7 Neanderthal Identity and Bifacial Tools

75

Micoquian, bifaces are more frequent at residential camps, but no use is made of blanks from surface shaping, indicating somehow lower degrees of planning depth and/or lower levels of mobility than in the previous industries. Arguments for a land use pattern with longer stays at some locations include considerable “times of activity” calculated on the basis of working hours deduced from actual experiments for the production and use of different types of blanks and tools (Uthmeier 2004c: Table 14.3). On a more general level, one may discuss whether the observed differences in both the operational chains and the resulting tool forms can be described in terms of “function” or “style”. Following R. C. Dunnell (1978:199), “The definition of function […] is frequently a synonym of ‘use’. […] Stylistic similarity is […] the result of direct cultural transmission once chance similarity in a context of limited possibilities is excluded.” (for an assessment of this definition from an evolutionary point of view see Shennan 2005:136). In fact, the function of bifaces typical for the MtA and the Micoquian is very similar: in both cases these are multi-functional tools which make use of a point (in most cases implemented by convergent retouched edges of a bifacial surface-shaped blank) and a primary lateral working edge. Perhaps most important, and yet equally in agreement, is the possibility for recurrent resharpening. Are, then, different realizations of similar functional demands a question of style? Since concepts of resharpening target the longevity of working edges closely intertwined with land use patterns, operational chains have a “functional” significance for the well-being of the groups. Against this background, one may ask if the differences observed are at all deliberate, e.g., group decisions brought about by discourse, or related to chance (Shennan 2005). The small size of groups (on the level of extended networks) and the low overall demographic density presumably leading to isolation for longer periods would speak for such a notion. On the other hand, with the data at hand, there is no clear chronological trend between the industries, and operational chains exclude one another, making simple “drift” less probable. Apart from this, objects develop social meaning through social interaction, which gives them a relevance in every-day life that is independent from possible evolutionary (macro-scale) developments.

Conclusions

Although egalitarian hunter-gatherers are expected to be open to cooperation and integration of individuals from socially distant groups, by comparing the manufacture and use of surface-shaped tools the MtA and the Micoquian can

be understood as separated collectives. Within the Micoquian, the Central European Micoquian and the Crimean Micoquian show differences in the operational chains for both façonnage and débitage, but it is doubtful whether the resulting bifacial tools and production waste are distinct enough to be recognized as socially separate technological knowledge without participating observation. Therefore, it is more probable that both entities constitute one collective which consists of at least two extended networks with slightly different strategies of lithic curation. Transfer of knowledge, and exchange of social actors, should have been facilitated between these entities, and hindered between them and the MtA.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank G.-C. Weniger, M. Bolus, and an anonymous reviewer who helped to improve the present article, as well as R. Miller for the revision of the English language and, last but not least, M. Haidle and M. Bolus for the possibility to participate in the “Nature of Culture” workshop.

References

Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Álvarez Fernández, E., & Jöris, O. (2007). Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: An evaluation of the record. Eurasian Prehistory, 5(2), 31–44.

Apel, J. (2001). Daggers, knowledge and power. The social aspects of

flint-dagger technology. Uppsala: Uppsala University Department of Archaeology & Ancient History.

Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363–393.

Bednarik, R. (1992). Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2, 27–57.

Blumer, H. (1937). Social psychology. In E. P. Schmidt (Ed.), Man and society (pp. 144–198). New York: Prentice Hall.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Boëda, E. (1995). Steinartefakt-Produktionssequenzen im Micoquien der Kulna-Höhle. Quartär, 45(46), 75–98.

Bosinski, G. (1967). Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln: Böhlau.

Bouquet-Appel, J.-P., & Demars, P.-Y. (2000). Neanderthal contraction and modern human colonization of Europe. Antiquity, 74, 544–552.

Byers, A. A. (1994). Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A theoretical and methodological critique. Current Anthropology, 35, 369–399.

Caron, F., d’Errico, F., del Moral, P., Santos, F., & Zilhão, J. (2011). The reality of Neandertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21545.

