throughout theUpper Paleolithic occupation. This emphasis on largegame may be a function of local topography: steep-walled, narrow canyons on either side of the site wouldhave made excellent natural traps for game. The mostcommon prey species varied over time, probably as a re-sponse to changing terrestrial environments. In layers Ithrough F,Capra aegagrus, wild goat, was the main largeprey animal, followed in abundance by roe deer (Capre-olus capreolus): pig (Sus scrofa) and bear (Ursus arctos)are also presenting smaller but still appreciable numbers.In the middle layers (D, E) fallow deer (Dama mesopot-

amica), roe deer, and red deer (Cervus elaphus) were themost common large prey. In the uppermost layers (B,B1-B4, and C) roe deer is the most common prey item,followed in abundance by fallow deer: larger species suchas red deer, Bos primigenius, and Sus are quite rare.

The use of resources other than large game showsomewhat more striking trends. Below layer D it ap-pears that the inhabitants of Ucagızlı cave seldomexploited small game or marine resources, or at leastthat they did not return these foods to the cave. LayersB and B1-B4 in particular contain substantial quantitiesof small animal remains. Two varieties of shellfish thatinhabit rocky shores (Patella and Monodonta) are espe-cially common, but bones of rabbits, birds, and largefish are also abundant. The emphasis on small gameand marine foods reached its peak in the small Epipaleo-lithic sample. A similar tendency towards increasing dietbreadth and intensified focus on small game over thecourse of the Upper Paleolithic characterizes Upperand Epipaleolithic sequences throughout the Mediterra-nean basin (Stiner et al., 1999, 2000). We have no directevidence for the use of non-animal resources at Ucagızlıcave. However, several pitted anvil stones which couldhave been used to crack open nuts were recovered fromlayers B, B1-B4, and E. Some kind of technologicalapplication for these artifacts cannot be excluded,although bipolar technique, which would also producepitted anvils, was seldom used.

Lithic raw materials

The great majority of artifacts from the Upper Paleo-lithic layers at Ucagızlı cave was made of flint and alliedforms of crypto-crystalline silicate rock. The crypto-crystalline silicate materials show considerable varietyin color, graininess, and fossil inclusions. We have beenable to identify a number of potential primary and sec-ondary sources for several of the most common flintraw materials within a radius of approximately 30 kmof the site.

The primary flint sources closest to Ucagızlı cave areassociated with Upper Cretaceous limestone bedrock onthe high plateau north and east of the site. Surface expo-

sures near the town of Yayladag, roughly 15 km straight-line distance from the cave, contain spherical and ellip-soid nodules ranging in size up to 40 cm in length. Themost common variety of flint is a light gray or brown,semi-translucent material containing numerous small,round white fossils. Textures range from extremely fineto rather coarse grained. Cretaceous flints like those inthe Yayladag area are the most common raw materialsin all layers at Ucagızlı cave. No usable flints or chertshave been identified in the somewhat older Cretaceouslimestone into which the cave itself is eroded.

A second set of bedrock flint sources occurs in youn-ger (Eocene, Oligocene or Miocene) limestones around30 km distance away from Ucagızlı cave. Surface expo-sures near the village of S�enkoy yield relatively flat,irregularly shaped nodules of high-quality flint as largeas 30 cm. The S�enkoy flints vary in color and texturein different exposures, perhaps reflecting different lime-stone beds: the geological stratigraphy of the area isnot well worked out. The most abundant material is veryfine grained, opaque, brown to black flint. Although ithas better flaking properties than the Cretaceous flintsdescribed above, the dark brown S�enkoy flint is muchless abundant in the Upper Paleolithic at Ucagızlı cave.Other materials from the S�enkoy area, including a mot-tled brown, semi-translucent variety of flint, are morecommon in the assemblages from Ucagızlı cave.

Secondary deposits of heavily rolled flint pebbles andcobbles, associated with fossil beaches some distanceabove the modern shoreline, occur much closer toUcagızlı cave. We have identified two such depositswithin a few km of the site as well as several others lo-cated at slightly greater distances. Most pebbles foundon the surface today are less than 10–12 cm in length,smaller than nodules from the primary sources, butarchaeological specimens indicate that much larger peb-bles could be found in the area during the Pleistocene.The geological sources represented in these secondarydeposits are diverse. The characteristic translucent, fos-siliferous Cretaceous materials are abundant in thesepebble deposits, but other cypto-crystalline silicates,including radiolarites, are also present. Active cobblebeaches around Ucagızlı cave do not contain silicaterocks, but are composed exclusively of limestone anddolomite. Still, we cannot rule out the possibility thatdeposits containing siliceous materials are located evencloser to the site beneath the current level of the sea.

Because some materials, including the most commontypes of Cretaceous flint, occur in both primary and sec-ondary contexts within 20 km of the site, chemical ormineralogical criteria would be of little utility in deter-mining where a given specimen was actually collected.A simpler but nonetheless effective approach to assessingthe origins of specific artifacts is based on the nature ofcortex preserved on archaeological specimens (see alsoWhite, 1995, 1998). Several different types of cortex were


recorded during data collection. The term ‘‘fresh nod-ule’’ cortex refers to soft white chalky or opaline rindpreserving its original irregular surface. Specimens with‘‘rolled nodule’’ cortex exhibit soft, white outer layerthat has been lightly smoothed or eroded by somemechanical process, presumably water transport. ‘‘Peb-ble cortex’’ is a distinctively abraded, pitted outer sur-face showing evidence of extensive water transport andreworking: none of the original chalk or opal cortex isretained. In our experience in the area, pebbles frombeach deposits exhibit only pebble cortex, whereas bothfresh and rolled nodular cortex can be found only onspecimens collected around the primary source areas.

Differences in the nature of cortex on artifacts allowus to infer only minimum transport distances. Generallyspeaking, artifacts with nodular or rolled nodule cortexcannot have been collected closer to the site than theclosest primary deposits. Of course, flint-bearing lime-stone outcrops over a large area and it is possible thatsome of the specimens with nodular cortex came fromgreater distances. Likewise, individual specimens withpebble cortex could have been collected within a fewkm of the cave, though they could also have come frommore distant pebble beds. All of the raw materials whichwe can attribute to a geological source could have beencollected within around 30 km from the site. Distancesof 20–30 km lie outside the normal expected foraging ra-dius of hunter-gatherers (Kelly, 1995, pp. 136–141;Surovell, 2000), but are still within one to two days tra-vel of the site (given the steep topography). Specimensfrom more distant locales may well be present but thecurrent state of knowledge about flint sources in Turkeydoes not permit us to identify them. Given the fact thatthe most common variety of chipped stone raw materialwas obtained from both primary secondary sources, wecannot assess the origins of specimens that do not bearcortex. In the analyses below it is assumed that cortex-bearing pieces are representative of the larger populationof artifacts from the site.

