Interesting Aspects of the Chtelperronian Industry - Dissertation Example

?The Chatelperronian Industry The Chatelperronian Industry was an important industry in the central and southern parts of France. The term Chatelperronian comes from a site named la Grotte des Fees in the town of Chatelperron (Gravina et al, 2005). The industry is considered to be the earliest in the area, occurring in the Upper Palaeolithic era between 35,000 and 29,000 years ago (Gravina et al, 2005). There are some arguments about how the Chatelperronian industry related to the similar Aurignacian period, although scholars tend to believe that the Chatelperronian superceded the Aurignacian period – although there may have been some overlap (Harrold, 1983). As part of the Palaeolithic, there is heavy use of the lithic reduction technique and an emphasis on the use of one or two striking points as a way of creating stone tools (Movius, 1969). One of the most interesting aspects of the Chatelperronian industry is that many of the finds correspond to the period of transition between the middle and upper Palaeolithic eras, meaning that the Chatelperronian industry could straddle the interactions between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (Lenoble, 2008). In fact, recent analysis of bone samples from the Grotte du Renne and Saint Cesaire areas of France suggest that there are Chatelperronian tools that have been manufactured by Neanderthals (Hublin et al, 2012).. Evidence suggests that it was manufactured by later Neanderthals after interaction with Homo sapiens, suggesting that there may have been a cultural overlap between the two species and some sharing of ideas (Hublin et al, 2012) As previously mentioned, many of the key sites for research into the Chatelperronian industry are based in France, with St. Cesaire, Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, La Ferassie, Brassempouy, Roc de Combe and Le Piage being the most important and the most well-covered by the literature (Mellars, 2000). These sites have thrown up countless pieces of lithic evidence, including several types of stone tool that can be compared to Mousterian occupation artefacts (Harrold, 1981). Additionally, these sites have also shown that there are some key important features of the Chatelperronian industry, including the use of bone, shell and ivory in the tool-making proves – not often found at other archaeological sites of the same era (Lenoble, 2008). The history of research into the Chatelperronian is varied. At the Grotte des Fees, there are two cave entrances which play an important part in the development of the excavations in the areas. These were named in 1955 by Henri Delporte (Bailey & Hublin, 2006). However, the area has been of interest to archaeologists for some time, with Bailleau excavating and exploring the area since 1869 (Bailey & Hublin, 2006). The recognition of the site as important historically comes from these two researchers, who built on early recognition of the site in the middle parts of the 19th century by discovering fossilferous deposits full of relevant faunal remains (Riel-Salvatore et al, 2008). Early research by Bailleau focused mainly on the two caves in the area, which feature two levels – one of sands and silts from the Graveron river and deposit later of Gallo-Roman pots. In this early research, there was no evidence of bones or flint artefacts – later believed to be the result of Gallo-Roman looting or later railway workers in the area (Lenoble, 2008). It was the second cave that was explored that was more important archaeologically because it was intact and full of modern animal species remains. There was still no evidence of flint artefacts at this stage of excavation, although Bailleau interpreted some of the animal bone evidence from the second cave as proof that there was human activity at some point during the Pleistocene (Lenoble, 2008). It was actually the later work of Delporte that highlighted the importance of the site as a transition between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. A series of small tests in 1962 showed that further excavations beyond the west profile of the cave wall showed interesting stone artefacts. At first, these were thought to be Aurignacian because they were found in a distinct Aurignacian occupation horizon but they showed evidence of cultural influence from a separate geographical area (Higham et al, 2010). Additionally, later research by Harrold (1988) showed finds of several ornamental and personal objects thought to belong to the Chatelperronian industry (Higham et al, 2010). Much of the later research from the late parts of the 20th century has been undertaken by Harrold – focusing mainly on the debates about the origins of the Chatelperronian industry with respect to species and carbon-dating. There are several key debates linked to the Chatelperronian. For example, the complex blend of tools found in the area are a mixture of middle Palaeolithic and upper Palaeolithic, which has led to some debates about the dating of the Chatelperronian industry in relation to others which may have been present in the region at the time (Mellars et al, 2007). Additionally, there is added complication from the fact that both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were present in the area at the time (Harrold, 1989), although this debate has since been ironed out with some proof that Neanderthals were involved (Hublin et al, 2012). However, it still remains to be debated the extent of the Neanderthal contribution to the tools and how much cultural cross-over was present in other areas besides flint knapping (Lenoble, 2008). Another key debate related to the finds of the Chatelperronian regards how the industry reflects on the cognitive and neuropsychological elements of those living there at the time, creating these tools and personal ornaments. The key debate is the fact that, if we accept that Neanderthals were present in the area and contributing to the finds, there needs to be an explanation for why they are more sophisticated than other tools associated with the species (Coolidge & Wynn, 2004). One of the major theories in this area is that Neanderthals adapted skills from the Homo sapiens through observational learning, although this of course is speculative and requires further information from finds and artefacts in the area. References Bailey, S.E., Hublin, J.J., 2006. Did Neanderthals make the Chatelperronian assemblage from La Grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure, France)?, in: Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Springer, pp. 191–209. Coolidge, F.L., Wynn, T., 2004. A cognitive and neuropsychological perspective on the Chatelperronian. Journal of Anthropological Research 55–73. Gravina, B., Mellars, P., Ramsey, C.B., 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Chatelperronian type-site. Nature 438, 51–56. Harrold, F.B., 1981. New perspectives on the Chatelperronian. Empuries: revista de mon classic i antiguitat tardana 1–51. Harrold, F.B., 1983. The Chatelperronian and the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition. The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series S 164, 123–140. Harrold, F.B., 1988. The Chatelperronian and the Early Aurignacian in France in The Early Upper Paleolithic. Evidence from Europe and the Near East. BAR. International Series 157–191. Harrold, F.B., 1989. Mousterian, Chatelperronian and early Aurignacian in Western Europe: continuity or discontinuity. The human revolution 1, 677–713. Harrold, F.B., 2000. The Chatelperronian in historical context. Journal of anthropological research 59–75. Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., Wood, R., Davies, W., Ramsey, C.B., 2010. Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Chatelperronian. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 20234–20239. Hublin, J.-J., Talamo, S., Julien, M., David, F., Connet, N., Bodu, P., Vandermeersch, B., Richards, M.P., 2012. Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte du Renne and Saint-C?saire support a Neandertal origin for the Ch?telperronian. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109, 18743–18748. Lenoble, A., 2008. Grotte des Fees (Chatelperron): History of research, stratigraphy, dating, and archaeology of the Chatelperronian type-site. PaleoAnthropology 1, 42. Mellars, P., 2000. Chatelperronian chronology and the case for Neanderthal/modern human “acculturation”in Western Europe, in: Neanderthals on the Edge. Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbes’ Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar. pp. 33–39. Mellars, P., Gravina, B., Ramsey, C.B., 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal/modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 3657–3662. Movius, H., 1969. The Chatelperronian in French archaeology: the evidence of Arcy-sur-Cure. Antiquity 43, 111–123. Riel-Salvatore, J., Miller, A.E., Clark, G.A., 2008. An empirical evaluation of the case for a Chatelperronian-Aurignacian interstratification at Grotte des Fees de Chatelperron. World Archaeology 40, 480–492. Read More