The Language Hypothesis for the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic Transition: An Examination Based on a Multiregional Lithic Analysis [and Comments and Reply]

In light of continuing controversy over the relationship of the origin of language to the Upper Paleolithic (UP) transition, evidence of efficiency & standardization in Middle Paleolithic (MP) & UP lithic technologies is compared from sites in three regions: Libya, Germany, & France. Comparative statistics are adduced for various aspects of tool manufacturing & it is argued that the consistent differences found between MP & UP assemblages do not evidence a significant difference between the periods' tool kits that would be related to a hypothesized emergence of language between MP & UP. In Commentary, nine contributors provide views on Chazan's theories. Anna Belfer-Cohen supports Chazan's conclusions, while questioning his efficiency & standardization criteria & his use of lithic technical terms. Raymond Corbey & Wil Roebroeks criticize a discrepancy between fine-grained data measurement & coarse-grained general concepts in Chazan's study. P. M. Graves-Brown commends Chazan's findings, suggesting that they support a mosaic model of the MP-UP transition. Paul Mellars objects to Chazan's apparent denial of a significant increase in complexity from MP to UP & his dismissal of a behavioral revolution across the transition. Gilliane Monnier finds Chazan's postulation of a link between language & tool technology to be unsupported & his treatment of lithic evidence to be methodologically inadequate. John J. Shea argues that a MP-UP dichotomy is false, supporting Chazan's findings of continuity while indicating factual errors. Jiri Svoboda suggests additional criteria for lithic evidence for behavior & explores the relation between lithic standardization & archaeological terminology. Philip Van Peer critiques the criteria used by Chazan to measure efficiency & standardization & refutes false unities attributed to MP & the MP-UP transition. In Reply, Chazan focuses on the commentaries of Corbey & Roebroeks, Belfer-Cohen, & Van Peer, emphasizing the nature of the MP-UP transition as a complex process that may not accommodate a unified explanation. 13 Tables, 96 References. J. Hitchcock