European Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic Transitionnal Industries: Châtelperronian (original) (raw)
Related papers
The appearance of anatomically modern humans in Europe and the nature of the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic are matters of intense debate. Most researchers accept that before the arrival of anatomically modern humans, Neanderthals had adopted several ‘transitional’ technocomplexes. Two of these, the Uluzzian of southern Europe and the Châtelperronian of western Europe, are key to current interpretations regarding the timing of arrival of anatomically modern humans in the region and their potential interaction with Neanderthal populations. They are also central to current debates regarding the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals and the reasons behind their extinction. However, the actual fossil evidence associated with these assemblages is scant and fragmentary and recent work has questioned the attribution of the Châtelperronian to Neanderthals on the basis of taphonomic mixing and lithic analysis. Here we reanalyse the deciduous molars from the Grotta del Cavallo (southern Italy), associated with the Uluzzian and originally classified as Neanderthal. Using two independent morphometric methods based on microtomographic data, we show that the Cavallo specimens can be attributed to anatomically modern humans. The secure context of the teeth provides crucial evidence that the makers of the Uluzzian technocomplex were therefore not Neanderthals. In addition, new chronometric data for the Uluzzian layers of Grotta del Cavallo obtained from associated shell beads and included within a Bayesian age model show that the teeth must date to ~45,000–43,000 calendar years before present. The Cavallo human remains are therefore the oldest known European anatomically modern humans, confirming a rapid dispersal of modern humans across the continent before the Aurignacian and the disappearance of Neanderthals.
Nature Scientific Reports, 2018
The demise of Neanderthals and their interaction with dispersing anatomically modern human populations remain some of the most contentious issues in palaeoanthropology. The Châtelperronian, now generally recognized as the first genuine Upper Palaeolithic industry in Western Europe and commonly attributed to the Neanderthals, plays a pivotal role in these debates. The Neanderthal authorship of this techno-complex is based on reported associations of Neanderthal skeletal material with Châtelperronian assemblages at only two sites, La Roche-à-Pierrot (Saint-Césaire) and the Grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure). The reliability of such an association has, however, been the subject of heated controversy. Here we present a detailed taphonomic, spatial and typo-technological reassessment of the level (EJOP sup) containing the Neanderthal skeletal material at Saint-Césaire. Our assessment of a new larger sample of lithic artifacts, combined with a systematic refitting program and spatial projections of diagnostic artifacts, produced no reliable evidence for a Neanderthal-Châtelperronian association at the site. These results significantly impact current models concerning the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Western Europe and force a critical reappraisal of who exactly were the makers of the Châtelperronian. Documenting the emergence of traits commonly considered as proxies for 'behavioural modernity' remains one of the most debated research challenges in Palaeolithic archaeology. Over the last two decades, new analyses in Africa have pushed back the earliest occurrences of such evidence 1-12 , which were previously thought to be coincident with the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Western Europe. Despite intense dispute as to whether such evidence is unique to anatomically modern human populations, it now appears clear that Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal populations across their known range also made and used bone tools 13,14 , sourced and processed pigments 15-18 , potentially buried their dead 19-25 , and probably possessed elements of personal ornamentation 26-29. The Châtelperronian, commonly assumed to be one of the final cultural manifestations of Neanderthals in Western Europe, is pivotal to this debate. Its unique features combining blade and bladelet technologies alongside personal ornaments, bone tools and considerable pigment use has simultaneously been interpreted as support either for the acculturation of final Neanderthal populations by dispersing anatomically modern human groups 30-36 or the independent emergence of cultural innovations amongst the former 37-40. The Neanderthal authorship of the Châtelperronian is, however, based on reported direct associations of Neanderthal skeletal remains with Châtelperronian cultural material at only two sites-scattered teeth, a temporal bone and bone fragments from the lowermost Châtelperronian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure 32,41,42 and a partial Neanderthal skeleton in a level (EJOP sup) attributed to the Châtelperronian at
Updating Neanderthals Understanding Behavioural Complexity in the Late Middle Palaeolithic, 2022
This chapter presents the first collective synthesis of Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic technology (MIS 4–3, ≈ 70-40 ka) from the Altai mountains to the Atlantic coast of Western Europe and the Mediterranean regions of Europe and the Levant. As early as the first half of the twentieth century, archaeological debates focused on characterising and interpreting Mousterian techno-typological variability. In recent decades, new data concerning several specific aspects of this question have modified our understanding of Neanderthal technology in terms of lithic economy. This chapter presents the main characteristics of Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic technologies, raw material management, tool forms and artefact transport patterns. This extensive overview reveals that it is still largely unclear whether spatio-temporal trends in the mosaic of reduction strategies exist, at least during MIS 4–3. Furthermore, disparities in available data from the different geographical areas currently precludes exhaustive inter-regional comparisons and introduces biases for identifying which variables reflect local adaptations or potentially more general trends. Currently, the degree to which lithic assemblage variability, including retouched stone tools, results from adaptations to different factors remains difficult to reliably assess. These factors include environmental constraints and the influence of local contexts, including the characteristics and accessibility of raw materials and the duration of site occupation. Stone tools assemblages may equally reflect specific traditions of certain Neanderthal populations or groups and communities-of-practice. Differences in assemblage composition and tool types most likely result from the combined influences of these aspects in association with subsistence strategies and other ecological factors, as well as social structure and other cognitive and behavioural features. Finally, the possibility that the specific dynamics between different Neanderthal populations and between Neanderthals and other human groups affecting aspects of technology cannot be ruled out.
2013
Population dynamics between and within Pleistocene groups are vital to understanding wider behavioural processes like social transmission and cultural variation. The late Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5d-3, ca. 115,000–35,000 BP [years before present]) permits a novel, data-driven assessment of these concepts through a unique record: bifacial tools made by classic Neanderthals. Previously, studies of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools were hampered by a convoluted plethora of competing terms, types and regional entities. This paper presents a large-scale intercomparison of this tool type, and bridges typo-technological and spatio-temporal data from across Western Europe (Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany). Results indicate a high level of variation among individual bifacial tools and assemblages. Each bifacial tool concept is correlated with various methods of production, resulting in large degrees of morphological variation. Despite such variation, a distinct three-fold, macro-regional pattern was identified: the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) in the southwest dominated by handaxes, the Keilmessergruppen (KMG) in the northeast typified by backed and leaf-shaped bifacial tools, and, finally a new unit, the Mousterian with Bifacial Tools (MBT), geographically situated between these two major entities, and characterised by a wider variety of bifacial tools. Differing local conditions, such as raw material or function, are not sufficient to explain this observed macro-regional tripartite. Instead, the MTA and KMG can be viewed as two distinct cultural traditions, where the production of a specific bifacial tool concept was passed on over generations. Conversely, the MBT is interpreted as a border zone where highly mobile groups of Neanderthals from both the east (KMG) and west (MTA) interacted. Principally, this study presents an archaeological contribution to behavioural concepts such as regionality, culture, social transmission and population dynamics. It illustrates the interpretive potential of large-scale lithic studies, and more specifically the presence of regionalised cultural behaviour amongst late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe.