ALL IN GOOD TIME:

EXPLORING CHANGE IN BEHAVIOURAL COMPLEXITY

MICHELLE C. LANGLEY

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in the School of Social Science, University of Queensland

OCTOBER 2006 ii

The race of men with social conscience enough to care for their weak and wounded, with spiritual awareness enough to bury their dead, the race of men with great brains but no frontal lobes, who made no great strides forward, who made almost no progress in nearly a hundred thousand years. The Clan of the Bear by Jean M. Auel (1980:503).

iii

I certify that I have read the final draft of this thesis and it is ready for submission in accordance with the thesis requirements as set out in the School of Social Science policy documents.

Dr Sean Ulm Dr Chris Clarkson October 2006 October 2006 Brisbane, Brisbane, Australia

I declare that the work presented in this thesis is the result of my own independent research, except where otherwise acknowledged in the reference list. This material has not been submitted either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.

Michelle C. Langley October 2006 Brisbane, Australia

iv Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x ABSTRACT xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS CONTEXT

Introduction 1 Background, Context and Rationale 1 Research Question and Aims 4 Research Design 4 Thesis Organisation 4

CHAPTER TWO: , MODERN BEHAVIOUR AND COMPLEXITY: A REVIEW

Introduction 7 Evolutionary Anthropological Background 7 Traditional Views of Neanderthal Behaviour 9 Modern Human Behaviour and Neanderthals 10 Redefining Modern Human Behaviour as ‘Complexity’ 13 Defining Complexity 14 Archaeological Signatures of Complexity 19 Faunal Extraction 19 Technology 23 Symbolism 26 Summary 31

v CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND DATASETS

Introduction 33 Site Selection 33 Temporal Units 36 Faunal Extraction Analysis Methods and Dataset 37 Faunal Extraction Complexity Index 38 Faunal Extraction Analysis Methods 38 Construction of the Faunal Extraction Dataset 42 Analysis of Neanderthal Lithic Technology: Methods and Dataset 43 Technology Complexity Index 43 Technology Analysis Methods 44 Construction of the Technological Dataset 45 Analysis of Symbolism: Methods and Dataset 46 Symbolism Complexity Index 46 Symbolism Analysis Methods 47 Construction of the Symbolism Dataset 49 Imported Non-Utilitarian Objects 49 Burials 49 Modified Raw Material 49 Pigment 50 Composite Technology 51 Body Modification 51 Summary 51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Introduction 53 Faunal Extraction 53 Species Exploited 53 Environments Exploited 54

vi Mean and Coefficient of Variation of Body Mass of Exploited Prey Species 55 Shannon Weaver Function (H′) 56 Interpreting Changes in Faunal Extraction 57 Faunal Extraction Summary 59 Technology 60 Symbolism 63 Collective Results and Overall Trends 65 Summary 66

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Introduction 67 Key Findings 67 Change in Neanderthal Behavioural Complexity 68 Contribution to Current Debate 69 Recommendations for Future Research 71 Conclusion 72

REFERENCES 73 APPENDICES 87 Appendix A: Sites Included in Study 89 Appendix B: Faunal Extraction Presence/Absence Dataset 90 Appendix C: Top 40 Ranked Species Habitats and Body Mass (kg) 93 Appendix D: Lithic Dataset 95 Appendix E: Symbolism Dataset 97

vii List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Temporal appearance of industries in the archaeological record. 8

Figure 2.2 One of the original portrayals of Neanderthals (left) and a modern 9 reconstruction of 1 (right) (Stringer and Gamble 1993:18; Roufs 2006:1). Figure 2.3 Châtelperronian bone implements (left) and the characteristic 10 Châtelperronian lithics (right) (d’Errico et al. 1998:s6; Mellars 1996:413). Figure 2.4 Temperature variation over the past 140,000 years estimated from ice- 20 cores (Mellars 1996:10). Figure 2.5 Shanidar IV flower burial exhibiting the foetal position of the body 29 (Leroi-Gourhan 1975:562). Figure 2.6 Examples of pigments with use-wear from Pech de l’Aze (left) and an 30 incised stone from Tata, (right) (Bednarik 1992:35; Mellars 1996:370). Figure 2.7 Examples of perforated bones and teeth from Repolosthőhle (left) and 31 incised bones and teeth from Prolom II (right) (Bednarik 1992:35; Stepanchuk 1993:34). Figure 3.1 Map of Neanderthal region (shaded in purple) with sites included in 35 study. (1) Grotte de Tournal; (2) Saint-Cesaire; (3) La Chapelle-aux- Saint; (4) Grotte de Neron; (5) Fonseigner; (6) Montagne de Girault; (7) ; (8) ; (9) Pech de l’Aze; (10) Roc de Marsal; (11) ; (12) ; (13) Spy; (14) Oliveira Cave; (15) Shanidar; (16) Teshik-Tash; (17) Amud; (18) Tabun; (19) Kebara; (20) L’Abric Chadourne; (21) ; (22) Grotte Vaufrey; (23) Grotta Guattari; (24) Grotta Breuil; (25) Grotte dei Moscerini; (26) Grotta di Sant’Agnostino; (27) Tagliente Rochshelter; (28) Tonchesberg; (29) Salzgitter-Lebenstedt; (30) Bocksteinschmiede; (31) Lehringen; (32) Taubach; (33) Kongisaue; (34) Abric Romani; (35) Castillo; (36) Cueva Morin; (37) ; (38) Gorham’s cave; (39) Buran Kaya III; (40) Prolom II; (41) Staroselji; (42) Kiik-Koba; (43) Bacho Kiro; (44) Cioarei-Borosteni; (45) Tata; (46) Mujina Pecina; (47) Dederiyeh Cave; (48) Umm el Tlet. Note that Repolosthőhle and Temanta Cave not displayed on map.

Figure 4.1 Results of faunal extraction analysis showing relationship of data to 54 oxygen isotope stages (OIS) and temperature variation (after Mellars 1996:10). Figure 4.2 Environments exploited by Neanderthals in each time-slice. 55 Figure 4.3 Faunal diversity calculated using Shannon-Weaver function (H′). 56 Figure 4.4 Number of Bordesian types in Western and Central European sites. 60

viii Figure 4.5 Number of Bordesian types (using Kuhn groupings) in Italian sites. 61 Figure 4.6 Relationship between the percentage of tree cover and abundance of 62 scrapers. Figure 4.7 Relationship between the percentage of tree cover and abundance of 62 burins. Figure 4.8 Symbolic instances by type and time of occurrence. 64 Figure 4.9 Number of symbolic instances against number of sites occupied during 65 the Middle Palaeolithic. Figure 4.10 Changes in faunal extraction and symbolic behaviour through time. 66

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Hominin/ relationships. 8 Table 2.2 Example of the trait list definition for Modern Human Behaviour 12 (McBrearty and Brooks 2000). Table 3.1 Example of the integration of individual strata from different sites into 36 each 10,000 year time-slice. Table 3.2 Faunal extraction dataset. 42 Table 3.3 Technology dataset. 45

ix Acknowledgements I could not have completed this thesis without the help of a number of people, who deserve special thanks. First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisors, Sean Ulm and Chris Clarkson, for their support and advice (not to mention their unending patience) during the preparation of this thesis. Thanks also to Phil Habgood for his valued advice throughout the project.

I’d also like to thank all those in Sean’s PG group (Dan Rosendahl, Sue Nugent, Cameo Dalley, Karen Murphy, Antje Noll, Steve Nichols, Nathan Woolford, Geraldine Mate, Clair Harris, Cass Venn and Jo Bowman) especially Robyn Jenkins and Bettyann Doyle for their great support, advice and laughs throughout the year. Finally I’d like to thank my friends and family for their support, particularly Dylan Barnes and Jenny Burt for their unending encouragement and above all for reading the continuous string of drafts.

x Abstract Since their discovery 150 years ago, Neanderthals have been considered incapable of behavioural change and innovation. Traditional synchronic approaches to the study of Neanderthal behaviour have perpetuated this view and shaped our understanding of their lifeways and eventual extinction. In this thesis I implement an innovative diachronic approach to the analysis of Neanderthal faunal extraction, technology and symbolic behaviour as contained in the archaeological record of the critical period between 80,000 and 30,000 years BP. The thesis demonstrates patterns of change in Neanderthal behaviour which are at odds with traditional perspectives and which are consistent with an interpretation of increasing behavioural complexity over time, an idea that has been suggested but never thoroughly explored in Neanderthal archaeology.

Demonstrating an increase in behavioural complexity in Neanderthals provides much needed new data with which to fuel the debate over the behavioural capacities of Neanderthals and the first appearance of Modern Human Behaviour in Europe. It supports the notion that Neanderthal populations were active agents of behavioural innovation prior to the arrival of Anatomically Modern in Europe and, ultimately, that they produced an early Upper Palaeolithic cultural assemblage (the Châtelperronian) independent of modern humans. Overall, this thesis provides an initial step towards the development of a quantitative approach to measuring behavioural complexity which provides fresh insights into the cognitive and behavioural capabilities of Neanderthals.

xi List of Abbreviations

AMHs – Anatomically Modern Humans MHB – Modern Human Behaviour MSA – Middle Stone Age MTA – of Tradition (in French initials) OIS – Oxygen Isotope Stage MNIs – Minimum Number of Individuals BP – Before Present

xii Chapter 1 The Problem and its Context

Introduction Few topics have generated more debate in Palaeolithic archaeology than the behavioural capacities of Neanderthals. While many commentators now acknowledge that Neanderthals were capable of several complex behavioural traits, such as compassion and some aspects of symbolism, they also assert that Neanderthals were unchanging in their expression of these traits. By and large, researchers consider Neanderthals to have been simply incapable of behavioural change and innovation owing to a long-standing perception that their 220,000 year long archaeological record is, for all intensive purposes, unchanging throughout its entirety. Traditional synchronic approaches to the study of Neanderthal behaviour have perpetuated this perception since the mid-twentieth century, and the absence of new approaches has resulted in a stagnant phase in current debates concerning Neanderthal behavioural complexity.

This thesis provides the first in-depth and geographically wide ranging diachronic study of Neanderthal behavioural complexity during the Middle Palaeolithic. It seeks to ascertain if change in behavioural complexity is evident in three major domains of archaeological data – faunal extraction, technology and symbolism. In so doing, it not only provides a new line of enquiry into Neanderthal behaviour to combat this stagnate phase in current debate, but also challenges conventional views of Neanderthal behaviour as static and unsophisticated. The results of this study call for a reassessment of our knowledge concerning Neanderthal existence and eventual extinction, and contributes to current debates on the origins of Modern Human Behaviour (MHB) in Europe.

Background, Context and Rationale Neanderthal behaviour has always been studied synchronically; that is, through descriptive approaches which conflate the 220,000 year Neanderthal archaeological record into a single analytical unit. This synchronic approach, in which researchers have focused on whether Neanderthals were capable of specific behavioural traits at any point

1 during their existence, has fostered the deeply entrenched view that their behaviour was static and unchanging (e.g. Binford 1972, 1985; Hayden 1993; Mellars 1996).

Until recently, this synchronic approach has not been detrimental to the accumulation of knowledge about Neanderthal behaviour because researchers were purely focused on identifying differences and similarities between Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) (e.g. d’Errico 2003; Henry et al. 2004; Lieberman and Shea 1994; Mellars 2005). However, the discovery of the early Upper Palaeolithic Châtelperronian assemblage in association with Neanderthal skeletal remains in the 1980s, cast doubt on traditional views of Neanderthals as technically incapable of working organic materials in sophisticated ways and as unable to comprehend symbolic objects such as personal adornments and composite technologies (Hublin et al. 1996). The juxtaposition of what researchers thought was an unsophisticated hominin with the highly sophisticated and innovative industry did not fit with traditional theories.

Researchers have attempted to account for the Châtelperronian in one of two ways. Some have tried to fit this new information into traditional theories by suggesting that the indigenous Neanderthals of Western and Central Europe were acculturated by migrating AMHs (Mellars 2005). In contrast, other researchers have argued against this conventional perspective by suggesting behavioural change was a pervasive and significant feature of Neanderthal lifeways (d’Errico 2003; d’Errico et al. 1998). Despite the fact that this debate largely hinges on demonstrating diachronic behavioural change within Neanderthals in order to show their own independent developmental trajectory, only synchronic approaches have been adopted to the problem.