Changing patterns of raw material exploitation

The first order of business is to examine where the rawmaterials found at Ucagızlı cave might have been col-

Table 1Frequencies of non-pebble (fresh and rolled nodule) cortex in variou

B B1-B4 C C/D D E

Retouched tools 83.6 91.7 76.0 (0/11) — 7Unretouched >2.5 cm 87.8 80.0 61.4 51.9 (1/3) 4Debris 91.0 90.1 42.6 42.6 18.7 4Cores — 70.0 — — — 4Cretaceous flint only 91.3 85.6 72.2 (4/8) — 5

Only cortical specimens counted.

lected. Table 1 shows the combined frequency of freshand rolled nodular cortex (i.e., cortex reflecting acquisi-tion at or near primary sources) among different artifactclasses in the assemblages from 13 combined strati-graphic units. Only cortex-bearing specimens are in-cluded in the calculation as only these specimens can beassigned to a general source area with any degree of reli-ability. Several general trends are apparent. First, thegeneral frequency of cortex representing primary sourcesincreases over time (Fig. 4), the very small sample fromlayer D representing an apparent interruption of thetrend. However, the assemblages from the two most re-cent layers, B and B1-B4, contain a good deal more freshand rolled nodular cortex than any of the others. Thisincreasing use of primary sources is also expressed within

the more common raw material class, the Cretaceousflint: in the earlier layers this kind of flint seems to havecome mainly from pebble sources, whereas later on theCretaceous material came mainly from primary deposits.

As would be expected, proportions of nodular orrolled nodule cortex, derived from more distant sources,are almost always higher for retouched tools than forflakes, debris, or cores. In all layers, roughly half ormore of cortex on retouched tools is of the fresh orrolled nodular varieties. Figures for unretouched flakes,debris, and cores show much wider ranges of variationbut, with two exceptions, layers B and B1-B4, the per-centages of nodular cortex are always substantially low-er than for retouched tools. This observation isconsistent with a general tendency observed across Mid-dle and Upper Paleolithic sites for the most distantsources of raw materials in a given site to be representedmore often by retouched tools than by debitage (Feblot-Augustins, 1993; Geneste, 1988a,b), and fits withtheoretical expectations about relationships betweentransport distance and artifact utility. We expect long-distance transport, whether in the context of provision-ing places or individuals, to involve artifacts with thehighest ratio of utility to mass (Kuhn, 1994; Shott,1986). Finished tools or prepared blanks contain morepotential utility and less waste than do cores or un-worked chunks of stone. More formal arguments abouttradeoffs between transport and processing decisionshave been made for food resources (e.g., Metcalfe andBarlow, 1992; O�Connell et al., 1988).

s artifact and raw material classes

F Fa Fb/Fc G H H2/H3 I

3.7 65.2 62.5 48.2 45.5 58.1 65.3 60.07.0 32.2 44.2 27.6 20.2 29.7 18.2 22.37.7 38.2 35.6 35.0 40.6 34.4 43.9 35.85.6 40.7 — — 9.1 16.7 20.0 10.07.6 31.0 38.5 22.1 7.9 12.7 5.1 16.7

Fig. 4. Frequency of cortex representing primary sources (non-pebble), by assemblage.

Fig. 5. Frequency of non-pebble cortex plotted against dispar-ity index.


A more suggestive trend can be observed from thedata presented in Table 2, the ‘‘disparity’’ in cortex pro-portions between retouched tools and unretouchedflakes and debris. This disparity figure, modified afterthe Robinson-Brainerd index of similarity (Robinson,1951), is calculated summed absolute differences in per-centages of the three cortex types (nodular, rolled nod-ule, and pebble) among two groups of artifacts;retouched tools and unretouched flakes, cores and debriscombined. Potential values for the index vary from zero(complete similarity) to 200 (complete dissimilarity).Unlike the overall frequency of nodular cortex, the trendover time in the disparity values is not smooth or mono-tonic. Instead, the index differentiates the two most re-cent layers form the rest of the sequence. Inassemblages from layers B and B1-B4, the proportionsof different cortex types for unretouched and retouchedmaterials are very similar, with disparity values of 25.0and 17.0, respectively. Values for layers I through Care considerably higher than this for the most part, rang-ing between 43.2 and 136.9, with no particular direc-tional stratigraphic trend. Only the disparity index forlayer G (29.1) approaches that for B and B1-B4.

Table 2Disparity index comparing proportions of different cortex types amondebris)

Disparity index B B1-B4 C C/D D E

25.0 17.0 72.8 137.9 50.0 53.1

When plotted against the assemblage-wide propor-tion of ‘‘non-pebble cortex,’’ cortex representing nodulescollected from near primary sources (Fig. 5), the dispar-ity values suggest that, during layer B and B1-B4 times,the occupants of Ucagızlı cave made a rather differentset of decisions about where to collect raw materialsand what to transport to the cave compared with otherperiods in the cave�s occupation. Not only did the site�soccupants use more material from primary sources atthis time, they apparently reduced cobbles of these mate-rials at the cave, leaving behind many reduction byprod-ucts with fresh or rolled nodular cortex and resulting inlow disparity values. In the other layers, artifacts bear-ing cortex from primary (non-pebble) sources are notonly scarcer, but they are represented mainly by re-touched tools, appearing much less frequently as flakes,cores, and debris, resulting in higher disparity indices.This second pattern indicates much more selective orlimited transport of material to the site from the primarydeposits. Judging by the cortex frequencies alone, thepreponderance of nodules worked in situ in layers Cand below came from secondary pebble beds, probablylocated in close proximity to the site. In these earlier lev-els, material from more distant sources found its way

g retouched tools and unretouched artifacts (cores, flakes, and

F Fa Fb/Fc G H H2/H3 I

65.6 73.7 43.2 29.1 60.5 66.2 74.3


into the site mainly in the form of retouched tools orblanks that were subsequently retouched. Excluding lay-ers B and B1-B4, it even appears that there is a positiveassociation between the disparity index and the amountof non-local cortex in the assemblages, though the corre-lation value is not statistically significant (r = 0.534,p = 0.091, n = 11). We might expect such a relationshipif non-local raw materials were entering the site primar-ily in the form of finished tools. Fig. 5 also shows thatthe low index of disparity for layer G means somethingrather different than the low indices for layers B and B1-B4. In the case of layer G, the disparity value is low be-cause rolled and fresh nodular cortex are rare in all arti-fact classes, just the opposite of in the two most recentlevels.