Chabai, V. P. (2004). The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: Stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability and eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh. (in Russian).

Chabai, V. P., Marks, A. E., & Yevtushenko, A. I. (1995). Views of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic: Past and present. Préhistoire Européene, 7, 59–79.

76	T. Uthmeier

Chabai, V. P., Richter, J., Uthmeier, T., & Yevtushenko, A. I. (2002). Neue Forschungen zum Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Krim. Germania, 80, 441–473.

Chase, P. G. (1991). Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Journal of Anthropological Science, 10, 193–214.

Chase, P. G., & Dibble, H. L. (1987). Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Science, 6, 263–296.

Delagnes, A., & Meignen, L. (2006). Diversity of Lithic Production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France. Are there any chronological trends? In E. Hovers & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition. Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age. (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.

Dibble, H. (1988). Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilisation of lithic resources of the French Mousterian. In H. Dibble & A. Montet-White (Eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia (pp. 181–197). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy.

American Antiquity, 43, 192–202.

Eisenhauer, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsund Kulturgeschichte des Mittelneolithikums in der Wetterau. Bonn: Habelt.

Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gamble, C. (2007). Origins and reevolutions. Human identity in earliest prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., & Meignen, K. (1990). Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen.

Paléo, 2, 43–80.

Hahn, H. P. (2003). Dinge als Zeichen – eine unscharfe Beziehung. In U. Veit, T. L. Kienlin, C. Kümmel, & S. Schmidt (Eds.), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur (pp. 29–51). Münster: Waxmann.

Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., Wood, R., et al. (2010). Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Châtelperronian. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 107, 20234–20239.

Jäger, L. (2002). Transkriptivität. Zur medialen Logik der kulturellen Semantik. In L. Jäger & G. Stanitzek (Eds.), Transkribieren. Medien/Lektüre (pp. 19–41). München: Fink.

Jäger, L. (2003). Transkription - zu einem medialen Verfahren an den Schnittstellen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses. TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften, No. 15/2003. http:// www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/06_2/jaeger15.htm. Accessed 1 July 2012.

Jöris, O. (2001). Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen (Grabungen 1966–1969). Stratigraphie, Steinartefakte und Fauna des Oberen Fundplatzes. Bonn: Habelt.

Jöris, O. (2005). Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europäischen Kontext. Bericht der Römisch-germanischen Kommission, 34, 49–153.

Kienlin, T. L. (Ed.). (2005). Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. Bonn: Habelt.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1984). Hand und Wort: Die Evolution von Technik, Sprache und Kunst (3rd ed.). Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.

Mauss, M. (1979). Sociology and psychology. London: Routledge. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A

new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 423–463.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mellars, P. A. (1973). The character of the Middle-Upper transition in southwest France. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The explanation of cultural change: Models (pp. 255–276). London: Duckwort.

Mellars, P. A. (1996). The Neanderthal legacy. An archeological perspective from Western Europe. New York: Princeton University Press.

Mellars, P. A. (2010). Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: The bursting of a bubble? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 107, 20147–20148.

Mikl-Horke, G. (2001). Soziologie: Historischer Kontext und soziologische Theorie-Entwürfe (5th ed.). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.

Moddermann, P. J. R. (1988). The linear pottery culture: Diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, 38, 63–140.

Münch, R. (2002a). Soziologische Theorie. Band 1: Grundlegung durch die Klassiker. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Münch, R. (2002b). Soziologische Theorie. Band 2: Handlungstheorie. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Porr, M. (1998). Die Postmoderne Archäologie in Großbritannien. In K. H. Eggert & U. Veit (Eds.), Theorie in der Archäologie: Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion (pp. 183–216). Münster: Waxmann.

Porr, M. (2005). The making of bifaces and the making of the individual. In C. Gamble & M. Porr (Eds.), The Hominid individual in context. Archaeological investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts (pp. 68–80). London & New York: Routledge.