It can be argued that adherence to traditional synchronic approaches has largely brought debate over the origins of MHB in Europe to a standstill. It is for this reason that a new approach is required to revitalise debate and to provide fresh information from the archaeological data currently available.

2 Recently, Mellars (2004) published an article sketching the beginnings of a new approach to the study of Neanderthal behavioural complexity. This work made an initial foray into assessing whether any late changes in Neanderthal behaviour were apparent in the archaeological record of South-Western , perhaps precipitated by the rapidly oscillating climatic conditions of Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (OIS 3). While he cited the appearance of the innovative and technologically rich Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) and Châtelperronian assemblages as possible evidence for such a late fluorescence of Neanderthal behaviour, he went on to dismiss them as too insignificant to represent any overall trend towards increasing behavioural complexity.

Mellars’ (2004) study is an important first step towards developing a diachronic approach to the study of Neanderthal behaviour. However, his selective use of the available data (geographically restricted and therefore ignoring any other evidence found in different regions) fails to adequately investigate the full potential of a time-sensitive approach to the archaeological evidence. Therefore, taking Mellars’ (2004) work as a point of departure, this thesis presents a more in-depth quantitative and qualitative investigation into the archaeological evidence for change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity.

In order to effectively identify change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity, three domains of archaeological data are considered. Faunal extraction, technology and symbolism are all areas of behaviour that are widely considered to be good indicators of behavioural complexity in any hominin population owing to (1) the large amount of archaeological data available concerning each of these areas and (2) the inherent cognitive capacities that are considered to be represented in each area. Consequently, each of these domains has become a focal point in the debate over Neanderthal behavioural complexity and will therefore be the focus of the diachronic analysis presented in this study (e.g. d’Errico 2003; Hayden 1993; Henshilwood et al. 2002; Mellars 2005).

3 Research Question and Aims This study seeks to ascertain whether the archaeological record of Neanderthals reflects change in behavioural complexity throughout the Middle Palaeolithic (c.250,000-30,000 years BP), with particular focus on the critical period between 80,000 and 30,000 years BP where major changes have been identified in the archaeological record. As indicated, change in behavioural complexity will be investigated through the study of three specific behavioural aspects that are commonly studied in Palaeolithic archaeology - faunal extraction, technology and symbolism. Any identified change in behavioural complexity will be further examined to ascertain whether these indicate increasing, decreasing or oscillating levels through time.

Research Design In order to study change in behavioural complexity it is necessary to define the concept of complexity. Owing to a dearth of definitions or discussion of this concept in the Palaeolithic archaeological literature, concepts and archaeological approaches to complexity are adopted from global hunter-gatherer archaeology. These concepts provide the basis for developing indices for measuring behavioural complexity in faunal extraction, technology and symbolism. These indices are applied to a large dataset of archaeological data collated through a review of site reports and secondary literature on Palaeolithic archaeology. Results from these analyses are considered separately and in combination against independent palaeoenvironmental datasets in order to determine whether any change occurring can be interpreted as a general trend towards increasing, decreasing or oscillating behavioural complexity in Neanderthals over time.

Thesis Organisation This diachronic investigation of Neanderthal behavioural complexity and its implications for current debates is presented over five chapters. Chapter Two presents a critical review of the archaeological literature concerning the place of this research in past and current debate, the concept of complexity, and its identification in the archaeological record.

4 Chapter Three outlines the methods used in this study to investigate change in behavioural complexity in the Neanderthal archaeological record, focusing on the development of robust indices for characterising behavioural complexity, sample selection and the limitations of the available data.

Chapter Four reports the results of the application of the indices for measuring complexity presented in the preceding chapter to the archaeological dataset.

Chapter Five outlines and discusses the results of analyses and their implications for the current debates over the origins of the Châtelperronian and of MHB in Europe. Directions for future research are identified and discussed, focusing on the potential of more sophisticated diachronic approaches to contribute to understandings of Neanderthal behavioural complexity.

5 6 Chapter 2 Neanderthals, Modern Human Behaviour and Complexity: A Review

Introduction As this study is an exploratory investigation of a diachronic approach to the topic of Neanderthal behavioural complexity, this chapter outlines the past and current issues in this area to contextualise the study. It begins with an outline of the evolutionary anthropological context and continues with a discussion of traditional perceptions of the Middle Palaeolithic and the place of Neanderthals in debates concerning the origins of MHB in Europe. The majority of the chapter, however, is devoted to critiquing and exploring relevant hunter-gatherer archaeological literature to develop a useful definition of complexity to apply to Neanderthal faunal extraction, technology and symbolism. It concludes with a critical discussion of the commonly accepted archaeological signatures of behavioural complexity in the Palaeolithic archaeological record.

Evolutionary Anthropological Background The period between 250,000 and 30,000 years BP was a dynamic time in prehistory. Europe and Western Asia were inhabited by Neanderthals (Homo sapien neanderthalensis or Homo neanderthalensis) throughout this 220,000 year period, while AMHs (Homo sapien sapiens) appeared in Africa around c.190,000 years BP (Table 2.1). These two populations remained largely separate until AMHs began to migrate into Europe around 40,000-35,000 years BP. The results of this contact remain largely unknown owing to inconclusive archaeological and genetic evidence.

Neanderthals were capable of adapting to different environments as is demonstrated by their wide geographical distribution incorporating several different ecological and biogeographical zones along with the fact that they successfully lived through both glacial and interglacial periods (Figure 3.1) (d’Errico 2003). Technologically, they produced only Mousterian lithic industries throughout their existence with the exception of the Western and Central European Neanderthal populations who also produced the early Upper Palaeolithic Châtelperronian industry at around 35,000 years BP (Figure 2.1,

7 Table 2.1). Explanations for this somewhat sudden change in behaviour are polarised in line with two schools of thought discussed below.

Similarly, once AMHs had reached Europe at c.35,000 years BP they were solely producing the industry which lasted through to 20,000 years BP, after which several new industries appear in the late Pleistocene archaeological record.

Table 2.1. Hominin/industry relationships.

Industry/Cultural Years BP Hominin Region Assemblage Europe and c.250,000 – 30,000 Neanderthal Western Asia Mousterian Anatomically c.115,000-90,000 Neanderthal Modern Western Asia Human Western and c.35,000 – 30,000 Châtelperronian Neanderthal Central Europe Anatomically Modern c.35,000 – 20,000 Aurignacian Europe Human

Figure 2.1. Temporal appearance of industries in the archaeological record

These strict hominin/industry associations in Europe have allowed archaeologists to differentiate archaeological assemblages created by Neanderthals from those created by AMHs in the absence of skeletal material. However, there is one exception to this rule. AMHs living in Western Asia produced Mousterian industries alongside Neanderthals,

8 and although there are no differences in the technologies being produced by each hominin, archaeologists have been able to identify Neanderthal sites from AMH sites through the presence of skeletal remains.

Traditional Views of Neanderthal Behaviour Traditional views of Neanderthals and the Middle Palaeolithic in general have been dominated by stereotyped caricatures of Neanderthal behaviour as static and unsophisticated. Shaped according to ethnocentric views prevalent at the time of discovery in 1856, Neanderthals were initially thought to be human-like animals and were often depicted as primitive ape-like thugs. Discoveries during the 1970s of Neanderthal burials at Shanidar in provided the catalyst for a reassessment of traditional views of Neanderthals as sub-human animals to something much closer to our own modern human existence (see Drell 2000; Graves-Brown 1996). During the past 30 years further archaeological excavation and analysis has supplied increasing evidence for Neanderthal humanity and prompted some researchers to question just how similar Neanderthals were to our own sub-species/species. Neanderthals are now considered to be a different kind of human and while our ideas concerning their intelligence and humanity have changed, the original view of their overall behaviour as static has remained constant.

Figure 2.2. One of the original portrayals of Neanderthals (left) and a modern reconstruction of (right) (Stringer and Gamble 1993:18;Roufs 2006:1).

Only recently have researchers begun to consider the idea of behavioural change within this hominin population, largely owing to the discovery of a complex early Upper Palaeolithic cultural assemblage, the Châtelperronian, found exclusively with

9 Neanderthal remains at several sites. Originally assigned to AMHs owing to its large symbolic content and the perception that symbolism was beyond the capacities of Neanderthals, this assignment was reversed with the discovery of a Neanderthal skeleton in a secure Châtelperronian context at Saint-Cesaire, France, during the 1980’s (Hublin et al. 1996). The Châtelperronian exhibits all the trademark features of later Upper Palaeolithic cultural assemblages and is characterised by the Châtelperronian knife, blades and a large symbolic content of intentionally modified bone and ivory implements (Figure 2.3). It is found in parts of South-Western France and Northern and is associated with the Uluzzian of and Szeletian assemblages (d’Errico 2003). Current debate on this issue is outlined in the following section; however, it is important to note here that while change in behavioural complexity is now being considered, no sustained attempt to employ a diachronic approach has been undertaken (cf. Mellars 2004).

Figure 2.3.Châtelperronian bone implements (left) and the characteristic Châtelperronian lithics (right) (d’Errico et al. 1998:s6; Mellars 1996:413).

Modern Human Behaviour and Neanderthals The apparent contradiction of an unsophisticated Middle Palaeolithic hominin associated with a sophisticated early Upper Palaeolithic cultural assemblage (the Châtelperronian)

10 challenged pervious understandings of Neanderthal behavioural complexity. These findings are not consistent with traditional views of Neanderthals as incapable of producing diverse and complex assemblages, prompting researchers to debate whether the appearance of the Châtelperronian constitutes evidence of Neanderthals participating in MHB (d’Errico et al. 1998).

MHB is the term used to describe the advanced cognitive and behavioural state reflected in Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of Europe and it is generally associated exclusively with AMHs. It is defined archaeologically through a list of behaviours which includes symbolism, technological diversification and ‘advanced’ tools (blades), exploitation of diverse raw materials, the ability to live in various different climates, and trade (Table 2.2) (Henshilwood and Marean 2003; McBrearty and Brooks 2000). It is accepted that AMHs were capable of MHB during the Upper Palaeolithic (35,000-10,000 years ago) and recent evidence suggests that many such complex behaviours have their origins as far back as c.70,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2002). On the other hand, whether Neanderthals were capable of MHB at any stage in their existence is heatedly debated (d’Errico 2005; d’Errico et al. 1998; Mellars 2005). There are two dominant, but opposing, views concerning the ability of Neanderthals to participate in MHB, the Single- Species Model and the Multiple-Species Model.

Championed by Mellars (2005), the Single-Species Model maintains that MHB was the product of either a genetic mutation in early AMHs or something that evolved solely in this species in Africa prior to migration into Europe c.35,000 years ago. Mellars maintains that the archaeological record offers no evidence that Neanderthals were capable of the suite of behaviours used in defining MHB, primarily symbolism, and further, that there is no evidence for any independent behavioural evolution in this population towards MHB. Thus, the Single-Species Model holds that Neanderthals were incapable of MHB and that the Châtelperronian was a product of acculturation of the indigenous Neanderthals by migrating AMHs without the Neanderthals ever possessing the cognitive processes implicated in the production of such assemblages.

11 In contrast, the Multiple-Species Model championed by d’Errico (2003; d’Errico et al. 1998), holds that MHB evolved slowly throughout and ultimately both Neanderthals and AMHs possessed it. D’Errico maintains that the archaeological record of Neanderthals displays all the behaviours that constitute MHB and consequently that the Châtelperronian was a result of an independent behavioural evolution on the part of Neanderthals rather than simple mimicry of MHB.

These divergent views interpret the same body of available archaeological evidence and debate has reached a standstill in recent years owing to the lack of new archaeological evidence and new approaches to the problem.

Table 2.2. Example of the trait list definition for Modern Human Behaviour (McBrearty and Brooks 2000).