Another perspective on the differences in raw mate-rial economy within Ucagızlı cave is provided by Fig.6, which plots the frequency of non-pebble (i.e., pri-mary) cortex against the proportion of large blanks(>2.5 cm) that were retouched. Retouch frequency is acommonly used, if imperfect, proxy measure for theintensity of raw material exploitation within archaeolog-ical assemblages. For any provisioning strategy wemight expect raw materials collected from distantsources to be more extensively consumed, whether be-cause of greater cost or as a result of the longer life his-tories of artifacts transported long distances (e.g.,Andrefsky, 1994; Dibble, 1991; Odell, 2000). WhatFig. 6 shows is that there is a very clear positive trendin the relationship between frequency of fresh or rollednodular cortex and retouch frequency among most of

Fig. 6. Frequency of non-pebble cortex plotted against pro-portion retouched pieces (retouched pieces/(retouched pieces+ large blanks)).

the Ucagızlı assemblages: in general, the more exoticstone is represented, the more often blanks were re-touched into tools. For layers C through I, this relation-ship is very strong, with a Pearsons�s correlationcoefficient of 0.814 (p = 0.002, N = 11). Here again,however, the assemblages from layers B and B1-B4 rep-resent conspicuous outliers. Although the cortex dataindicate that these assemblages are far and away themost strongly dominated by materials from primarysources, they do not have especially high frequenciesof retouched tools. What this suggests is that the costand/or the life histories of artifacts made on nodularflints in layers B and B1-B4 were rather different fromother assemblages. The high frequencies of non-localcortex on unretouched as well as retouched artifactsfrom these layers reflect something similar.

Fig. 7 provides yet another perspective on the eco-nomics of raw material use. Here, the Y-axis variableis ratio of blanks (retouched tools and large flakes) percore: the X-axis again is the percentage of non-pebblecortex in each assemblage. The full complement ofassemblages appears to form a roughly linear arrange-ment, although values for B and B1-B4 are conspicu-ously higher. There is even a weak but statisticallysignificant correlation between the two variables (Pear-son�s r = 0.67, p = 0.022, n = 13). This would not bean unexpected result if cost were proportional to dis-tance to source, as we might expect cores of more costly‘‘exotic’’ stone to be more extensively exploited. How-ever, the relationship disappears entirely when theassemblages from B and B1-B4 are eliminated(r = 0.048, p = 0.888, n = 11). In this case a relationshipappears only by virtue of the contrast between these two

Fig. 7. Frequency of non-pebble cortex plotted against ratio ofblanks per core ((tools + large blanks)/cores).

Table 4ANOVA results, endscraper length by assemblage, for the fivelargest assemblages

ANOVAresults

Pebblecortex only

Non-pebblecortex only

Allendscrapers

df 75/4 131/4 607/4Multiple r 0.419 0.357 0.434F ratio 3.98 4.78 35.15Prob. 0.006 0.001 <0.001


assemblages and those from the rest of the site. Onceagain, it seems that flint was being exploited in a ratherdifferent way when layers B and B1-B4 were laid down.

A somewhat different perspective is provided by therelationship between raw material source exploitationand the treatment of retouched tools. Table 3 showsthe mean lengths of endscrapers for the five assemblagesthat provide statistically reliable samples of complete ornearly complete endscrapers made on blanks with resid-ual cortex. Because the sizes of the raw tool blanks cer-tainly varied, the length of archaeological specimensdoes not necessarily inform us about the amount of util-ity lost to resharpening and use. Instead, the length of adiscarded endscraper is a rough measure of the amountof residual utility it contains. As such it is more indica-tive of decisions about when to abandon and/or replacetools than it is of the length of the artifact�s use life.

Several general patterns are apparent from the sum-mary statistics in Table 3. First, there are no consistentintra-assemblage differences between endscrapers madeon blanks derived from primary and secondary sourcesof flint. In other words, regardless of the source of theraw material used, endscrapers within a particularassemblage tended to be reduced to the same average le-vel of residual utility before discard. If blanks obtainedfrom pebbles indeed started out smaller, this had littleor no effect on the sizes of discarded pieces. On the otherhand, there are pronounced inter-assemblage differencesin mean lengths of abandoned endscrapers. Scrapers

Table 3Mean lengths of endscrapers, by cortex type, for the five largestassemblages

Layer Pebble cortex Non-pebble cortex All endscrapers

B

Mean 48.8 46.6 48.0SD 8.5 9.6 11.2N 10 26 95

B1-B4

Mean 44.8 46.4 47.7SD 11.9 10.7 10.2N 23 53 250

F

Mean 38.9 39.6 38.8SD 14.0 6.9 10.4N 6 15 80

Fb/Fc

Mean 35.4 38.9 37.4SD 11.5 11.1 11.3N 22 16 82

H2/H3

Mean 38.2 38.5 37.6SD 7.0 9.4 8.6N 19 26 105

from the most recent layers (B and B1-B4) are on aver-age 0.6–1.3 cm (roughly 20–30%) longer than those fromlayers F, Fb/Fc, and H2/H3. An analysis of varianceshows that there are significant inter-assemblage differ-ences in scraper size for each raw material category aswell as for the entire sample (Table 4).

