The Aurignacian is a contentious time period in paleoanthropology. The myriad social changes which accompany the Upper Paleolithic transition have often become associated with the physical tools which Aurignacian people left behind. One result of this is the current tendency of professionals to use blade technology as an indicator of "modernity," rather than examining how changes accompanying the Upper Paleolithic transition made blades a useful adaptation. Of particular importance is the fact that the adoption of blades coincides with a long distance shift in the system used to procure and transport the lithic raw materials. This suggests that before we can use blades to answer anthropological questions about the Aurignacian, we need to establish the relationship between blade production and the acquisition of exotic raw materials. This dissertation combines an analysis of the lithic collection from the French archaeological site of Abri Cellier with the experimental fracture of lithic raw material samples in order to examine the impact of raw material quality on Aurignacian blade production. The analysis of the assemblage from Abri Cellier demonstrates that Aurignacian blades manufactured on exotic materials were of higher quality than those produced locally. The experimental fracture of raw material samples reveals that the differences in the quality of the exotic and local materials do not sufficiently account for the differences in the quality of the blades produced on them. This implies that the differential transport of high quality final products accounts for the increased quality of exotic blades at Abri Cellier. This research examines a number of new ways to evaluate quality in the archaeological record. More importantly, however, it firmly demonstrates that the acquisition of long distance raw materials was not a prerequisite for blade production in the Perigord. This work will conclude by arguing that blades played a role in increasing the maintainability of a hafted toolkit geared towards meeting the requirements of an increasingly mobile and collaborative Aurignacian population.

In the archaeological literature, mountains are often portrayed as the boundaries between inhabited spaces. Yet occupying high elevations may have been an adaptive choice for ancient peoples, as rapidly changing elevations also offer variation in climate and resources over a relatively small area. So what happens, instead, if we put mountain landscapes at the center of our analyses of prehistoric seasonal rounds and ecological adaptation? This Ph.D. argues that, in order to understand any landscape that includes mountains, from the Alps to the Andes, one must include the ecology and archaeology of the highest elevations. Specifically, I base my findings on new fieldwork and lithic collections from the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountains in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) of the Rocky Mountains, which was a vital crossroads of prehistoric cultures for more than 11,000 years. I include five interlocking analyses. First, I consider the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on high elevation cultural resources, focusing on the diminishing resiliency of ancient high elevation ice patches and the loss of the organic artifacts and paleobiological materials they contain. Second, I create a dichotomous key for chronologically typing projectile points, suggesting a methodological improvement for typological dating in the GYE and for surface archaeology more broadly. Third, I use obsidian source data to consider whether mountain people were a single, unified group or were represented by a variety of peoples with different zones of land tenure. Fourth, I consider high elevation occupation in both mountain ranges as part of the seasonal round, using indices of diversity in tool types and raw material to study how the duration of those occupations changed through time. And, finally, I test the common contention that ancient people primarily used mountains as refugia from extreme climatic pressure at lower elevations. Ultimately, I find that, in both mountain ranges, increased high elevation activity is most highly correlated with increased population, not with hot, dry climatic conditions. In other words, the mountains were more than simply refugia for plains or basin people to occupy when pressured by climatic hardship. In addition, between the Absarokas and the Beartooths the evidence suggests two different patterns of occupation, not a monolithic pan-mountain adaptation. These results demonstrate the potential contributions of surface archaeology to our understanding of prehistory, and have important implications for the way we think about mountain landscapes as peopled spaces in relation to adjacent lower-elevation areas.