In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

279 12. The Châtelperronian: Hybrid Culture or Independent Innovation? Clare Tolmie Abstract: The introduction of new technology at the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in western Europe includes changes in the production of stone tools, and the introduction of bone, antler, and ivory tools. This chapter will focus on the latter technological innovation. Worked bone, antler, and ivory were associated with modern humans who migrated into western Europe. However, it has become apparent that Neanderthals (the indigenous European human population in the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic) also manufactured bone artifacts. Two conflicting hypotheses have been proposed to explain this material in Neanderthal contexts: an autochthonous development that is roughly contemporary with changes in modern human culture or an allocthonous development derived from contact with modern humans. Were Neanderthals active creators of new technology or passive recipients of introduced technology? Independent development of similar technologies as a solution to similar problems occurs throughout human history. Both Neanderthals and modern humans were experiencing less stable climatic conditions and environmental fluctuation. New forms of cultural expression may have served to reinforce social networks as social competition for resources increased or as resources became less predictable. Introduction Two human species were present in Europe during the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe (thirty to forty thousand years ago): Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and anatomically modern humans The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card. Center for Archaeological Investigations , Occasional Paper No. 39. © 2013 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-8093-3314-1. 280 C. Tolmie (Homo sapiens). This transition was marked by changes in lithic technology and the appearance of bone and antler tools in the European archaeological record. The degree of cultural exchange between the two human species in Europe remains a matter of controversy. The role of material culture as an expression of group identity, the integration of new technology, evidence for or against cultural exchange and creation of new cultures and cultural forms plays a significant role in this debate. The interpretations of Early Upper Palaeolithic culture also speak to how modern anthropologists create and interpret both ancient cultures and our own, in terms of how and what we perceive to be typical “human” behavior . What is significantly lacking is the theoretical consideration of culture and ethnogenesis by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists who study this fascinating time period. The debate for and against acculturation corresponds to a larger debate regarding the distinctiveness or uniqueness of modern human behavior. Discussions of Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic behavior have been framed in oppositional terms related to the two human species (Mellars 1996; Stringer and Gamble 1993; Trinkaus and Shipman 1993). This in turn relates to our perceptions of what behavior represents “modern,” of how we view ourselves and our own use of culture. Depictions of Neanderthals tend to show them as unwashed and unkempt, signaling their difference from modern humans, who are depicted in tailored clothing and wearing ornaments. Lack of artwork and distinctive regional variation has been argued to show nonmodern behavior by Neanderthals, although there is little evidence for such behavior by contemporary modern humans (Chase and Dibble 1987; Gamble 1999; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; White and Knecht 1992). Depictions of Neanderthal “cavemen” reinforce long-standing assumptions that the cultural and technological superiority of modern humans caused Neanderthal extinction. The interpretation of Mousterian culture as less complex than later Upper Palaeolithic cultures reflects an unfounded assumption that complex behavior is mirrored in complex material culture and is informed by unverified assumptions about Neanderthals’ capacity for “modern” or “human” behavior (Speth 2004). Neanderthals are now known to share a recent common ancestor with modern humans, and recent DNAevidence shows that direct contact did occur between the two groups in western Asia (Green et al. 2010), during the Mousterian and prior to the spread of modern humans into Europe. Prior to the Upper Palaeolithic, there is little evidence for major differences in behavior between the two species. Both were efficient predators of large game, had similar flake-based lithic technology, and were capable of adapting to a number of environments (Enloe 2001; Hardy 2010; Morin 2004; Riel Salvatore et al. 2008; Stiner 1994; White 2006). The Upper Palaeolithic in Europe is characterized by changes in material culture and techno-complexes, as defined by archaeologists. Of particular significance are lithic manufacturing systems that focus on the production of blades to make tools, and the introduction of worked...

Share