The data in Tables 1 and 3 also suggest that inter-as-semblage variation in scraper size is related to generallevels of reliance on primary and secondary sources offlint in a somewhat counter-intuitive way. Endscrapersfrom the layers with the highest proportions of nodularcortex (B and B1-B4) tend to be larger than those fromlayers with more reliance on local raw secondary rawmaterial pebble flints. This observation is paralleled byan analysis of the sizes of complete tools, which showsthere to be a strong positive relationship between thelengths of retouched tools and the amount of freshand rolled nodular cortex in an assemblage (r = 0.867,p < 0.001, n = 12). The correlation between artifactwidth and proportion of nodular cortex is not significant(r = 0.308, p = 0.330, n = 12), however, suggesting thatthe larger tools were not simply made on bigger blanks.(Note that the assemblage from layer D was excludeddue to an insufficient sample of unbroken retouchedtools.) In sum then, when toolmakers at Ucagızlı caverelied more on distant primary sources they discardedendscrapers and other tools when they still had someresidual utility, whereas when they were making greateruse of local pebble flints their discarded artifacts werecloser to complete exhaustion. Once again, ‘‘cost’’ (asa function of distance from source) does not seem tohave been a primary determinate of decisions aboutwhen to discard retouched tools.

Discussion: changing provisioning strategies at Ucagızlı

cave and beyond

The relationships between the origins of lithic rawmaterials and the intensity of raw material exploitationat Ucagızlı cave are complex. The same rock types wereutilized throughout the entire sequence to make similarkinds of artifacts. Over time we see quantitative shiftsin the reliance on primary and secondary deposits offlint. However, the general increase in reliance on more


distant primary sources does not seem to have occurredin the context of a single basic kind of raw materialeconomy. For most of the Upper Paleolithic sequence,objects made of flint collected at primary sources seemto have entered the cave most often in the form of fin-ished tools and/or large blanks. Judging by the kindsof cortex present, most of the cores, unretouched flakesand debris in these early layers are attributable to peb-bles from secondary pebble deposits located much closerto the cave. In contrast, in the two most recent UpperPaleolithic assemblages, from layers B and B1-B4, nod-ular cortex dominates in all categories, from retouchedtools to cores and small debris, indicating that cobblesor partially prepared cores were transported to Ucagızlıcave from the primary sources located 20–30 km inlandand then further reduced in the cave.

Fig. 6, showing the relationship between retouch fre-quency and proportion of non-pebble/non-local cortex,is especially significant. We might expect a positive cor-relation between these variables in the context of anysort of provisioning strategy, but for rather differentreasons. If raw materials were transported from distantsources mainly as parts of personal toolkits, mostwould arrive at a site in the form of well-used retouchedpieces. As such artifacts accumulated they would simul-taneously raise the proportions of both non-local rawmaterials and retouched pieces, relative to artifacts pro-duced in situ from local raw materials. If, on the otherhand, materials from non-local sources arrived as a re-sult of provisioning places we might anticipate them tobe more extensively exploited simply because of theirhigher cost. The point is that these two pathwaysshould result in different relationships, and differentcorrelations between proportions of non-local stoneand retouched pieces. The fact that layers B and B1-B4 represent conspicuous outliers to an otherwisestrong correlation for the other 11 assemblage suggeststhat this may be exactly what is going on at Ucagızlıcave.

Other factors suggest that the assemblages from lay-ers B and B1-B4 represent a distinct set of economicdecisions from the rest of the material from Ucagızlıcave. Within individual layers tools were discarded insimilar condition regardless of the material of whichthey were made. However, greater reliance on poten-tially more costly inland primary flint deposits is associ-ated with apparently more wasteful treatment of tools,in the sense that discarded specimens tend to be largerwhere non-local sources were most heavily exploited.On the other hand, cores from the two layers with thehighest proportion of raw material from primarysources, B and B1-B4, do seem to have been more exten-sively exploited than in other assemblages. In otherwords, it seems that the amount of non-local raw mate-rial affected the extent of core reduction and retouch fre-quencies, but not in the same ways.

Terms such as local, exotic, or distant are common inthe archaeological literature on lithic raw material econ-omies, yet there is little comparability between studies.Researchers working with late Upper Paleolithic popu-lations on the plains of Eastern Europe or with earlyPaleoindians may consider transfers of large amountsof flint over several hundred km as routine events(e.g., Amick, 1996; Hofman et al., 1991; Tankersley,1994). In contrast, analysts concerned with the behaviorof Plio-Pleistocene hominids (e.g., Stiles, 1998; Toth,1985) or the technologies of sedentary Neolithic groupsmay view any material coming from more than a day�swalk from its find spot as ‘‘exotic’’ As a matter of prac-tice, the lines between exotic and local are often drawnfrom observations of the archaeological material itself,and the criteria used to define exotic or local materialsdepend more on how material was treated than onhow far it actually had to be moved. Any raw materialthat is represented by a full range of products andbyproducts seems ‘‘local.’’ Types of stone that occur asa restricted range of products, whether standardizedforms (e.g., objects of trade) or as extensively used andreworked tools, appear more unusual, and their sourcesare treated as exotic or distant (e.g., Blades, 1999, pp.113–114). From this perspective, the primary sourcesof flint located some distance inland from Ucagızlı caveappear to have shifted from being ‘‘exotic’’ (representedby a restricted range of products) through most of thesequence to being more ‘‘local,’’ with a full range ofreduction byproducts present, in the most recent layers,B and B1-B4.

It would be difficult to explain the observed changesin raw material economy at Ucagızlı cave in terms ofaccessibility or distance-to-source as a proxy for the costof obtaining raw materials. Barring an undocumentedtectonic event of truly enormous magnitude, the geo-graphic distances from sources to site probably did notchange. Although there could be primary sources ofCretaceous flint even closer to the site under the surfaceof the sea, there is no reason to think sea levels were low-er during the more recent end of the sequence. In fact,the abundance of mollusk remains in the faunal assem-blages from layers B and B1-B4 indicates that if any-thing sea levels were relatively high, and the coastlinerelatively close, when these deposits were accumulating.Of course, centuries of exploitation might have partiallydepleted local pebble beds, forcing a greater reliance onmore distant sources of flint, but this would not explainthe apparently ‘‘wasteful’’ treatment of flints from in-land sources in the most recent layers.

