The consequences for the Neanderthal population in Western Europe upon the arrival of anatomically modern humans in the Upper Palaeolithic, is a matter of intense debate within the field of...Show moreThe consequences for the Neanderthal population in Western Europe upon the arrival of anatomically modern humans in the Upper Palaeolithic, is a matter of intense debate within the field of prehistoric archaeology. The fact that our species is the only one to survive, has traditionally been explained by a supposed cognitive superiority inherent to anatomically modern humans. However, recent studies have refuted most of the proclaimed differences between the species, leaving the reason behind the Neanderthal disappearance even more peculiar. One way to address this issue, is through the study of behavioural differences between the species. By mapping differences and compare the results, we may potentially discern behavioural patterns or cognitive abilities indicating a difference great enough to explain the notable success of our species. In this study, a micro-wear analysis of three multi-functional flint tools, distinct for Upper Palaeolithic assemblages (hence anatomically modern humans) was performed. The tools originate from the final stage of the Early Aurignacian occupation of Les Cottés, France, a site that has been occupied by both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. The continuous stratigraphical sequence of the site makes it suitable for behavioural comparisons between the two populations within the same context. By understanding the function/s of the tools, tasks performed at the site can be inferred. As a consequence, information about behavioural and cognitive aspects of the manufacturers of the artefacts can be indicated. The results can later be used for behavioural comparisons between anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, in an attempt to define eventual cognitive or behavioural differences. In order to strengthen any claims of performed tasks, the results from the micro-wear analysis were compared with results derived from the faunal and lithic assemblages of the same context. The results corroborated each other, consequently contributing to our knowledge about certain behavioural aspects of anatomically modern humans from this period.Show less
In this thesis a reduction model on the retouched blades of layer US04 (sup.) of Les Cottés was proposed. Reduction is the resharpening of an artefact to maintain a sharp, usable edge. It has been...Show moreIn this thesis a reduction model on the retouched blades of layer US04 (sup.) of Les Cottés was proposed. Reduction is the resharpening of an artefact to maintain a sharp, usable edge. It has been widely observed both in ethnographic studies as in archaeological cases. It served an argument in the Bordes-Binford debate on what caused the variability in Middle-Palaeolithic assemblages. Reduction is nowadays used to gain information on site functions, such as the use-life of tools, mobility, duration of occupation and raw material availability. In this thesis a model, based on typology, with different parameters was proposed. This model consists of three types of blades that are part of a continuum of lateral retouch. The site where the material originates from is Les Cottés, Vienne, France. This is a cave site with an excellent sequence covering both the Middle-Palaeolithic and the Upper- Palaeolithic. The layer where the material originates from is US04 (sup.), which dates to the Aurignacian. Results have been obtained through measuring and classifying artefacts. Measurements were taken with a calliper and a protractor. The results were rather unexpected. Most of the parameters did not follow their hypothesis. A reduction model on the retouched blades could not be confirmed. Several arguments were given on what might have been the cause. Those were 1. methodological aspects, 2. wrong defining of the parameters (and blank selection beforehand), and 3. the abundant raw material in proximity of the site. The level of reduction was generally low and pieces had a short use-life. This would suggest a high mobility and a short occupation span, but the proximity of abundant raw material should be considered. Suggestions for an adjustment to the model and suggestions for further research were given. A reduction model could, at least in this study, not be validated, however it was shown that the gained knowledge from these models is contributing to solving important archaeological issues regarding site functions.Show less
Summary There are many differences between the Upper-Paleolithic, the period which is often associated with the Anatomically Modern Human, and the Middle-Paleolithic, a period which is often...Show moreSummary There are many differences between the Upper-Paleolithic, the period which is often associated with the Anatomically Modern Human, and the Middle-Paleolithic, a period which is often associated with the Neanderthal. One of those differences is the increased use of standardized bone tools in the Upper-Paleolithic. These standardized bone tools were used for very specific purposes. An example of such a standardized bone tool is the ‘lissoir’ (the smoother). The lissoir is a bone tool that was used to make hides more impermeable and lustrous and tougher. In 2013 Soressi et al. (2013) published an article in which it was stated that four lissoirs from the Middle Paleolithic from two different sites (Abri Peyrony en Pech de l’Aze) were found. Soressi et al. (2013) suggest that there was possibly a cultural diffusion from Neanderthals to Anatomically Modern Humans. To investigate this theory, the Middle Paleolithic lissoirs were compared with the lissoirs from the Aurignacian (a period in the Upper Paleolithic) in this research. This research is based on publicated lissoirs from Southwest France. For this research an extensive database was made, containing parameters which among others concerned; the site, the sizes and the morphology of the lissoirs, the material and the technology that was used to produce the lissoirs and the absence or presence of use-wear, weathering, root etching, gnawing, digestion and decoration. The database contains 52 lissoirs from 16 sites. The results of the research show us that there are multiple similarities and differences between the lissoirs from the Middle Paleolithic and the Aurignacian. However, because of a lack of data, the research question cannot be answered univocal: based on this research it cannot be refuted that the Neanderthals invented the lissoir and the Anatomically Modern Humans imitated the Neanderthals. New research, in which the lissoirs from the Aurignacian are studied, are necessary. The main items that should be studied about the Aurignacian lissoirs are the curvature, the animal species that were used to produce the lissoirs, the shapes of the fractures, the use-wear ont the lissoirs and the technology used to produce the lissoirs. This would make a comparison between the Aurignacian and the Middle Paleolithic lissoirs better.Show less