Archaeological Signatures of modern human behaviour Ecology Range extension to previously unoccupied regions (tropical lowland forest, islands, the far north in Europe and Asia) Increased diet breadth Technology New lithic technologies: blades, microblades, backing Standardization within formal tool categories Hafting and composite tools Tools in novel materials, e.g., bone, antler Special purpose tools, e.g., projectiles, geometrics Increased numbers of tool categories Geographic variation in formal categories Temporal variation in formal categories Greater control of fire Economy and social organization Long-distance procurement and exchange of raw materials Curation of exotic raw materials Specialized hunting of large, dangerous animals Scheduling and seasonality in resource exploitation Site reoccupation Intensification of resource extraction, especially aquatic and vegetable resources Long-distance exchange networks Group and individual self-identification through artefact style Structured use of domestic space Symbolic behaviour Regional artefact styles Self adornment, e.g., beads and ornaments Use of pigment Notched and incised objects (bone, egg shell, ochre, stone) Image and representation Burials with grave goods, ochre, ritual objects

12 Redefining Modern Human Behaviour as ‘Complexity’ The term ‘modern human behaviour’ is ultimately an attempt to describe the pinnacle of behavioural complexity and as such is the closest thing to a definition of ‘complexity’ used in Palaeolithic archaeology. However, the way in which the term itself has been defined, that is, using trait lists with specific associated behaviours, has limited its conceptual utility (Table 2.2). The main problem with trait lists is that naming specific behaviours with specific archaeological manifestations of those behaviours does not allow for the diversity in adaptation observed in modern hunter-gatherer populations (Cregg Madrigal 2000). Owing to the fact that the trait lists used to define MHB were adapted from the AMH archaeological record of Upper Palaeolithic Europe, these lists only allow for hominins living in this space and time to be seen as behaving in a ‘modern’ fashion. It should therefore be no surprise that the only population unanimously considered to posses MHB by this definition is the Upper Palaeolithic AMHs of Europe on which the trait lists are based.

Recently, several researchers have highlighted problems with the use of these trait lists in assigning MHB in archaeological populations. Cosgrove and Pike-Tay (2004) have demonstrated that archaeological populations known to have been behaviourally complex may not always conform to the requirements necessary to be considered as exhibiting MHB. It is commonly accepted that only behaviourally complex (i.e. capable of MHB) AMHs reached the Sahul landmass. This is because in order to reach Sahul from the Sunda landmass the migrating AMHs were required to plan and make a major ocean crossing – something that could presumably only be completed successfully by behaviourally complex populations (Davidson and Noble 1992). There are also numerous other indicators that the first modern humans in Sahul were behaviourally complex, such as early transport of exotic goods, production of personal ornaments, elaborate burial and decoration of the dead, figurative and abstract parietal art etc (Brumm and Moore 2005). Yet via faunal analyses, Cosgrove and Pike-Tay (2004) showed that late Pleistocene Aboriginal Tasmanian sites dating to 35,000 years BP exhibited very simplified structures in terms of subsistence strategies compared to those of Upper Palaeolithic Europe. Therefore, under the definition for behavioural complexity used for MHB, the

13 Tasmanian population could not be considered complex. In fact, Cosgrove and Pike-Tay (2004) found that the Tasmanian record correlated more closely to that of the Middle Palaeolithic European Neanderthals. Thus the authors concluded that either the late Pleistocene Tasmanian population was not behaviourally complex, or, the definition was not suitable for use across all environments and adaptations.

Based on these considerations, another definition of behavioural complexity that is free of these restrictions must be found for use in this study.

Defining Complexity In the absence of an appropriate definition for the concept of complexity in Palaeolithic archaeological literature, one must be borrowed and adapted from related archaeologies in order to develop an appropriately flexible definition of behavioural complexity. The most logical link to Palaeolithic archaeology is global hunter-gatherer archaeology, where archaeologists have sought to develop models for archaeological correlates of ethnographically-described behaviours. These models of complexity have been developed, revised and debated extensively in the literature.

It is often noted that while archaeologists agree that complexity is present in hunter- gatherer groups, they do not agree on how to define the concept, what criteria should be used to describe different levels of complexity, and what criteria should be used to characterise it in the archaeological record (e.g. Cregg Madrigal 2000; Rothman 2004; Sassaman 2004). There have been various attempts to solve this problem within hunter- gatherer archaeology coalescing around three general types of definitions of complexity: explanatory, restrictive and universal.

The term ‘complexity’ in explanatory definitions is used as a summary or description of changes observed in the archaeological record. Changes commonly cited include increased population and the appearance of hierarchies, ritual, art and new social structures. Complexity in explanatory definitions has also been commonly used as a synonym for state, chiefdom and civilisation (Chapman 2003; Cregg Madrigal 2000;

14 Flannery 1972). In the first case, the use of complexity is a way of describing elements observed in the archaeological record, in the second, it is simply a term used to indicate divergence from other types of societies considered to be ‘simpler’. However these two uses do not describe what the concept of complexity actually is (Cregg Madrigal 2000).

A specific example of an explanatory definition is presented by Price and Brown (1985:8-17) where they describe the concept of complexity by breaking it into three aspects that they consider essential for the advent of complex behaviour within a population: conditions, consequences and causes. Conditions describe the circumstances needed in order for a population to change its behaviour and include the circumscription of a population (which constrains mobility), the presence of abundant resources, and an increased population. The second aspect, consequences, describes the reaction of the population to the conditions and includes an intensification of productivity, occupational specialisation, reduced mobility, increased territoriality, and/or the presence of hierarchies. Finally, the idea of causes attempts to describe the original catalyst for the change in conditions. Price and Brown (1985:8-17) suggest that these could include environmental change, demographic pressure, and structural change in social systems.

While this way of describing the concept of complexity is very useful in suggesting how complexity might occur in a hunter-gatherer population, it fails to describe exactly what complexity is. Thus, explanatory definitions do not actually define what the concept of complexity is, but instead describe conditions or causes that are believed to trigger changes in the archaeological record or the advent of complexity within a society.

Restrictive definitions of complexity limit the definition to one aspect or a group of specific behavioural traits that the author considers necessary for identifying the presence of complexity within a hunter-gatherer population (the same approach adopted in defining MHB). Trait lists are the most common form of restrictive definition. They are inventories of usually 10 or more behavioural attributes that a prehistoric society is required to exhibit in order to be deemed ‘complex’. Traits commonly include subsistence strategies, ritual, art, hierarchy, trade and aspects of demographic

15 organisation (Price 1995). Each trait is represented through correlated archaeological residues, such as faunal remains, dwellings, burials and technology. These trait lists are then used to identify the presence of complexity within archaeological assemblages.

If one behavioural aspect is put forward as being indicative of complexity, instead of a list, it is usually hierarchy. Arnold (1996:78), for example, in a discussion on a study of complex hunter-gatherers, states that complexity has two fundamental organisational features: (1) some people must perform work for others under the direction of persons outside of their kin group, and (2) some people, including leaders, are higher ranking at birth than others. Arnold (1996:78) further states that the concept of complexity distinguishes between societies that possess “social and labor relationships in which leaders have sustained or on-demand control over non-kin labor and social differentiation is hereditary from those societies in which these relationships are absent”. As Cregg Madrigal (2000:20) has pointed out, while this definition of complexity is succinct, it does not explain why “such a broad concept as complexity should be limited to only hierarchical organization”.

There are a number of problems associated with using trait lists or a single specific behaviour for assigning the presence of complexity. These definitions impose a false dichotomy which implies that a culture or group of people can be classified as either complex or non-complex (Cregg Madrigal 2000). Furthermore when trait lists are used, issues such as the choice of traits, how many a group must have and whether particular traits are more important than others are rarely explained or discussed (Cregg Madrigal 2000). Trait lists also do not allow for the diversity of hunter-gatherer cultures and their environments observed throughout the world, as previously demonstrated in the case of the definition of MHB accounting for the Pleistocene Tasmanians (Cosgrove and Pike- Tay 2004). Furthermore, restrictive definitions unnecessarily limit the value of using the concept of complexity in archaeology. These definitions preclude broader application throughout hunter-gatherer archaeology (and Palaeolithic archaeology), and limit the ability to make comparisons between different groups (Cregg Madrigal 2000). Of particular relevance to this study is the fact that these definitions cannot be applied to the

16 remote past. In the case of Arnold’s (1996) definition of complexity it only applies to social complexity and not behavioural complexity. This conceptualisation is difficult to employ in Palaeolithic contexts owing to the nature of the Palaeolithic archaeological record. Trait lists are also not readily applied in Palaeolithic contexts as they cannot be easily applied to different hominin populations as previously highlighted.

The most effective definitions of complexity for use in archaeological contexts are those that do not mention specific behaviours or describe causes or effects. They are more general and allow for the diversity of options chosen by different peoples. The first generalised definitions of complexity were developed for societies that could be described as states, chiefdoms or civilisations. This is the third type of definition for complexity, the universal definition.

Flannery (1972) was the first to explore universal definitions of complexity. Flannery maintained that complexity could be measured through two variables. The first of these is segregation, which is defined as the degree of differentiation and specialisation within an individual system. The second variable is centralisation, which is defined as the degree to which the internal parts of a system were linked to each other and to different levels of social control.

This definition was subsequently adapted by others as the basis for a new definition of complexity, relying on the distinction between two variables that Blanton et al. (1993) first referred to as horizontal and vertical dimensions of complexity. The horizontal dimension focuses on the individual parts of a system while the vertical dimension focuses on the ranked differences between the individual parts (Chapman 2003). The definition operates by looking at differentiation in the horizontal vertical dimensions, using both to measure complexity. Horizontal differentiation is the “functional specialization among parts of equivalent rank in a system” (Blanton et al. 1993:14). Whereas vertical differentiation is the “rank differences [that] can be seen among functionally diverse parts”, vertical differentiation is generally only present in a society if

17 “a chiefship exists that centralizes the making and carrying out of decisions for the society as a whole” (Blanton et al. 1993:14).

Another example of a universal definition of complexity is presented by McGuire (1983) based on Flannery’s (1972) definition and in which he highlights two central aspects of complexity. These are heterogeneity, which indicates more and different parts, and inequality, which indicates more connections through the idea that inequality produces hierarchies and therefore a more complicated social system.

More recently, these types of universal definitions have been developed for application to hunter-gatherer peoples. Price (1995:140) defined complex things as those that “have more parts and more connections between parts”. Like Flannery’s (1972) and Blanton et al.’s (1993) differentiation of horizontal and vertical components of complexity, Price (1995:142) argues that complex hunter-gatherers demonstrate horizontal intensification which can be seen in the archaeological record as “the elaboration of existing structures- the creation or acquisition of more parts (i.e. in technology, subsistence, storage, settlement type, art, and other categories)”. Vertical intensification develops as a means to integrate, connect, and organise the increasing number of different parts that develop in the society, demonstrated through hereditary inequality and hierarchy, which are virtually archaeologically invisible with very few exceptions in hunter-gatherer groups (Price 1995). Similar conceptual approaches to hunter-gatherer complexity have been developed by others, including Lourandos’ approach (1985, 1988, 1997) for the Australian context.

These kinds of universal definitions allow for the diversity of hunter-gatherer cultures documented ethnographically by not using specific behavioural traits but instead using concepts that transcend superficial material culture or cultural constructs. This is in contrast to restrictive definitions, which are only useful for populations that live in the same environments as those where the trait lists were formulated. Price’s (1995:140) definition “more parts and more connections between parts” is the most mature universal definition. It is flexible and versatile, and takes on board all the advances and

18 developments of the universal definitions as a whole. For these reasons it will be adopted for use in this study.

Archaeological Signatures of Complexity While defining the concept of complexity itself is problematic, there is more agreement on what constitutes the archaeological signatures of behavioural complexity. As this study concentrates on faunal extraction, technology and symbolism, the following discussion is confined to the archaeological correlates of these aspects of behaviour. It focuses on what complexity correlates are archaeological visible rather than the less tangible concept of intentionality in order to highlight the range of archaeological evidence available for quantitative diachronic study.

Faunal Extraction Study of the faunal extraction strategies employed by Neanderthals is complicated by a number of issues. The first of these is the impact of the climatic oscillations throughout the period of study on the clarity of information available. The period between 250,000 and 30,000 years BP corresponds to Oxygen Isotope Stages (OIS) 7 to 3, which saw two periods of glacial advance (c.115,000-95,000 years BP and c.75,000-60,000 years BP) with warmer interglacial periods in between (c.105,000 years BP, 80,000 years BP and c.60,000-25,000 years BP), followed by a long period of rapidly fluctuating conditions between glacial and milder weather lasting only a few thousand years each and starting at around 60,000 years BP (OIS 3) (Figure 2.4) (Mellars 1996). There is no detailed floral and faunal modelling of the effects of these rapid environmental oscillations available though ecological theory and pollen analyses allow basic reconstruction of the types of environments and consequently the types of species inhabiting those environments present throughout this period. Obviously any real certainty in this area is currently limited although this does not prevent basic conclusions being drawn. One important observation, however, is the apparent regional continuity in Neanderthal populations throughout these periods of extreme climatic variability, demonstrating their ability to cope with and adapt to rapidly changing conditions extremely well (d’Errico et al. 1998).