Concepts of technological provisioning, combinedwith independent archaeological evidence concerningthe character of occupations at Ucagızlı cave, are moreuseful for making sense of the changing roles of differentraw materials. Several indicators suggest that the natureand duration of occupations changed over time at


Ucagızlı cave. Where thermal structures are present atall in the earlier part of the sequence (below layer C)they tend to be small, discrete hearths or thin scattersof ash. This suggests that they formed as result of a ser-ies of relatively brief occupational events. Interestingly,the vertebrate faunal assemblages from these layers con-sist almost entirely of bones from medium to large gameanimals. From the perspective of general ecological the-ory, such heavy reliance on high-ranked resources suchas medium/large terrestrial herbivores generally impliesrelatively low consumer demand relative to the sizes ofprey populations. Demands on resources can be keptsmall either by keeping populations small or by limitingtime spent in any one foraging area. Holding environ-ment constant, cross cultural studies show that high lev-els of dependence on hunted game are usually associatedwith frequent residential mobility (Kelly, 1995, pp. 111–160). Thus, both patterns of game use and the archaeo-logical structures in the earliest layers at Ucagızlı cavepoint to relatively frequent residential moves and shortepisodes of occupation during the earlier part of thesequence.

In contrast, layer B1-B4 is characterized by a thick,dense midden-like accumulation of ash, stone, bone,and other materials. This alone points to a more contin-uous occupation of the site, perhaps by a larger group.No such midden is apparent in layer B, but this couldsimply be a matter of changing use of space within thecave. The faunal assemblages from both B and B1-B4also provide evidence for expansion of diet breadth toinclude significant amounts of shellfish, birds, rabbits,fish, and perhaps even vegetable foods (in the form thepitted anvils). Hints of this dietary expansion are presentearlier, in that these foods were occasionally incorpo-rated into the diet in layers C and below, but their rolesexpanded significantly in B and B1-B4. Holding environ-ment more or less constant, such broadening of the dietis commonly taken to be a response to excessive pressureon high-ranked resources such as hunted game, broughton by larger resident consumer groups and/or a morepermanent human presence (Kelly, 1995, pp. 111–160;Kuhn and Stiner, 2001; Stiner et al., 1999, 2000). It istempting to suggest that the composition of residentialgroups could also have changed over this span. In theearly part of the sequence the cave could well have beenused mainly as a specialized hunting camp, occupied bya restricted range of individuals concerned mainly withprocuring game. The more prolonged occupation(s) inthe most recent layers imply a larger and more diversegroup of occupants, some of whom (women and chil-dren, for example) may have specialized in collectingshellfish, birds, and other relatively small prey.

In light of this evidence for changing nature andduration of occupations, the shifts in raw material econ-omy at Ucagızlı cave are more comprehensible. Formost of the sequence occupations were short and epi-

sodic, perhaps accompanied by high overall levels resi-dential mobility. Many retouched tools and blankscame to the cave from distant sources as parts of trans-ported toolkits used to provision individuals. Some ofthese artifacts were subsequently abandoned and re-placed on site using local flints. The fact that scraperstended to be reduced to relatively small size suggests thattool users tried to get the most out of artifacts beforeabandoning them, a characteristic of mobile toolkitsused to provision individuals (Kuhn, 1992, 1994). Earlyin the sequence Upper Paleolithic tool makers also pro-visioned the site with raw materials, but, as would be ex-pected for short occupations, they focused on materialsfound closer to the site, which in this case happened tobe beach pebbles. Because the strategies of provisioningplaces and individuals tended to involve raw materialsfrom different sources their respective products standout clearly.

In layers B and B1-B4 at the top of the sequence thereis evidence for more intense, longer occupations, andprovisioning the place with raw material became a moreviable and important strategy. Along with daily foragingradius, catchments for raw material procurement wouldhave expanded with longer occupations (Kelly, 1995, pp.135–137). The later Upper Paleolithic foragers were ableto provision the cave with large nodules or partially pre-pared cores of better materials from primary sourcestwo or three day�s travel away: this could have occurredas part of long-distance hunting or collecting forays oras specialized trips to collect raw material. The fact thatdiscarded scrapers retained greater residual utility thanin the earlier layers suggests that constraints of rawmaterial cost were actually somewhat reduced throughamassing raw materials at the residential hub, even whenmost of the flint came from fairly far away. Individualtransported toolkits were undoubtedly still part of thestrategic mix, but because even in situ manufacture in-volved raw materials obtained from primary sources,elements of transported toolkits are largelyundistinguishable.

At Ucagızlı cave, the effects of raw material ‘‘cost,’’as measured by distance to source area, are also ex-pressed differently on cores, blanks, and tools. Thereseems to be little relationship between the treatment oftools and transfer distances for the raw materials ofwhich they were made. Within levels, endscraper reduc-tion does not vary according to raw material source, anddiscarded tools are actually larger (less reduced) in thoselayers characterized by greater reliance use of inland pri-mary flint sources. The frequency of retouched blanks(flakes and blades) shows more of the effects of rawmaterial costs and provisioning strategies. There areno clear patterns in the treatment of cores overall, butthe two assemblages with the most ‘‘exotic’’ raw material(B, B1-B4) also have the highest blank/core rations.These differences between artifact classes could be a


function of cores, blanks, and tools entering the sitethrough different pathways, as a result of different mixesof provisioning strategies. For most of the sequence itappears that elements of transported toolkits used toprovision individuals would be significant componentsof the archaeological assemblages. Such transportedtoolkits are expected to consist mainly of retouchedtools and blanks (Kelly and Todd, 1988; Kuhn, 1994;Morrow, 1995). Because transported toolkits are notbrought to places but are carried along with mobile indi-viduals, the ‘‘cost’’ of transport is not a direct functionof distance to source. At the end of the sequence, in lay-ers B and B1-B4, it seems that the site was heavily pro-visioned with raw materials from inland sources,relaxing constraints on portability and on getting themaximum use out of every endscraper. In contrast, unre-touched flakes and blades could have come to the sitethrough a variety of channels, either as parts of trans-ported toolkits or through on-site production. It is notsurprising therefore that the intensity of blank utiliza-tion shows a stronger relationship with raw materialsources than does the treatment of tools, though againlayers B and B1-B4 stand out.

These characterizations of occupations and provi-sioning strategies are highly generalized. Certainly, thelengths of occupations and strategies of technologicalprovisioning varied within the earlier part of the se-quence: variation in amounts of ‘‘exotic’’ material andretouched tool frequencies among layers C through I isprobably evidence of this. By that same token, theymay well be very brief occupational episodes representedin layers B and B1-B4, even if the signal is overwhelmedby the more intense occupation. Likewise, individuals orclasses of individual within residential groups may havedealt with lithic raw materials in different ways accord-ing to activity regimes, mobility, and time constraints.However, such fine-grained intra-assemblage variabilityis difficult to sort out given the constraints on thisanalysis.