Richter, J. (1997). Sesselfelsgrotte III: Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte – Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

Richter, J. (2000). Social memory among late Neanderthals. In J. Orschiedt & G.-C. Weniger (Eds.), Neanderthals and modern humans – Discussing the transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000–30.000 B.P. (pp. 123–132). Mettmann: Neanderthal Museum.

Richter, J. (2001). For lack of a wise old man? Late Neanderthal land use patterns in the Altmühl River Valley, Southern Germany. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age (Vol. 1, pp. 205–220). Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

Richter, J. (2002). Die 14C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Zeitstellung des Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania, 80, 1–22.

Richter, J. (2004). Copies of flakes. Operational sequences of foliate pieces from Buran-Kaya III Level B1. In V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal, & A. E. Marks (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III

(pp. 233–247). Liège: Université de Liège.

Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 59–112.

Sackett, J. R. (1986). Isochrestism and style: A clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 266–277.

Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology, 28, 595–622.

Shennan, S. (2005). The evolutionary dynamics of cultural traditions. In K. T. Kienlin (Ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur (pp. 133–147). Bonn: Habelt.

Soressi, M. (2002). Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faciès à partir de l’étude comparée de quatre sites: Pech-de-l’Azé, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Bordeaux I. http://www.paleoanthro.org/dissertations/ marie%20soressi.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2012.

7 Neanderthal Identity and Bifacial Tools

77

Soressi, M. (2004a). From the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition type A to type B: A change in technical tradition, raw material, task, or settlement dynamics? In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age II (pp. 343–366). Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

Soressi, M. (2004b). Die Steintechnologie des Spätmoustérien. Ihre Bedeutung für die Entstehungsgeschwindigkeit modernen Verhaltens und die Beziehung zwischen modernem Verhalten und biologischer Modernität. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 13, 9–28.

Soressi, M., & Hays, M. (2003). Manufacture, transport and use of Mousterian bifaces. A case study from the Perigord (France). In M. Soressi & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies (pp. 125–147). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Tostevin G. B. (2007). Social intimacy, artefact visibility and acculturation models of Neanderthal-Modern Human interaction. In P. A. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution. New behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans (pp. 341–357). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Uthmeier, T. (2004a). Transformation analysis and the reconstruction of on-site and off-site activities: Methodological remarks. In V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal, & A. E. Marks (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III (pp. 175–191). Liège: Université de Liège.

Uthmeier, T. (2004b). Landnutzungsmuster im Mittelpaläolithikum der Halbinsel Krim, Ukraine. Ein Beitrag zu Ökonomie und Soziologie der Neandertaler. Habilitation Dissertation, University of Cologne.

Uthmeier, T. (2004c). Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittelzum Jungpaläolithikum. Bonn: Habelt.

Uthmeier, T. (2012). The Transition from Middleto Upper Palaeolithic at Buran Kaya III, Crimea (Ukraine): A case of conceptual continuity of lithic artefact manufacture? In A. Pastoors & M. Peresani (Eds.), Flakes not blades: The role of flake production at the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic (pp. 239–260). Mettmann: Neanderthal Museum.

Uthmeier, T., & Chabai, V. P. (2010). Neanderthal subsistence tactics in the Crimean Micoquian. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement

dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age (Vol. III, pp. 195–234). Tübingen: Kerns-Verlag.

Veil, S., Breest, K., Höfle, H.-C., Meyer, H. H., Plisson, H., Urban-Küttel, B., et al. (1994). Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz aus der Weichsel-Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg, Lkr. Lüchow-Dannen- berg. Zwischenbericht über die archäologischen und geowissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen 1987–1992. Germania, 72, 1–66.

Veselsky, A. P. (2008). Kabazi V: Production and rejuvenation of bifacial tools. In V. P. Chabai, J. Richter, & T. Uthmeier (Eds.),

Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian and Levallois-Mousterian camp sites, Part II. The Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea 4 (pp. 455–479). Simferopol & Köln: Shlayakh.

von Koenigswald, W., Müller-Beck, H., & Pressmar, E. (1974). Die Archäologie und Paläontologie in den Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern), Grabungen 1937–67. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria.