19 Data quality is also a major concern in the study of Neanderthal faunal extraction. Changes in excavation and analysis methods at Middle Palaeolithic sites have biased the interpretation of the faunal extraction methods of Neanderthals. In particular, excavations carried out in the early twentieth century largely discarded faunal bone material that was not articulated or clearly identifiable. Marean and Assefa (1999) demonstrated that this practice of disregarding bone fragments, particularly shafts from long bones, during both excavation and analysis has biased assemblages and contributed to erroneous categorisation of Neanderthals as scavengers rather than hunters.

Figure 2.4. Temperature variation over the past 140,000 years estimated from ice-cores (Mellars 1996:10).

Grayson and Delpech (1994) drew this same conclusion following reanalysis of the faunal assemblages from Couche VIII from Grotte Vaufrey. The inclusion of previously excluded long bone shafts demonstrated a hunting economy, contradicting previous findings by Binford (1988). Hence, problematic excavation and analysis methods have therefore contributed to misrepresentations of Neanderthals as incapable of hunting, a

20 view only challenged with direct evidence of hunting practices reported in the last 20 years (e.g. Boeda et al. 1999).

Despite these limitations extracting behavioural complexity from faunal extraction strategies still remains possible and is an issue that has long been debated. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s debate focused on whether Neanderthals were capable of hunting of any kind, with hunting considered a superior strategy requiring greater cognitive complexity (Binford 1981a, 1985). While it is now generally accepted that Neanderthals were capable of hunting, they are still seen as behaviourally inferior in their faunal extraction techniques in contrast to AMHs (Mellars 1996). Consequently, current debate has tended to concentrate on the merits of different subsistence strategies that appear to have been employed by Neanderthals as opposed to those employed by AMHs (e.g. Adler et al. 2006; Bar-Yosef 2004; Binford 1985; Lieberman and Shea 1994; Stewart Shea 2003). An important aspect of this area of study is deciding whether specialisation or diversification in faunal resource extraction constitutes the ‘more complex’ strategy (Gaudzinski and Roebroeks 2000; Marean and Soo 1998; Mellars 2004; Patou-Mathis 2004). Both diversification and specialisation in use of resources can constitute behavioural complexity in different contexts – diversification by demonstrating the ability to exploit different resources through different techniques, and specialisation by the ability to target and efficiently exploit prime resources (Henshilwood and Marean 2003; Mellars 2005). As such, either or both aspects of faunal extraction can be considered to constitute superior behavioural complexity and evidence for the concurrent use of both strategies might be present in a single assemblage.

Similarly, the ‘Neanderthal niche’ theory assesses Neanderthal behavioural complexity through the demonstration of logistical planning and forward thinking (two aspects included in the definition of MHB) as demonstrated by the employment of a settlement system that is driven by the seasons (Binford 1985, 1989; Stiner 1994). These aspects of cognition have been the focus of intense scrutiny in the last 10 years and recent research has begun to highlight the fact that Neanderthals were in fact capable of logistical planning and forward thinking, thus suggesting that they were much more behaviourally

21 complex than was originally thought (Erlandson 2004; Fiore et al. 2004; Grayson and Delpech 1994, 2000; Grayson et al. 2001; Lev et al. 2005). In particular, faunal analyses of assemblages from many locations in Western and Eastern Europe, suggest that Neanderthals were employing a wide range of subsistence strategies which varied with environmental context (e.g. Boyle 2000; Conard and Prindiville 2000; Patou-Mathis 2000). Similar studies from the Levant have shown that subsistence strategies used by Neanderthal populations in this region were no less complex than those of AMHs (Lieberman and Shea 1994). Furthermore, it has been argued that Neanderthals were choosing from a range of subsistence strategies, which included highly specialised and seasonally restrictive exploitation, selective hunting of prime adult individuals of particular species, and ‘encounter’ or opportunistic hunting. Not only were they employing a wide range of strategies, but in different areas Neanderthals were using different combinations – choosing from only one strategy to several (Burke 2000; Conard and Prindiville 2000; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks 2000; Patou-Mathis 2000; Valensi 2000). It has also been demonstrated that particular strategies were not restricted to specific geographical regions; nor was only one strategy used in one region. This diversity and purposeful selection of strategies shows that Neanderthals did not mechanically adopt a single unvarying subsistence behaviour, but instead were making conscious choices concerning the best strategies to use in particular contexts. This new information suggests that Neanderthals may have been just as behaviourally complex as AMHs with regards to the capacity for logistical planning and forward thinking as reflected through subsistence strategies.

Thus, despite the limitations of rapid environmental changes, past biased faunal analyses and debate over what subsistence strategies most effectively reflect behavioural complexity, there is enough understanding of Neanderthal faunal extraction processes and the archaeological record to undertake a diachronic study of this area. This new approach in turn will advance our understanding of this area.

22 Technology Lithics comprise the largest source of information available concerning Neanderthal technology. Whether this is the result of an inability of Neanderthals to produce implements made out of other raw materials, or is related to differential preservation remains one of the key debates in this area (e.g. Davidson and Noble 1996; d’Errico et al. 1998; Hayden 1993; Mellars 1996).

Implements produced from bone, ivory, wood or any other material other than stone are considered a requirement for MHB owing to the assumed complex cognitive processes required to work these materials. Whether or not the manufacture of implements out of these non-lithic raw materials required a higher form of cognition or not is however, currently unknown. While there does appear to be a lack of tools made from these alternative materials in the Middle Palaeolithic prior to the Châtelperronian, there are some examples. Several intentionally modified wooden bowl-shaped artefacts were found in Mousterian layers at Abric Romani, Spain. Securely dated to 45,000 to 49,000 years ago, these artefacts are as yet unidentified in their function, however, ethnographic comparison of similar objects has suggested that they could be vessels for carrying food or shovels for scooping out ashes/embers from the fires they were associated with (Carbonell and Castro-Curel 1992; Castro-Curel and Carbonell 1995).

Further evidence of the intentional working of wood, bone and ivory is found in residue analyses of lithics from La Quina, France. From a sample of 300 tools which were tested for use-wear and residues of plant and animal origin, it was determined that a number of these tools were used in the processing of plant material including wood, while two had evidence of bone or ivory working (Hardy 2004).

Two further examples also represent evidence for composite technology; that is, artefacts that required the assembling of two or more parts. Composite technology is another trait thought to reflect the cognitive processes in a hominin population. The manufacture of wooden spears and the presence of hafting are implied by an embedded Levallois point found in the third cervical vertebra of a wild ass discovered in Umm El Tlet, Syria. It is

23 argued that the kinetic energy needed for the point to have been embedded in the vertebra would have required attachment to a spear (Boeda et al. 1999). In a similar vein, there is evidence of hafting in several pieces of birch bark pitch, one with a thumb print plainly visible and others still attached to the points themselves (Grunberg 2002). Finally, though not evidence for the working of bone, necessarily, but rather its use, there are many bone fabricators at Combe Grenal which were undoubtedly used as soft hammers to retouch stone flakes (Bordes 1972). Thus, while evidence for the manufacture of implements out of materials other than stone is not as prolific as that found in the archaeological record of Upper Palaeolithic Europe, these examples demonstrate that this process was not above the cognitive capabilities of Neanderthals.

Returning to the lithics themselves, it is often argued that Mousterian lithic technology required little conceptualisation, or only ‘expert knowledge’. This implies that there was no use of dynamic problem-solving to create a tool but instead relied on only minimal memory cues without real forethought (Coolidge and Wynn 2004; Davidson and Noble 1996; Mellars 2005). These abilities are contrasted to the Aurignacian stone-working tradition of AMHs, particularly the characteristic laminar (blade) technology which is seen to reflect behavioural modernity (complexity) (Mellars 1996, 2005). The perceived lack of foresight in Mousterian technologies is further interpreted to mean that Neanderthals did not have as high a level of behavioural or cognitive complexity as AMHs (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999; d’Errico 2003; Mithen 1996). On the other hand, those who believe that Neanderthals were capable of MHB argue that the recent discovery of blades within several Middle Palaeolithic and MSA sites suggests that blades were perhaps more a result of local tradition than a marker of cognitive or behavioural complexity (d’Errico 2003).

Formal tool types, such as blades, are also commonly thought to reflect behavioural complexity. Supporters of the view that MHB was beyond the reach of Neanderthals cite standardised formal tool categories and geographical and temporal variation from Middle Stone Age of AMHs of Africa as evidence against Neanderthals (McBrearty and Brooks 2000). D’Errico (2003) has opposed this view, arguing that similar standardised formal

24 tool categories along with geographical and temporal variation can also be seen in the Mousterian. He maintains that “this is the case for Levallois points and for Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition bifaces” (2003:192) and that “in both Europe and the Near East at the end of the Mousterian we observe the same trends visible in the Middle Stone Age toward increased production of standardised tool categories” (2003:192). D’Errico has shown that we cannot (without further data) use standardised formal tool categories to differentiate between the behaviour of AMHs of the MSA and that of Neanderthals. While diversity in tool types may not be able to distinguish behavioural differences between Neanderthals and AMHs, it is still a valuable device for measuring behavioural complexity through time because their manufacture ultimately represents the cognitive processes.

Innovation is the final aspect of technology that is commonly debated in the field of Neanderthal behavioural complexity. Innovation refers to the creation of something new, or improvement of something, so that it is more efficient and is best documented through the appearance of new artefact classes in the archaeological record. Clear cases of innovation in the Middle Palaeolithic are sparse, although a few examples exist. One of these is the MTA. This late phase of Mousterian lithic technology is characterised by two distinct artefacts – the bifacial cordiform and the steeply blunted-backed knife (Mellars 2004; Sorressi 2005). These artefacts are of interest as the former can “be argued to exhibit a clear element of deliberately ‘imposed form’” while a proportion of the latter “show an invasiveness of blank reduction which at least hints at some attempt at intentional shaping” (Mellars 2004:35). Mellars (2004:35) argued that the late appearance of these distinctive lithic forms in Western and Central Europe “could well reflect the emergence of a new (or at least increased) element of social or ethnic patterning in the forms of stone tools”.

A second example is the previously mentioned pieces of birch bark pitch found in Konigsaue, Saxony-Anhalt, . This synthetic substance appears to have been used in the process of hafting points to spears, with one piece bearing the impression of a wooden shaft and part of a flake (Grunberg 2002). Birch bark pitch has replaced ceramic

25 as the first ever example of a synthetic material, and as such clearly represents technological innovation in the Neanderthals who produced this material. It is clear that while technological innovation is not as apparent in the Middle Palaeolithic archaeological record as it is in that of the Upper Palaeolithic, it cannot be completely ruled out as part of the Neanderthal behavioural repertoire. Behavioural complexity as seen through technology is perhaps even more riddled with technical and interpretive difficulties than faunal extraction. However, like faunal extraction there is still enough archaeological evidence in the form of Bordesian type counts from many sites to warrant an initial attempt at a diachronic study of technological change. This approach would provide fresh information from the current available technological data.

Symbolism Neanderthal capacity for symbolic behaviour is the most animatedly debated area in Neanderthal archaeology. Symbolic behaviour is the ability to represent things by means of symbols or to attribute symbolic meanings to objects, events or relationships. In the archaeological record, symbolism can be detected through the presence of burials, grave goods, beads and pendants, decorated artefacts, portable art and cave art. One of the key problems with the study of symbolic artefacts and features in the Palaeolithic context is that all instances of symbolism are treated separately and almost always de- contextualised from time and space. Diachronic analyses offer a partial solution to this problem through reintegrating these artefacts and features back into their temporal context, thus allowing a more comprehensive perspective of this aspect of Neanderthal behaviour.

Two areas of research dominate the study of Neanderthal symbolic capacities; biological evidence and material culture. The biological evidence is very limited. As such, a brief overview of the biological evidence is presented below followed by an overview of the kinds of material culture available for analysis in this study.