It is interesting that the major shift in lithic raw mate-rial economy at Ucagızlı cave is independent of thearchaeological ‘‘culture’’ represented. The Initial UpperPaleolithic component ends at the boundary betweenlayers F and E. The assemblage from layer C is clearlyAhmarian in character, and the sparse material fromC/D, D and E is closer to the Ahmarian than to theIUP. Nonetheless, in terms of treatment of lithic rawmaterials these assemblages fit much better with the ear-lier part of the sequence than they do with layers B andB1-B4. On the other hand, changing provisioning strat-egies may explain a technological anomaly in theUcagızlı sequence. Dorsal scar patterns on flakes andtools indicate an increasing use of bidirectional/opposedplatform cores beginning with layer E, and yet opposedplatform cores are common only in layers B and B1-B4(Kuhn, 2004). This anomaly may reflect changing locus

of blade production, and efforts to get the most out ofcores of flint from distant sources in the most recentUpper Paleolithic occupations. As Fig. 7 shows, the Band B1-B4 assemblages do have the highest blank/coreratios by far in the entire sequence.

Although the case of Ucagızlı cave is instructive, itpresents no hard and fast rules. It is likely that the rela-tionships between raw material transfer distances andthe treatment of different classes of artifact will vary indifferent contexts. The most remote sources of flint thatwe currently are able to identify are not particularly farfrom Ucagızlı cave (around 30 km) and if more distantsources are represented we lack the geological informa-tion needed to identify them. Much greater distancesof raw material movement have been documented inother Upper Paleolithic sites (Demars, 1998; Dobosi,1991; Geneste, 1988a,b; Schild, 1987), southern AfricanMSA localities (Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; McBreartyand Brooks, 2000), and even some Middle Paleolithiccases (see Feblot-Augustins, 1993; Roebroeks et al.,1988). Provisioning strategies notwithstanding, therewill almost certainly be significant relationships betweendistance to source and the treatment of even retouchedtools in cases where transfer distances were muchgreater.

The results reported in this paper may nonetheless berelevant to studies of earlier time periods. A number ofresearchers have addressed generic differences betweenpatterns of lithic raw material exploitation in the Middleand Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia as evidence of changesin basic cognitive abilities of hominids, though there islittle consensus as to either the empirical facts or theirinterpretation (e.g., Mellars, 1996; Roebroeks et al.,1988; Soffer, 1989). Because we are presently unable todetermine actual distance to source for individual arti-facts at Ucagızlı cave it is difficult to compare the resultsreported here directly to those of other studies. How-ever, the changes in raw material economy within theUpper Paleolithic sequence at Ucagızlı do have implica-tions for how one might investigate hypothetical con-trasts between Middle and Upper Paleolithic.

It seems well established now that Eurasian MiddlePaleolithic hominids habitually transported artifacts overdistances of up 50 km, and occasionally much farthermore (Feblot-Augustins, 1993; Roebroeks et al., 1988).If there is any qualitative difference between the Middleand Upper Paleolithic, it has to do with what was moved.During the Middle Paleolithic, raw material transfers inexcess of 10–20 km almost always involved preparedtools, tool blanks, and sometimes Levallois cores (Fe-blot-Augustins, 1993; Geneste, 1988a,b). Evidence formoving materials in bulk more than a dozen kilometers,while certainly not universal, is more common in UpperPaleolithic contexts (Mellars, 1996, pp. 163–165; Soffer,1989). What this suggests is that Mousterian hominidsregularly engaged in provisioning of individuals (Kuhn,


1992) but that they less often provisioned sites with high-quality materials from more distance sources.

Even if this general assessment proves correct, it doesnot necessarily demonstrate that Middle Paleolithichominids had fundamentally different behavioral capac-ities from Upper Paleolithic populations. I am certainlynot prepared to argue that the changes in raw materialeconomy within the Upper Paleolithic at Ucagızlı caveare due to cognitive evolution in the populations thatoccupied the site (although that is not impossible). In-stead, they can be understood as responses to changesin mobility and the nature of the occupation at the siteitself. By that same token, one would not want to arguethat shrinking catchments of raw material procurementacross the Paleoindian to Archaic transition in NorthAmerica represented a decline in humans� abilities ofanticipate future needs. Differences in habitual rawmaterial transfers between Mousterian and UpperPaleolithic could reflect shifting patterns of land useresulting from long-term climatic, demographic, and so-cial changes rather than changes in cognitive abilities.Using raw material transfers to help gauge the planningabilities of hominids would require comparing techno-logical responses to similar mobility regimes or the pro-visioning of similar kinds of occupations.

The findings discussed here reinforce the assertionthat distance to source is an imperfect, sometimes mis-leading, measure of raw material cost. As a consequencedistance to source is a poor predictor of human behav-ior, even when people are responding mainly to eco-nomic constraints. Artifacts can have widely varyinghistories, and they can follow many different pathwaysfrom quarry to archaeological context. Different mea-sures of cost may be more appropriate for different kindsof artifact life histories. In the case of transported ‘‘per-sonal gear,’’ portability or utility per unit weight may bethe most appropriate measure of cost, whereas the costof material used to provisioned sites is more directly afunction of how far it had to be carried. Conversely,however, the existence of unexpected relationships, orthe absence of apparent relationships between distanceto source and treatment of artifacts (e.g., Close, 1999;Gould and Saggers, 1985) does not necessarily implythat cost is irrelevant. Considering the different path-ways along which artifacts and raw materials can move,the different strategies that result in things being trans-ferred from procurement spots to the archaeologicalsites where they are eventually found, such cases suggestinstead that the economics of raw material use are sim-ply more complex, and ultimately more interesting.

Acknowledgments

Excavations at Ucagızlı cave are a collaboration be-tween the University of Arizona and Ankara University.