Weede, E. (1992). Mensch und Gesellschaft. Soziologie aus der Perspektive des methodologischen Individualismus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Weber, M. (1964). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Studienausgabe. Köln: Kiepenreuther und Witsch.

Weißmüller, W. (1995). Die Silexartefakte aus den Unteren Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Moustérien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

Weißmüller, W. (2003). Von Gestaltungsfreiheit und Standardisierungszwang: Zum Zeichencharakter paläolitischer Steinartefakte. In U. Veit, T. L. Kienlin, C. Kümmel, & S. Schmidt (Eds.), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur (pp. 173–186). Münster: Waxmann.

White, J., & Jacobi, R. (2002). Two sides to every story: Bout coupé handaxes revisted. Oxford Journal of Archeology, 21, 109–133.

Wragg Sykes, R. M. (2010). Beyond bout coupés: The dynamic role of bifaces in the British Mousterian. Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, 31, 20–32.

Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D. E., Badal-García, E., d’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., et al. (2010). Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 1023–1028.

Chapter 8

Tracing Group Identity in Early Upper Paleolithic Stone and Organic Tools – Some Thoughts and Many Questions

Michael Bolus

Abstract While discussions about identity in the Upper Paleolithic usually focus on art, decorated objects, and personal ornaments, regarding style as one crucial topic, organic tools and especially stone artifacts have been considered to a much lesser degree. This paper tries to assess the significance of stone and organic tools, representing the most common archaeological record beyond art and ornaments, for establishing group identity in the early Upper Paleolithic. It starts providing a short overview of some major contributions addressing style with regard to stone artifacts and then screens the archaeological record. Problems result from the lack of an unambiguous definition of ‘style’ and from the lack of applicable parameters to decide whether differences between tools have to be interpreted in terms of different styles or rather in terms of different types. In both cases it is not clear if and in which way identity is conveyed. Both stone and organic tools appear to be weak indicators for group identity and even with data added by other artifact categories such as personal ornaments, decorated objects and art objects the chance of getting positive results is rated to be rather low for the early Upper Paleolithic.

Keywords Aurignacian Protoaurignacian Uluzzian Artifacts Style Type Cultural capacities Cultural performances

M. Bolus (&)

Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Research Center “The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans”, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Rümelinstraße 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany

e-mail: [e-mail]

Introduction

Discussions about identity in the Upper Paleolithic usually focus on art, decorated objects, and personal ornaments (see, e.g., Bar-Yosef 2002; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2006; Bolus and Conard 2008; Conard 2008), while organic tools and especially stone artifacts have been considered to a much lesser degree (e.g., Close 1978; Sackett 1982; Barton 1997) since the signal given by these artifact categories seems to be less clear. When distinguishing between group or social identity and personal identity, it becomes obvious that most of the relevant papers are dealing with the former rather than with the latter.

Since it is obviously much less clear if group identity can be expressed through stone and organic tools, it is necessary to find parameters to assess the significance – if there is one

– of these artifacts for establishing social/group (and personal) identity. Hence, this paper raises the question: Can we trace group identity in the most common archaeological record beyond art and ornaments and if so, how?

Style in the Archaeological Discourse

Style seems to be a crucial topic when trying to trace identity in prehistoric times. One question must therefore be if style, beyond artifacts with clear symbolic meaning, can also be expressed by seemingly profane objects such as stone and organic tools. In case this should turn out to be true, it might be possible to deduce social/group identity from the style of stone and organic tools.

While most colleagues seem to agree on the significance of style, the definitions of style vary within relevant key papers. Polly Wiessner (1983) in her study on Kalahari San projectile points distinguishes between assertive style which carries information about personal identity, separating the individual from similar group members, and emblemic style

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

79

Miriam N. Haidle, Nicholas J. Conard and Michael Bolus (eds.), The Nature of Culture:

Based on an Interdisciplinary Symposium ‘The Nature of Culture’, Tübingen, Germany,

Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7426-0_8