Language is often considered to be the most developed and advanced aspect of symbolic behaviour owing to its dependency on abstract cognition. Simply proving that

26 Neanderthals possessed and used a language similar to our own would conclusively prove that they were capable of abstract cognition and thus other symbolic expressions. Arguments supporting Neanderthals having had the required skeletal and cerebral anatomy for producing the range of sounds and patterns necessary for modern human language are many and varied. For example, a Neanderthal hyoid bone found at Kebara in 1983, suggests that the anatomical capacity for modern speech was in place by 60,000 years ago and, therefore, later Neanderthals should also have been capable of speech similar to that of AMHs (Arensburg et al. 1989). It is also argued that they had adequate breathing control to produce extended utterances of rapid and varied sounds, along with a sufficiently large neocortex and the required ratio of brain to body size thought necessary for speech (Maclarnon and Hewitt 2004). In a different vein, Aiello and Dunbar (1993) argue that Neanderthals maintained a group size that required the use of language in order to maintain stable social organisation, and suggest that language started to evolve during the Middle Pleistocene. They argue that it was from this time that Homo habilus and their successors began to live in groups large enough to require the use of language for communication.

Though these are just a few examples of the arguments for the participation of Neanderthals in language, the debate concerns many more aspects of their anatomy which are too numerous to detail in this review (see Falk 1975; Frayer 1993; Houghton 1993; Yates 2001). The biological aspects of the symbolic behaviour debate are far from conclusive and the evidence and information that can be gained from examination of material culture appears to be more revealing at this time.

While the material culture may be less ambiguous than the anatomical evidence for ascertaining the presence of symbolism, it is still highly debated owing to the level of interpretation required of the researcher in order to decide if an artefact or feature constitutes symbolic behaviour in a population (Belfercohen and Hovers 1992; d’Errico and Villa 1998; d’Errico et al. 2003). There is however, a general consensus on which artefacts and features constitute evidence for symbolic behaviour in the archaeological record: burials, grave goods, pigments, pendants, beads, decorated artefacts, mobile art,

27 paintings, composite technology, and implements made out of materials other than stone (d’Errico 2003; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 2005). As composite technology and implements made out of alternative raw materials have previously been discussed under technology (above), these technologies will not be revisited here, other than to highlight their inclusion as reflecting symbolic behaviour through the presence of the abstract thought processes thought to be required to produce these artefacts (Binford 1972; Davidson and Noble 1996). In regards to the remaining artefact types, each of these classes will be discussed in terms of the reasons for their inclusion in representing symbolism in a population, rather than listing every instance of their appearance in the archaeological record of Neanderthals. Instances of each type will be supplied as part of the analysis of symbolism in subsequent chapters.

Burials have traditionally been thought to represent a spiritual or religious belief in a population, and therefore symbolism. Thirty-five of the 58 putative burials from the Middle Palaeolithic in Europe and Western Asia are assigned to Neanderthals, which includes the oldest known burial (d’Errico 2003). While there is continuous debate about the nature of these burials, it appears that the actual acts of burial themselves are not disputed or attributed to taphonomic causes (Mellars 1996). However, Mellars and others have argued that it is difficult to conclusively assign a symbolic nature to these burials without evidence of grave goods (Kaufman 1999; Mellars 1996). Incidences of Neanderthal burials with grave goods do occur and include the infamous Shanidar IV flower burial (Figure 2.5) along with other burials found with horns and other anatomical parts of animals interred with the deceased at the time of burial (Hovers et al. 1996; Kaufman 1999; Leroi-Gourhan 1975; Movius 1953; Solecki 1975).

28

Figure 2.5: Shanidar IV flower burial exhibiting the foetal position of the body (Leroi-Gourhan 1975:562).

Pigments have traditionally been interpreted as representing the presence of symbolic behaviour in the archaeological record and there are numerous examples within the literature of this phenomenon (e.g. d’Errico 2003; d’Errico and Soressi 2002; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; McBrearty and Brooks 2000). Some archaeologists have argued that the mere presence of pigments does not necessarily mean they were being used for symbolic purposes, but instead could be used for utilitarian purposes (such as curing hides) (Mellars 1996). Despite this caution, however, the majority of researchers accept pigments, especially those exhibiting use-wear, as a strong indication of symbolic behaviour.

Despite the claims of a number of authors that the discoveries of pigments in Neanderthal sites are infrequent and rare (e.g. Mellars 1996, 2005), pigments have been found frequently in association with Neanderthals. In fact, pigments have been recovered from

29 at least 70 layers excavated from 40 Neanderthal sites in Europe alone (d’Errico 2003). Evidence of Neanderthal use of pigments reaches back to the Acheulean and the richest find to date has been at Pech-de-l’Aze I in the MTA layers which are dated to 50,000 years ago (Figure 2.6) (d’Errico 2003; d’Errico and Soressi 2002). Many of these pieces of ochre and manganese dioxide display use-wear consistent with the use as crayons. In the case of the artefacts from Pech-de-l’Aze I they were accompanied by grinding stones (d’Errico 2003).

Figure 2.6: Examples of pigments with use-wear from Pech de l’Aze (left) and an incised stone from Tata, Hungary (right) (Bednarik 1992:35; Mellars 1996:370).

Pendants, beads and art pieces are amongst the most significant and frequently cited artefacts thought to signify the presence of symbolic behaviour in the archaeological record. Pendants and beads are thought to suggest a sense of self as well as indicating social organisation (McBrearty and Brooks 2000). Art pieces are not considered utilitarian and therefore must have some symbolic purpose within the population that produced them. While it is popularly believed that artefacts of this kind are rare before the advent of the Châtelperronian, there are, in fact, numerous examples of perforated teeth, marine shells, and bones from sites spread across Western and Central Europe along with Western Asia, all associated with Neanderthals (Figures 2.6 - 2.7).

30

Figure 2.7: Examples of perforated bones and teeth from Repolosthőhle (left) and incised bones and teeth from Prolom II (right) (Bednarik 1992:35; Stepanchuk 1993:34).

While this is only a brief overview of the theory behind the inclusion of these artefact types in representing symbolism, it does highlight the way in which symbolism is being studied at present. Furthermore, all instances of symbolism are treated separately and almost always de-contextualised from time and space. Through study of all identifiable instances of symbolic behaviour in the archaeological record of Neanderthals, this study will provide the first diachronic analysis of symbolism in the Middle Palaeolithic.

Summary This chapter reviewed the archaeological literature relevant to the traditional context of the study of Neanderthal behavioural complexity and highlighted the issues related to the study of the three behavioural aspects that are under study in this thesis; faunal extraction, technology and symbolism. Further, it engaged with a range of literature concerning the definition of the concept of complexity to arrive at a definition for use in this study. Finally, it has provided the background context for the diachronic analysis of behavioural complexity of Neanderthals outlined in the next chapter.

31

32 Chapter 3 Methods and Datasets

Introduction An analytical framework for undertaking a diachronic investigation of Neanderthal behavioural complexity is developed using methods borrowed from previous archaeological faunal, technological and symbolic analyses. Methods sensitive to identifying change through time are identified and adapted to create an integrated diachronic approach. The datasets used for the analysis are presented in this chapter and their various limitations highlighted.

Site Selection Two major datasets were established for this study: one for the analysis of faunal extraction and technology, and one for symbolic data. The first dataset was restricted to only those sites for which there was detailed publication of the excavation and description of the contents of individual strata. In addition, selection was further restricted to only those sites which were dated, though owing to the lack of absolutely dated sites with detailed information available for the technological analysis, those with relative dates were also included. This was achieved by assigning mid-point dates to those sites with only a relative date in order to fit them into a time-slice (see below). Furthermore, sites which were not excavated with controlled methods and techniques or assemblages that were seen to be potentially mixed by the excavators or subsequent analysts were excluded. This processes provided 17 sites for faunal extraction analysis and 11 for technological analysis, almost all of which fell in Western and Central Europe (Figure 3.1, Appendix A). Consequently, the focus of both of these analyses was restricted to Western and Central Europe owing to the lack of information from Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Likewise, the majority of data available for analysis was limited to the 50,000 year period between 30,000 and 80,000 years ago and therefore the faunal extraction and technological analyses were limited by these temporal constraints. While this provided a small dataset, these sites were geographically and temporally widespread therefore providing an adequate dataset for this exploratory study.

33 As the focus of this analysis is to ascertain if change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity is evident before the advent of the early Upper Palaeolithic cultural assemblage (the Châtelperronian), any strata attributed to this industry was also discounted from the analysis. However, the relationship of the Châtelperronian to the data subject to analysis in this study is considered later in the study.

The symbolism dataset derives from a comprehensive review of both English and French language literature in order to collect all reported instances of archaeologically represented symbolic behaviour dating to the Middle Palaeolithic. All artefacts or features were required to have a proven association with Neanderthals and widely considered to be the result of intentional behaviour. There were no geographical or temporal restrictions but those artefacts or features attributed to the Châtelperronian were not included in this analysis. As such, all instances of symbolic behaviour included here occur outside of the Châtelperronian.

Site taphonomy is a central concern in any diachronic analysis owing to the importance of site integrity in determining the robusticity of the database. As mentioned above, any sites that were interpreted as having low integrity by the excavators or subsequent analysts were excluded from this study. It was necessary to rely on such secondary sources to evaluate the impact of taphonomic factors owing to limitations in the scope of this study and the limited range of published site data available to enable independent evaluation of site integrity. Though this is a limitation on this study it will be important in the future development of diachronic analyses in this area.

Indices for measuring behavioural complexity along with the dataset and methods employed for each of the three domains of behaviour under analysis will now be outlined and discussed.

34

Figure 3.1. Map of Neanderthal region (shaded in purple) with sites included in study. (1) Grotte de Tournal; (2) Saint-Cesaire; (3) La Chapelle-aux- Saint; (4) Grotte de Neron; (5) Fonseigner; (6) Montagne de Girault; (7) Combe Grenal; (8) La Quina; (9) Pech de l’Aze; (10) Roc de Marsal; (11) Le Moustier; (12) La Ferrassie; (13) Spy; (14) Oliveira Cave; (15) Shanidar; (16) Teshik-Tash; (17) Amud; (18) Tabun; (19) Kebara; (20) L’Abric Chadourne; (21) Le Regourdou; (22) Grotte Vaufrey; (23) Grotta Guattari; (24) Grotta Breuil; (25) Grotte dei Moscerini; (26) Grotta di Sant’Agnostino; (27) Tagliente Rochshelter; (28) Tonchesberg; (29) Salzgitter-Lebenstedt; (30) Bocksteinschmiede; (31) Lehringen; (32) Taubach; (33) Kongisaue; (34) Abric Romani; (35) Castillo; (36) Cueva Morin; (37) Axlor; (38) Gorham’s cave; (39) Buran Kaya III; (40) Prolom II; (41) Staroselji; (42) Kiik-Koba; (43) Bacho Kiro; (44) Cioarei-Borosteni; (45) Tata; (46) Mujina Pecina; (47) Dederiyeh Cave; (48) Umm el Tlet. Note that Repolosthőhle and Temanta Cave not displayed on map. 35 Temporal Units In order to determine if change in behavioural complexity occurred through time, the 220,000 year period covered by the Middle Palaeolithic (c.250,000-30,000 years BP) was divided into 10,000 year ‘time-slices’. This method of diachronic study is a common approach adapted by researchers investigating long-term culture change (e.g. Ulm in press). Patou-Mathis (2000) for example split each Oxygen Isotope Stage into independent blocks of time to study Neanderthal subsistence behaviour in each of the time-slices she adopted, though she did not examine changes between these periods. By dividing a long duration of time into several time-slices and fitting the available data into them, change in behavioural complexity can be more readily observed on a general level.

In this analysis, individually dated strata from different sites spanning different periods were assigned to the appropriate 10,000 year time-slice intervals between 80,000 and 30,000 years BP. If a stratum possessed more than one date or only relative dates were available, a mean of these dates was used to determine the appropriate time-slice. Table 3.1 presents an example of this process. Through the integration of several different sites into each time-slice, short-term or anomalous individual site trends will be evened out, providing an overall picture of Neanderthal behavioural complexity as a whole. This method acts to scale the data to a higher level of analysis commensurate with the generally poor confidence placed in the chronology of Neanderthal deposits. Defining analytical units in this way facilitates comparison between different time periods across the full Neanderthal geographic range.

