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