The success of the project is attributable in large part tothe efforts of Professor Erksin Gulec, leader of the Turk-ish team, as well as her associates and graduate students,including Ays�en Acikol, Ismail Baykara, Dr. IsmailOzer, and Hakan Yilmaz. Dr. Mary Stiner contributedinnumerable insights on the Paleolithic occupations ofUcagızlı, as well as the faunal analyses that are brieflysummarized here. My understanding of lithic raw mate-rial economies has been very much improved as a resultof working with current and former graduate studentsJesse Ballenger, Dr. P.J. Brantingham, Kris Kerry, andDr. Todd Surovell. Kris Kerry also did the artifact illus-trations. I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewersfor insightful and constructive comments. This researchreported in this was supported by the National ScienceFoundation under Grants SBR-9804722 and BCS-0106433.

References

Ambrose, S.H., Lorenz, K.G., 1990. Social and ecologicalmodels for the Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa. In:Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans.Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 3–33.

Amick, D.S., 1996. Regional patterns of Folsom mobility andland use in the American Southwest. World Archaeology27, 411–426.

Andrefsky, W., 1994. Raw material availability and theorganization of lithic technology. American Antiquity 59,21–34.

Azoury, I., 1986. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A technological andtypological analysis of the transitional and early UpperPalaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. B. A. R.International Series 289. British Archaeological Reports,Oxford.

Binford, L., 1979. Organization and formation processes:looking at curated technologies. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 35, 255–273.

Blades, B., 1999. Aurignacian lithic economy and early modernhuman mobility. Journal of Human Evolution 37, 91–120.

Boesch, C., Boesch, H., 1984. Mental maps in wild chimpan-zees: an analysis of hammer transports for nut cracking.Primates 25 (2), 160–170.

Bourque, B.J., 1994. Evidence for prehistoric exchange on theMaritime peninsula. In: Baugh, T., Ericson, J. (Eds.),Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 23–46.

Close, A.E., 1999. Distance and decay: an uneasy relationship.Antiquity 73, 24–32.

Delage, C., 2001. Les resources lithiuques dans le nord d�Israel:la question des territoires d�approvisionnement Natoufiensconfronta la hypothese de leur sedentarite. Institut d�Art etd�Archeologie. Paris, Universite de Paris I.

Demars, P.-Y., 1982. L�utilisation du silex au Paleolithiquesuperieur: choix, approvisionnement, circulation. L�exempledu Bassin de Brive. CNRS, Paris.

Demars, P.-Y., 1998. Circulation des silex dans le nord del�aquitaine au Paleolithique Superieur: l�occupation de


l�espace par les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs. Gallia Prehis-toire 40, 1–28.

Dibble, H.L., 1991. Local raw material exploitation and itseffects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage vari-ability. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), RawMaterial Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 217–230.

Dobosi, V.T., 1991. Economy and raw material: a case study ofthree Upper Palaeolithic sites in Hungary. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), Raw Material Economiesamong Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. University of Kansas,Lawrence, pp. 197–203.

Feblot-Augustins, J., 1993. Mobility strategies in the lateMiddle Palaeolithic of central Europe and western Europe:elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 12, 211–265.

Frison, G., Stanford, D., 1982. The Agate Basin Site: A Recordof the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern HighPlains. Academic Press, New York.

Geneste, J.-M., 1988a. Les industries de la Grotte Vaufrey:Technologie du debitage, economie, et circulation de lamatiere premiere lithique. In: La Rigaud, J.-P., (Ed.), GrotteVaufrey: Paleoenvironnement, Chronologie, ActivitesHumaines. Societe Prehistorique Francaise, Paris, pp. 441–518.

Geneste, J.M., 1988b. Systemes d�approvisionnement en matie-res premieres au Paleolithique moyen et au Paleolithiquesuperieur en Aquitaine. In: Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.), L�hommede Neandertal: Actes du Colloque International de Liege:Vol. 8, La Mutation. Etudes et Recherches Archeologiquesde l�Universite de Liege (ERAUL), Liege, pp. 61–70.

Goodyear, A.C., 1989. A hypothesis for the use of crypto-crystalline raw materials among Paleoindian groups ofNorth America. In: Ellis, C., Lothrop, J. (Eds.), EasternPaleoindian Lithic Resource. Westview Press, Boulder, pp.1–10.

Gould, R., Saggers, L., 1985. Lithic procurement in centralAustralia: a close look at Binford�s idea of embeddedness inarchaeology. American Antiquity 50, 117–136.

Hofman, J., 1991. Folsom land use: projectile point variabilityas a key to mobility. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.),Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gath-erers. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology19, University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 285–303.

Hofman, J., Todd, L.C., Collins, M., 1991. Identification ofcentral Texas Edwards Chert at the Folsom and Linden-meier sites. Plains Anthropologist 36, 297–308.

Hovers, E., 1990. The exploitation of raw material at theMousterian site of Quneitra. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.),Quneitra: A Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights. Qedem13. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem,pp. 153–170.

Hughes, R.E., 1994. Mosaic patterning in prehistoric Califor-nia—Great Basin exchange. In: Baugh, T., Ericson, J.(Eds.), Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America.Plenum Press, New York, pp. 363–383.

Kelly, R., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity53 (4), 717–734.

Kelly, R., 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington, DC.

Kelly, R.L., Todd, L.C., 1988. Coming into the country: earlyPaleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53(2), 231–244.

Kuhn, S., 1992. On planning and curated technologies in theMiddle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research48, 185–214.

Kuhn, S., 1994. A formal approach to the design and assemblyof transported toolkits. American Antiquity 59 (2), 426–442.

Kuhn, S., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: An EcologicalPerspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Kuhn, S., 2002. Economies de materia primera lıtica, proveı-ment tecnologic dinamiques sociales. Cota Zero: Revistad�Arqueologia I Ciencia 17, 56–66.

Kuhn, S., 2004. From Initial Upper Paleolithic to Ahmarian atUcagızlı Cave, Turkey. Anthropologie (Brno). Special issue42, 275–288.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., 2001. The antiquity of hunter-gatherers.In: Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R.H., Rowley-Conwy, P.(Eds.), Hunter-Gatherers, an Interdisciplinary Perspective.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–142.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., Gulec, E., 1999. Initial Upper Paleo-lithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: apreliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505–517.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., Gulec, E., 2004. New perspectives onthe Initial Upper Paleolithic: the view from Ucagızlı cave,Turkey. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S., Kerry, K.W.(Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond WesternEurope. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 113–128.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., Reese, D., Gulec, E., 2001. Ornamentsin the Earliest Upper Paleolithic: new perspectives from theLevant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ofthe United States of America 98 (13), 7641–7646.