Table 3.1. Example of the integration of individual strata from different sites into each 10,000 year time-slice.

Site Name XU Date Time-Slice Abric Romani, Spain B 43,000 41,000-50,000 J 50,000 41,000-50,000 Grotta Guattari, Italy G0 51,000±3,000 51,000-60,000 Grotta di S1 43,000±9,000 41,000-50,000 Sant’Agnostino, Italy

36 Faunal Extraction Analysis Methods and Dataset The palaeoenvironmental background of the 50,000 year period under analysis consists of three major transitions, one from warm to cold conditions from OIS 5a to OIS 4, and the other from OIS 4 to OIS 3, involving the onset of highly variable but overall milder conditions. The warm interstadial of OIS 5a which ended 75,000 years ago was characterised by pine and birch woodlands and was followed by the most severe glacial period in this era. OIS 4 witnessed the glacial maximum and was characterised by steppe and tundra environments along with reduced areas of pine and birch woodlands. This period ended at 60,000 years ago and was succeeded by the milder oscillating conditions of OIS 3, which saw at least 12 oscillations between cooler and warmer climates with less dramatic change in the environment (Mellars 1996).

Ecological theory dictates that species richness and diversity are primarily determined by environment type; environments with warmer environments having the greatest diversity and colder environments having the least (Reitz and Wing 2001). Changes to the number of species available for exploitation during the different Oxygen Isotope Stages would have altered as animals requiring warmer woodland, grassland and savannah environments moved out of the region as steppe and tundra conditions emerged. While these species may not have abandoned the study region completely, numbers would have been much reduced.

If Neanderthals in Western and Central Europe were simply reacting to changing environmental conditions we might expect one of two distinct patterns of subsistence behaviour. The first is based on the assumption that Neanderthals would extract all and whatever resources are available to them during each period. The highest species diversity would therefore be expected in the time-slices covering the periods between 30,000-60,000 and 71,000-80,000 years BP owing to the warmer climatic conditions and consequent larger variety of resources available for extraction. Similarly, the 61,000- 70,000 years BP time-slice would be expected to be significantly less diverse owing to the reduced number of species present in the harsh steppe and tundra conditions of OIS 4.

37 The second possible pattern is the opposite of the first, and is based on the tenets of Optimal Foraging Theory. Rather than Neanderthals extracting a diverse range of species when they are more readily available during the warmer periods, as in the previous hypothesis, they would instead target prime-ranked species during these periods and only diversify under the tougher glacial conditions of OIS 4 to include lower-ranked prey. Either way, these two patterns are distinct and should be archaeologically visible if Neanderthals were simply reacting to the environment and change in behavioural complexity was not present. In order to measure change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity and thus determine if either of these patterns are archaeologically visible, an index for measuring complexity in faunal extraction must be determined.

Faunal Extraction Complexity Index Diversity was chosen as the most appropriate index for measuring behavioural complexity in the faunal extraction analysis as fitting with the chosen definition of complexity as “more parts and more connections between parts” (Price 1995:142). Diversity reflects both ‘more parts’ (number of species exploited) and ‘more connections between parts’ (number of environments exploited). The kinds of analysis able to be employed were very limited owing to a widespread lack of published faunal data in English, French and Spanish archaeological literature. Thus, those that could be employed, though general in nature, were adequate for ascertaining if change in behavioural complexity was present throughout the Middle Palaeolithic.

Faunal Extraction Analysis Methods Two levels of faunal analyses are employed: one coarse-grained, based on the simple presence/absence of species in sites, and the other a more fine-grained approach, consisting of statistical methods. Each of the methods used are designed to measure the diversity of species and environments exploited by Neanderthals throughout the 50,000 year period between 30,000 and 80,000 years BP.

A database of the presence/absence of species (identified to genus level) recovered from each of the sample sites was constructed. From this database it was determined that

38 around 150 species of animals were exploited by Neanderthals in the 50,000 year period under study as represented through reported faunal data from these sites. In order to synthesis this large dataset, each of the species exploited was ranked according to the number of occurrences across the sample sites and the top 30 species extracted for detailed analysis. These 30 species consisted in the majority of carnivores. To counteract this bias, the next top 10 medium-to-large-size herbivores that were initially excluded were reinstated in order to establish a more complete picture of the range of species Neanderthals were capable of exploiting. This made a total of 40 species for analysis consisting of both herbivores and carnivores, ranging from large to small animals which appeared in a number of different environments (Appendix B, Appendix C). Carnivores were included in this analysis owing to the fact that we cannot be certain which animals were using the sites of their own initiative or were brought to the site by Neanderthals who we know from previous archaeological evidence hunted carnivores such as (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus) and fox (Vulpes vulpes), perhaps for their skins (Patou-Mathis 1997). This inability to identify the processes behind the presence of carnivores at each site in the sample limits our ability to fully understand the range of species exploitated by Neanderthals. This could not be overcome in this study owing to a lack of taphonomic studies on the sites in question. This method of using the presence/absence of species in an archaeological site to determine what and how many species Neanderthals were exploiting throughout the European landscape has been employed previously (e.g. Patou-Mathis 2000).

Once the number of species included in the analysis was reduced, the data were split into appropriate time-slices. In order to determine the diversity of species exploited in each time-slice, the mean number of the species was determined from the number of species exploited at each individual site in each time-slice. An average number of species exploited in each time-slice is likely to be more accurate than using a cumulative method owing to the fact that it accounts for atypical sites with either a much smaller or larger faunal assemblage, thus lessening bias due to sample size. This process resulted in the number of species exploited during each 10,000 year time-slice for comparison.

39 Using a similar method, the number of environments exploited in each time-slice was determined by establishing what environments were represented given the range of species exploited, and hence what habitats Neanderthals must have been searching. While this method is simplistic and potentially problematic, using animals (particularly mammals) as climatic and environmental indicators has a long history in archaeology (Yalden 2001). This method is still considered acceptable for use in modern faunal analysis, especially in Palaeolithic and earlier contexts where past climates and distribution of vegetation communities is often difficult to determine (e.g. Patou-Mathis 2000).

While these two coarse-grained methods for measuring the diversity of species and environments exploited by Neanderthals in the study period are relatively simplistic in nature, they are the only methods currently available for faunal analysis of this kind owing to the absence of detailed palaeoecological data in addition to the lack of detailed archaeological faunal data available. However, these methods provide an indication of what species and environments Neanderthals were exploiting and are therefore appropriate for the initial diachronic analysis of this area.

Where possible, fine-grained statistical methods were employed to provide quantitative measures of change. The first of these methods was the application of the Shannon- Weaver function (H′) for measuring diversity and evenness which has a history of use in Palaeolithic archaeology as well as zooarchaeology (Reitz and Wing 2001; Valensi and Psathi 2004). The formula for calculating this index is given below: s

H′ = -∑ (pi) (loge Pi) i = 1 where: H′ = information content of the sample

pi = the relative abundance of the ith taxon within the sample

Loge pi = the logarithm of pi (to base e in this study) s = the number of taxonomic categories

40 The Shannon-Weaver function normalises species richness against relative abundance to describe sample heterogeneity (Reitz and Wing 2001). High H′ values describe higher evenness across species, while lower values indicate disproportionate representation of particular species. Based on Minimum Number of Individuals (MNIs), this method could only be used for 16 strata from six sites spread across the 50,000 year period owing to the lack of available published data.

Similarly, weight averages were calculated through examination of the species represented in each time-slice (Appendix C). Weight averages, used in evolutionary ecological theory, are used to determine if higher ranked prey are being exploited more frequently in one time-slice over another, indicating changes in faunal exploitation strategies. To test the results of this analysis, the statistical coefficient of variation was also calculated in order to compare the variation of species weight between each of the time-slices (Lycett et al. 2006):

Cv = (σ / µ) 100

Where: Cv = coefficient of variation σ = standard deviation µ = mean weight

The results of these more fine-grained methods are compared to the results of the coarse- grained methods in order to see if they correlate, thus providing an additional statistical test to confirm the significance and strength of observed trends in the initial coarse- grained results.

Both the coarse-grained and fine-grained results are considered in light of the changing environmental conditions of OIS 3, OIS 4 and OIS 5a. Through this contextual analysis, changes observed in the results will be able to be more strongly suggested to be either the result of these changing conditions or to be independent of these conditions. However, it

41 is acknowledged that even if changes are prompted by oscillating environmental conditions, this does not mean behavioural complexity could not change as well.

Together, these two approaches provide complementary methods to investigate what changes, if any, are apparent in Neanderthal behavioural complexity as reflected through faunal extraction.

Construction of the Faunal Extraction Dataset The 17 selected sites from Western and Central Europe for the faunal analysis are presented below in their respective time-slices (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. Faunal extraction dataset.

Time-Slice Site Name Number of Strata References Grotte de Tournal, Boyle 2000 30,000-40,000 2 France Barton 2000 ; Barton et. al. 1999; Currant 2000; Gorham’s Cave, Pettitt and Bailey 2000; 30,000-40,000 4 Gibraltar Rink et al. 2000; Volterra et al. 2000; Waechter 1964 30,000-40,000 Saint-Cesaire, France 2 Leveque et al. 1993 La Chapelle-aux-Saint, Davies 2000 41,000-50,000 1 France 41,000-50,000 Saint-Cesaire, France 1 Leveque et al. 1993 41,000-50,000 Mujina Pecina, 4 Miracle 2005 Grotta di Kuhn 1995; Stiner 1994; 41,000-50,000 1 Sant’Agnostino, Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992 41,000-50,000 Grotte Neron, France 1 Davies 2000 Bischoff et al. 1988; Bischoff et. al. 1994; Caceres et al. 1998; Carbonell and Castro- 41,000-50,000 Abric Romani, Spain 9 Curel 1992; Carbonell et. al. 1996; Lumley 1962; Martinez et. al. 2005; Vaquero et. al. 2001 Grotta di Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; 51,000-60,000 2 Sant’Agnostino, Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992. Kuhn 1990; Schwarcz et. al. 1991; Stiner 1994; 51,000-60,000 Grotta Guattari, Italy 1 Stiner and Kuhn 1992; White and Toth 1991 Gorham’s Cave, Barton 2000; Barton et. 51,000-60,000 1 Gibraltar al. 1999; Currant 2000;

42 Pettitt and Bailey 2000; Rink et al., 2000; Volterra et al. 2000; Waechter 1964 51,000-60,000 Fonseigner, France 2 Davies 2000 Conard and Prindiville 61,000-70,000 Tonchesberg, Germany 1 2000 Grotta dei Moscerini, Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; 61,000-70,000 1 Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992 61,000-70,000 Oliveira Cave, 1 Davies 2000 61,000-70,000 Castillo, Spain 1 Davies 2000 Kuhn 1990; Schwarcz et. al. 1991; Stiner 1994; 71,000-80,000 Grotta Guattari, Italy 2 Stiner and Kuhn 1992; White and Toth 1991 Montagne de Girault, Davies 2000 71,000-80,000 1 France

Analysis of Neanderthal Lithic Technology: Methods and Dataset Changes in lithic technology have been shown to be closely related to changing patterns of land-use, including changing access to raw materials, subsistence strategies, social geometry and mobility strategies (e.g. Bamford and Bleed 1997; Clarkson 2006; Kuhn 1995; Nelson 1991; Parry and Kelly 1987; Ugan et al. 2003). Measures of the diversity of lithic assemblages can be used to indicate the range of technological strategies required to exploit different environments, the specificity and functional efficiency of technologies, as well as innovation in designing new tools to meet new requirements or improve on existing technologies. Diversity is therefore a simple but theoretically useful measure.

Technology Complexity Index Only lithic technology was analysed in this section due to the abundance of this data in all sites in the sample. Instances of tools made from other materials are included in the symbolism analysis. Diversity of technology was selected as the index to best measure change in behavioural complexity. In this case, diversity of lithic tool types best fitting the ‘more parts’ section of the definition. Raw material variability fitted the ‘more connections between parts’ criterion but was unfortunately unable to be completed owing to a lack of detailed and consistent reporting of raw material information.