MacDonald, D.H., 1999. Modeling Folsom mobility, techno-logical organization and mating strategies in the NorthernPlains. Plains Anthropologist 44, 141–161.

McBrearty, S., Brooks, A., 2000. The revolution that wasn�t: anew interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior.Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563.

Meltzer, D., 1989. Was stone exchanged among Eastern NorthAmerican Paleoindians?. In: Ellis, C., Lathrop, J. (Eds.),Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use. Westview Press,Boulder, pp. 11–39.

Mellars, P., 1996. The Mousterian Legacy. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton.

Metcalfe, D., Barlow, R.K., 1992. A model for exploring theoptimal trade-off between field processing and transport.American Anthropologist 94 (2), 340–356.

Minzoni-Deroche, A., 1992. Ucagızlı magara, un site aurigna-cien dans le Hatay (Anatolie). Premiers resultats. Paleorient18/1, 89–96.

Morrow, T., 1995. Bigger is better: comments on Kuhn�sFormal approach to mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity61, 581–590.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The study of technological organization.In: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Archaeological Method and The-ory. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57–100.

O�Connell, J., Hawkes, K., Blurton-Jones, N., 1988. Hadzahunting, butchering and bone transport and their archae-ological implications. Journal of Anthropological Research44, 113–161.


Odell, G.H., 2000. Stone tool research at the end of themillennium: procurement and technology. Journal ofArchaeological Research 8, 269–331.

Ohnuma, K., Bergman, C.A., 1990. A technological analysis ofthe Upper Palaeolithic Levels (XXV-VI) of Ksar Akil,Lebanon. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of ModernHumans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 91–138.

Parry, W., Kelly, R.W., 1987. Expedient core technology andsedentism. In: Johnson, J., Morrow, C. (Eds.), The Orga-nization of Core Technology. Westview Press, Boulder, pp.285–304.

Perles, C., 1990. L�Outillage de pierre taillee Neolithique enGrece: Approvisionnement et exploitation des matierespremieres. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 114, 1–42.

Robinson, W.S., 1951. A method for chronologically orderingarchaeological deposits. American Antiquity 16, 293–301.

Rockman, M.H., 2003. Landscape learning in the late glacialrecolonization of Britain. Ph.D. Dissertation. Departmentof Anthropology, University of Arizona. UMI, Ann Arbor.

Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., Rensink, E., 1988. Planning depth,anticipation and the organization of Middle Palaeolithictechnology: The Archaic Natives meet Eve�s Descendents.Helinium XXVIII, 17–34.

Roth, B.J., Dibble, H.L., 1998. Production and transport ofblanks and tools at the French Middle Paleolithic site ofCombe-Capelle Bas. American Antiquity 63 (1), 47–62.

Schild, R., 1987. The exploitation of chocolate flint in Poland.In: Sieveking, G.G., Newcomer, M. (Eds.), The HumanUses of Flint and Chert. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 137–149.

Shott, M., 1986. Technological organization and settlementmobility: an ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthro-pological Research 42, 15–51.

Shott, M., 1997. An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal ofAnthropological Research 52, 259–280.

Soffer, O., 1989. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition onthe Russian Plain. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), TheHuman Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspec-tives on the Origins of Modern Humans. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, pp. 714–742.

Stiles, D., 1998. Raw material as evidence for human behaviourin the Lower Pleistocene: the Olduvai case. In: Petraglia,M.D, Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Early Human Behaviour inGlobal Context: The Rise and Diversity of the LowerPalaeolithic Record. Routledge, London, pp. 133–150.

Stiner, M.C., Munro, N., Surovell, T.A., Tchernov, E., Bar-Yosef, O., 1999. Paleolithic population growth pulsesevidenced by small game use. Science 283, 190–194.

Stiner, M.C., Munro, N.D., Surovell, T.A., 2000. The tortoiseand the hare: small game use, the Broad Spectrum Revo-lution and Paleolithic demography. Current Anthropology41, 39–73.

Surovell, T.A., 2000. Early Paleoindian women, children,mobility, and fertility. American Antiquity 65, 493–508.

Surovell, T.A., 2003. The behavioral ecology of Folsom Lithictechnology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropol-ogy, University of Arizona. UMI, Ann Arbor.

Tankersley, K., 1994. The effects of stone and technology onfluted point morphometry. American Antiquity 59, 498–510.

Thacker, P., 1996. Hunter-gatherer lithic economy and settle-ment systems: understanding regional assemblage variabil-ity in the Upper Paleolithic of Portugese Extremadura. In:Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights intoHuman Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 101–124.

Toth, N., 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at earlystone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101–120.

Torrence, R., 1983. Time budgeting and hunter-gatherertechnology. In: Bailey, G. (Ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economyin Prehistory: A European Perspective. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 11–22.

Torrence, R., 1989. Retooling: towards a behavioral theory ofstone tools. In: Torrence, R. (Ed.), Time, Energy and StoneTools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–66.

Trassierra, M.D.G.-A., Sabater, N.M., Mallol Duque, C., 2002.L�approvisionment en matieres premieres lithiques auPleistocene inferieur et moyne dans la Sierra de Atapuerca,Burgos (Espagne). L�Anthropologie 106, 41–55.

Turq, A., 1996. L�approvisionnement en matiere premierelithique au Mousterien et au debut du Paleolithiquesuperieur dans le Nord est du bassin aquitain: continuiteou discontinuite?. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.),The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically ModernHumans. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, pp. 355–362.

Wengler, L., 1990. Economie de matieres premieres et territoiredans le mousterien et l�Aterian maghrebins: Exemples duMaroc oriental. L�Anthropologie 94 (2), 335–360.

White, M., 1995. Raw materials and biface variability insouthern Britain: a preliminary examination. Lithics 15, 1–20.

White, M., 1998. On the significance of Acheulean bifacevariability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehis-toric Society 64, 15–44.

Wynn, T., McGrew, W., 1989. An ape�s view of the Oldowan.Man (N.S.) 24, 383–398.

kuhn 2004, upper paleolithic raw material economies at ucazi

Documents

initial upper paleolithic

early upper paleolithic

kuhn journal

raw material exploitation

artifact life histories

rolled nodule cortex

upper paleolithic sequence

lithic raw materials