43 Technology Analysis Methods Obtaining detailed lithic data for individual strata from sites in the sample was surprisingly difficult. This owed to a number of factors, but a simple lack of published data of assemblage composition was the most serious (e.g. Mellars 1996; Simek and Smith 1997). The second was the lack of sites dated though absolute means and thus those dated by relative means were also required to be included to assemble a large dataset. The use of strata dated by relative means may have distorted the results of this analysis owing to the fact that these strata may have been placed in the wrong time-slices, resulting in artefact types being placed in time-slices where they may not have actually been originally. These factors greatly reduced the expected sample size which was further limited by the use of several different and incompatible lithic typologies by analysts. Thus, only 11 sites were available for any kind of technological analysis and even these required analysis in two separate groups. Assemblages from Italy formed one group, using the typological groupings of Kuhn (1990), while the other group consisted of the remainder of Western and Central European sites described using Bordes’ typology (Table 3.3).

Francois Bordes’ lithic artefact typology has been universally applied to the analysis of lithic assemblages of the Middle Palaeolithic (e.g. Carbonell and Castro-Curel 1992; Kuhn 1995; Mellars 1996). Despite its usefulness as a common descriptive language, many archaeologists now argue that the Bordesian typology is inadequate for modern quantitative analysis owing to its subjectivity and lack of rigorous classification criteria, and is thus an “uncontrolled mixture of technological and functional variables acted on by raw material constraints” (Bisson 2000:1). Bordesian typology also incorporates untested assumptions about the cognitive capacities of the hominin population who produced the assemblage (Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan 1981; Bisson 2000; Mellars 1996).

Despite intense debate over the legitimacy of the use of Bordesian typologies, it was employed, with qualifications, for the purposes of this study. This was due to three main factors: (1) the lack of detailed information allowing the reclassification of lithic artefacts

44 into a different typology, (2) the large majority of published literature employs Bordesian typology, and (3) lack of time and space available in this study to develop an alternative typology. To ensure consistency, only assemblages analysed using a strict Bordesian typology were included. While Kuhn’s analysis of four Middle Palaeolithic sites in Latium, Italy, did use the Bordesian types, he grouped several types together with no indication of how many artefacts of different types were in each group (Appendix D). Thus, these Italian sites were analysed independent of the rest of the sample and was one of the limitations on this study.

Two types of lithic analyses were undertaken. The first of these was a simple count of the number of Bordesian tool types in each 10,000 year time-slice in order to identify any changes in the diversity of tool types (Appendix D). The second was an investigation of whether particular tool types (such as scrapers and burins) were more prevalent during particular periods in the past, perhaps correlating with the oscillating environmental conditions. To further test the results of these analyses, a statistical t-test was calculated to test the effects of assemblage size on assemblage diversity.

Construction of the Technological Dataset Seven sites were selected for technological analysis. Information on stratigraphy, age range and source reference are presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Technology dataset.

Time-Slice Site Name Number of Strata References 30,000-40,000 Gorham’s Cave, 4 Barton 2000; Barton et. Gibraltar al. 1999; Currant 2000; Pettitt and Bailey 2000; Rink et al .2000; Volterra et al. 2000; Waechter 1964 30,000-40,000 Grotta Breuil, Italy 1 Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; Stiner and Kuhn 1992 41,000-50,000 Combe Grenal, France 1 Clarkson and Hiscock 2006 41,000-50,000 Abric Romani, Spain 7 Bischoff et al. 1988; Bischoff et al. 1994; Caceres et al. 1998; Carbonell and Castro- Curel 1992; Carbonell et

45 al. 1996; Lumley 1962; Martinez et al. 2005; Vaquero et al. 2001 41,000-50,000 Grotta dei 1 Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; Sant’Agnostino, Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992 41,000-50,000 La Quina, France 5 Debenath and Jelinek 1998 41,000-50,000 Pech de l’Aze I, France 2 Pettitt 1998

51,000-60,000 Grotta dei 2 Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; Sant’Agnostino, Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992 51,000-60,000 Gorham’s Cave, 1 Barton 2000; Barton et. Gibraltar al. 1999; Currant 2000; Pettitt and Bailey 2000; Rink et al. 2000; Volterra et al. 2000; Waechter 1964 51,000-60,000 Roc de Marsal, France 7 Pettitt 1998; Sandgathe et al. 2005 61,000-70,000 Grotta dei Moscerini, 1 Kuhn 1990; Stiner 1994; Italy Stiner and Kuhn 1992 61,000-70,000 Combe Grenal, France 24 Clarkson and Hiscock 2006 71,000-80,000 Grotta Guattari, Italy 2 Kuhn 1990; Schwarcz et al. 1991; Stiner 1994; Stiner and Kuhn 1992; White and Toth 1991 71,000-80,000 L’Abric Chadourne, 2 Pettitt 1998 France 71,000-80,000 Combe Grenal, France 3 Clarkson and Hiscock 2006 71,000-80,000 Roc de Marsal, France 1 Pettitt 1998; Sandgathe et al. 2005

Analysis of Symbolism: Methods and Dataset Analysis of artefacts and features that are identified as ‘symbolic’ are thought to provide insights into the cognitive capabilities of the hominins who produced them. Simply, the more symbolic instances (see below for definition) that appear in the archaeological record, the more evidence of abstract thought, manipulation of objects, complex social interaction and markers of social differentiation and personal and ethnic identity. Thus, the index for measuring complexity in symbolism was constructed.

Symbolism Complexity Index Consistent with the definition of complexity in Neanderthal symbolism as comprising ‘more parts’, an index of symbolism complexity was constructed using a count of the

46 number of symbolic ‘instances’ represented in the Neanderthal archaeological record. In addition, the study of the range of symbolic manifestations and the timing of their appearance in the archaeological record could also be seen as representing both ‘more parts’ (number of instances and manifestations) and ‘more connections between parts’ (the development of an integrated symbolic repertoire).

Symbolism Analysis Methods As discussed in Chapter Two, a recurring set of artefact types and features is commonly accepted to constitute symbolic behaviour as recognised in the archaeological record. These include burials, pigments, modified raw materials (primarily bone, ivory and wood), imported non-utilitarian objects (iron pyrite, fossils), composite tools and body modification. An individual instance of symbolic behaviour is defined as either a group of like objects found in a single site context or an individual feature such as a burial. If there are several instances of a symbolic type (e.g. pigments), spread through a site dated to two distinct dates, then each of these would represent a single instance. Importantly, burials not considered by the original investigators or subsequent analysts to be ‘probable’ or ‘certain’, and any artefactual instance that was not considered to be the product of intentional behaviour by Neanderthals (uncertain hominin association or dubious intentionality), were excluded. For example, an incised flint cortex found at Golan Heights dated to c.54,000 years BP which may be attributed to either Neanderthals or AMHs as both were in the region at this time and there is no direct association with skeletal remains was excluded (Marshack 1996). Similarly, there is a possible instance of large numbers of perforated marine shells found at Ksar’ Akil, , dated between c.39,000-41,000 years BP. These shells were found in association with lithics that had no association with the Aurignacian industry and therefore could be of Neanderthal origin but owing to the absence of skeletal remains, which is of particular importance in this region, this instance had to also be excluded (d’Errico 2003; Kuhn et al. 2001).

Following Binford (1981b) an assumption is made here that the quantity of symbolic artefacts that survive to discovery is correlated to that which was originally present (see also Schiffer 1987). Thus, what survives to modern day is only a fraction of what was

47 originally present in Neanderthal communities. Although various post-depositional factors may result in differential representation of symbolic artefacts both within and between sites, these are often difficult to determine. Even so, many of the artefacts included in this analysis have been analysed in order to determine exactly this kind of information, mostly in order to determine if the artefact is of anthropomorphic origin.

As one type of symbolic expression cannot be determined to be more ‘complex’ than another (see Chapter Two), the manifestations recognised here are not ranked but considered to equally represent the presence of symbolism within the Neanderthal population (Brumm and Moore 2005). As such, a simple time distribution of symbolic instances was considered the most appropriate way of determining the prevalence of symbolic behaviour through time.

An initial survey resulted in the identification of 63 separate instances of symbolic behaviour attributed to Neanderthals during the Middle Palaeolithic (Appendix E). This consisted of 31 burial features (some including grave goods) and over 400 individual symbolic artefacts. All of these instances either had direct absolute dates or were bracketed by dates from adjacent strata. Mid-point dates were assigned to those instances bracketed between two dates.

Several artefacts likely to be indicative of Neanderthal symbolic behaviour that might have been included in the analysis were identified in secondary sources, but these were excluded from the analysis as the original references could not be obtained. This is mentioned here to highlight the fact that there are potentially many more cases of archaeologically recognisable symbolic behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic that are not included in this study.

48 Construction of the Symbolism Dataset

Imported Non-Utilitarian Objects Fossils, crystals, or other objects that have no apparent utilitarian use found outside of their original context of deposition were classed in this category. Though four instances of imported non-utilitarian objects were recorded, these did not include any absolute or relative dates other than the label ‘Mousterian levels’ and were consequently excluded from the study (Bednarik 1992; Dupree 1972; Leroi-Gourhan 1967; Mellars 1996).

Burials Burials were defined as the intentional deposition of human remains in the ground as recognised through dug pits and intentional positioning of the body. By this definition, a burial need not include the presence of grave goods, but a number of burials do (Mellars 2005).

Thirty-one burial features were recognised after the exclusion of four considered uncertain or improbable (Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001). Of these, 19 include possible grave goods consisting of lithics, animal bones, antlers, and horns, stones, ‘sediment coverings’, and large rocks over the grave. Burials with these features are found at; Amud, Le Moustier, Shanidar, Dederiyeh Cave, Teshik-Tash, La Chapelle-aux-saint, La Ferrassie, La Quina, Le Regourdou, Roc de Marsal, Tabun, Spy, Kebara, Kiik-Koba and Staroselji (Appendix E) (Akazawa et al 1995; d’Errico 2003; Hovers et al. 1996; Leroi- Gorhan 1975; Lewin 2005; Maureille 2002; Mercier et al. 1995; Movius 1953; Shea 2003; Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; Rink et al. 2001; Schepartz 2004; Senut 1985; Solecki 1975; Stewart 1977; Valladas et al. 1987; cf. Gargett 1989).

Modified Raw Material Modified raw materials are defined as objects of organic origin intentionally modified by shaping, incisions or perforation. Known modified raw materials include bone, ivory, antler, stone and wood.

49 Twenty-five instances are included in this category from 21 sites spread over Western and Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Western Asia, including: Cueva Morin, Bacho Kiro, Buran Kaya III, Tagliente Rockshelter, Abric Romani, Cioarei-Borosteni, Tata, Temanta Cave, Umm el Tlet, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, Pech de l’Aze, La Quina, La Ferrassie, Axlor, Prolom II, Bocksteinschmiede, Lehringen, Taubach, Grotte Vaufrey and Repolosthőhle (Appendix E) (Bednarik 1992; Bordes 1961, 1972; Carbonell and Castro- Curel 1992; Carciumaru et al. 2002; d’Errico and Laroulandie 2000; d’Errico and Soressi 2002; Enloe et al. 2000; Fernandez et al. 2004; Fiore et al. 2004; Gaudzinski 1999, 2004; Marshack 1976, 1989, 1996; Marquet and Lorblanchet 2003; Pike-Tay et al. 1999; Sandgathe and Hayden 2003; Stepanchuk 1993).

Pigment Pigments consist of either the actual pigment itself (ochre or manganese dioxide) or artefacts visibly stained with pigment.

While pigments have been recovered from over 40 sites in Europe, many of the original publications in which these instances were reported were unavailable for consultation for this study. Only six instances of the presence of pigment in Middle Palaeolithic contexts were included in this analysis. These six instances span the 25,000 year period between 60,000 and 35,000 years BP, the same time period from which many of the instances reported in secondary sources are cited to have belonged. Therefore the six instances included here provide a general representation of where pigment first appeared in the archaeological record of Neanderthals, and therefore are an adequate representation of the place of this symbolic manifestation, acknowledging that their occurrence in Middle Palaeolithic sites was much more frequent. These six instances were from Pech de l’Aze II, Tata and Cioarei-Borosteni. These consisted of both fragments of pigments such as ochre and manganese-dioxide, some with traces of use, along with a stained grinding stone, stained bone artefacts and eight intentionally modified stalagmites with residues of ochre found on the inside at Cioarei-Borosteni (Appendix E) (Bordes 1961, 1972; Carciumaru et al. 2002; d’Errico 2003; d'Errico and Soressi 2002; Klein 1969).

50 Composite Technology Composite technology is defined as those artefacts which required the manufacture and assembly of two or more parts (e.g. hafting of a stone artefact to a spear shaft). Evidence for composite technology comes from two sites, Umm el Tlet, Syria and Konigsaue, Germany, and consists of four separate instances (Appendix E) (Boeda et al. 1998; d'Errico 2003; Grunberg 2002).

Body Modification Body modification is defined as the intentional modification of bodily parts by Neanderthals prior to death. Two confirmed instances of intentional cranial deformation are known from Shanidar in Western Asia (Appendix E ) (Trinkaus 1982; Habgood 2003).

Summary This chapter outlined the methods employed in the diachronic analysis of behavioural complexity within each of the three behavioural domains explored. It has also outlined the datasets used for each of these aspects and discussed limitations in the available data and the criteria used to ensure dubious cases are excluded from the analysis. Additionally, it has highlighted the lack of published data on fauna and technological diversity available for the Eurasian Middle Palaeolithic.

51

52 Chapter 4 Results and Interpretation

Introduction Methods outlined in Chapter Three were applied to the faunal, technological and symbolic datasets to ascertain if Neanderthal behaviour changed significantly through time and whether observed trends can be equated to changing behavioural complexity. Results and interpretations for each behavioural aspect are presented and key findings identified for further discussion.

Faunal Extraction Faunal data from Western and Central Europe dating to between 80,000 and 30,000 years BP were compiled to determine if the diversity, habitats and nature of species exploited changed over this time. During this 50,000 year period an overall increase in the number of species exploited, and the number of habitats searched occurred, with a peak in diversity taking place between 41,000-50,000 years BP (Figure 4.1).

Species Exploited The mean number of species exploited during the 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice is 10.33 and this number steadily increases, peaking during 41,000-50,000 years BP time- slice where a mean of 13.39 species were exploited. Though this is only an average of 3-4 more species being exploited over 40,000 years, it represents a steady increase. The regression seen in the 30,000-40,000 years BP time-slice is thought to have occurred owing to the exclusion of Châtelperronian assemblages which played a major role during this 10,000 year period in this region. Support for the accuracy of these results is found in a similar but much larger faunal analysis undertaken by Patou-Mathis (2000). Patou- Mathis’s (2000) analysis of 323 Middle Palaeolithic European sites demonstrates that single-species-dominated assemblages decrease from OIS 5a and OIS 3 and consequently that the diversity of species exploited increases through time. Although Patou-Mathis (2000) did not discuss the reasons for this change in species exploitation, the

53 interpretation of this study as supported by her results will be further discussed at the end of this section.

Figure 4.1. Results of faunal extraction analysis showing relationship of data to oxygen isotope stages (OIS) and temperature variation (after Mellars 1996:10).

Environments Exploited The number of different environments exploited in each time-slice shows a clear increase through time (Figure 4.2). Seven environments were exploited in the two earliest time- slices (61,000-80,000 years BP), increasing to eight in the 51,000-60,000 time-slice and peaking at nine different environments during the 41,000-50,000 time-slice (Figure 4.1). The 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice includes both warm and cold environments

54 reflecting the overall change from an interstadial to a glacial climate over the course of this 10,000 year time period. The 61,000-70,000 time-slice experienced a mainly colder climate with both tundra and steppe environments represented. The rapidly fluctuating but overall milder conditions of OIS 3 (30,000-60,000) experienced a greater range of climatic conditions, with both warm and cold environments represented in each of the remaining time-slices. Patou-Mathis’ (2000) analysis also concluded that the number of environments exploited by Neanderthals increased through time, with all available biotopes exploited by OIS 4 thus supporting the results of this analysis.

89877

30,000-40,000 41,000-50,000 51,000-60,000 61,000-70,000 71,000-80,000 Years Ago (Time-Slice)

Rivers/Streams Desert Coastal Littoral Steppe Tundra Mountains Savanna Grasslands Forest Woodlands

Figure 4.2. Environments exploited by Neanderthals in each time-slice.

Mean and Coefficient of Variation of Body Mass of Exploited Prey Species Both the average body mass of the exploited species in each time-slice (based on the presence/absence analysis) and the coefficient of variation in body mass was calculated in order to determine if larger, and hence higher ranked prey, were exploited more intensively in some time-slices than others (Figure 4.1). Interestingly, while the mean body mass of prey species drops over time, reaching its lowest value at 41,000-50,000 years ago, the coefficient of variation increases. This suggests that both large and small prey were increasingly exploited over time, in essence, indicating that diet breadth was

55 increasing such that small and large prey were both included in the diet. This has implications for the diversity of hunting strategies employed, techniques and technologies for capturing both large and small animals, and the processing strategies required to make use of animals of vastly different body sizes. Increasing diet breadth is also commonly associated with declining abundance of high ranked prey (Smith 1983), and likely indicates greater pressure on the reproductive capacity of large prey either through climate change or over-exploitation by Neanderthals.

Shannon-Weaver Function (H′)

3

2.5

2

1.5 H' Value

1

0.5

0 30,000-40,000 41,000-50,000 51,000-60,000 61,000-70,000 71,000-80,000 Time Slices

Shannon-Weaver Function (H')

Figure 4.3. Faunal diversity calculated using Shannon-Weaver function (H′).

Results of the Shannon-Weaver function (H′) provides further support for the observed trends presented above (Figure 4.3). The higher values in the 41,000-50,000 and 51,000- 60,000 time-slices represent a higher degree of evenness in abundance across taxa. The lower values for the remaining three time-slices represent fewer individuals in only a few of the same taxonomic categories (Reitz and Wing 2001:105). These results should be interpreted with caution owing to the fact the data available for analysis was small and

56 the largest part of the data available for this analysis fell into the 41,000-50,000 and 51,000-60,000 time-slices.

Interpreting Changes in Faunal Extraction The results of this study followed neither of the patterns discussed in Chapter Three and there are strong reasons for interpreting the steady increase in species and environmental exploitation as a change in behavioural complexity over a simple reaction to changing environmental conditions.

Review of the presence/absence chart for the 41,000-50,000 years BP time-slice shows a wide range of animals represented including everything from mammoth and woolly rhino to several types of deer, antelope, horse, wild boar and continuing down to smaller animals including hare and rabbit (see Appendix B). This result seems to suggest that Neanderthals in this period were extracting the environment to almost its full potential. In terms of cognition, the diverse exploitation of both animal resources and environments in the 41,000-50,000 years BP time-slice can be argued to reflect the ability of Neanderthals to employ a number of different subsistence and hunting strategies. These capacities are especially evident in the range of predation strategies which included the exploitation of both large and dangerous animals such as the mammoth and woolly rhino and small prey such as hare and rabbit indicating a range of strategies ranging from cooperative hunting ventures to individual opportunistic encounters. Review of the 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice demonstrates the opposite of this trend, with lower rates of extraction in terms of available fauna. In fact, the number and kinds of species exploited in OIS 5a are extremely similar to those of the glacial conditions of OIS 4. This difference in behaviour between two periods (41,000-50,000 and 71,000-80,000) that had very similar environmental conditions suggests that Neanderthal faunal extraction behaviour was not dependant on these conditions.

Further support for this conclusion can be drawn from an analysis of which environments were exploited during these periods. Comparison of the environments exploited in each of the 41,000-50,000 and 71,000-80,000 time-slices shows that both included the warmer

57 environments of savannah, grasslands and forests along with the colder tunda environment, while the former also included mountains, steppe and desert and the latter included a coastal environment (Figure 4.2). As both of these time-slices include both warm and cold environments it could generally be expected that Neanderthals had the same opportunities to extract relatively the same number of species at this earlier time period, but did not.

The difference in the number of species extracted between these two time-slices could perhaps be explained by the exploitation of two additional environments. However, the vast majority of the additional species being extracted during the 41,000-50,000 years BP time-slice were taken from either forest or grassland environments, suggesting that Neanderthals in the 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice should have had the same opportunities to extract these same species but did not. Consequently, the difference in the diversity of species exploited between the 41,000-50,000 and 71,000-80,000 time- slices is more suggestive of a change in behavioural complexity rather than reaction to environmental change.

As far as the increase in the number of environments exploited by Neanderthals is concerned, whether it was a direct result of new environments becoming available is debatable. Assumedly, the same number of environments would have been open to exploitation during OIS 5a as OIS 3. Results of this analysis, however, show that during the 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice only seven different environments were used, even though there should have been an additional 2-4 environments available. Whether this difference is related to changes in behavioural complexity needs to be further tested with additional research into the period preceding 80,000 years BP. If the number of environments being exploited prior to this time never reached more than the seven different environments exploited in the 71,000-80,000 years BP time-slice, it could be interpreted as an increase in behavioural complexity resulting in the ability to exploit a large number of different environments concurrently. Thus, while increases in the different environments being exploited could perhaps be related to the changes in environmental conditions, it light of the increase in species exploited it could also be

58 interpreted as an increase in behavioural complexity between the 71,000-80,000 and 41,000-50,000 years BP.

For these reasons the deviation from the expected patterns are suggestive of Neanderthal behavioural complexity acting above and apart from the environmental context of this 50,000 year period and, therefore, increasing through time.

Faunal Extraction Summary Together, the four independent faunal extraction analyses demonstrated increasing diversity in species exploitation and environment exploitation through time, culminating at 41,000-50,000 years ago. This is indicative that these changes are present in the archaeological record, though owing to the small sample size available for this study these are only preliminary results and larger analyses will act to either confirm or refute the increase in diversity.

The increase in diversity is interpreted as reflecting an increase in behavioural complexity in Neanderthals based on the purposeful broadening of predation strategies to exploit a wider range of species in a broader range of environments. This might reflect dropping abundance of high ranked prey over time requiring increased diet breadth (perhaps in response to over-predation and increasing population size or climate change), or simply increased understanding and of species availability in different habitats and ability to capture these prey. In theory, technological changes might be expected to mirror these changes in faunal extraction if increased diet breadth required a greater range of tools to capture different kinds of species in different habitats. For this reason we turn now to an analysis of the technological evidence.

59 Technology Two lithic analyses were completed as part of the technological study. The first of these was a simple count of Bordesian tool types in each 10,000 year time-slice. This was undertaken in two series; the first including all the Italian sites and the second the remaining sites from Western and Central Europe (Figures 4.4-4.5). The results of this analysis show marked changes in technological diversity over time in both series, but these neither match each other nor follow the trends in faunal extraction documented above (compare Figures 4.4-4.5 and Figures 4.1-4.2). The changes observed in technological diversity are not directional and do not appear to be coupled to climatic trends. In order to investigate these trends further, a t-test was completed for the largest dataset included in the study. The Combe Grenal assemblage consists of 25 strata and offers a continuous record covering an extensive time period (c.125,000-c.50,000 years BP) (Clarkson and Hiscock 2006). The results of the t-test demonstrate that the assemblage size is not correlated with assemblage diversity (r2 = 0.155, df = 31, p = 0.604) at Combe Grenal and thus the change in diversity of tool types must reflect factors other than changes in assemblage size. Similar analyses could not be completed for the remainder of the sites owing to inconsistencies in description, reporting and categorisation noted elsewhere.

12

10

8

6

No. of Types of No. 4

2

0 30,000-40,000 41,000-50,000 51,000-60,000 61,000-70,000 71,000-80,000 Time-Slice (Years Ago)

Figure 4.4. Number of Bordesian types in Western and Central European sites.

60 6

5.5

5 No. of Types No. of 4.5

4 30,000-40,000 41,000-50,000 51,000-60,000 61,000-70,000 71,000-80,000 Years Ago (Time-Slice)

Figure 4.5. Number of Bordesian types (using Kuhn groupings) in Italian sites.

As discussed in Chapter Three, it is possible that the results of these analyses were affected by the severe limitations on the available data rather than real patterns in technological diversity. It is thought that the lack of a detailed and fully reconcilable database for the lithic analysis is the cause of these inconclusive results. Owing to the restrictions of this thesis, no further data collection or analysis could be undertaken and completed.

The second technological analysis investigated whether particular tool types are more prevalent during particular periods (such as side scrapers during the cooler glacial periods) and whether these follow broad climatic changes. Two well-described tool types, scrapers and burins functionally associated with skin-working, were compared against changing tree cover through time as a proxy environmental variable (Figures 4.6-4.7). This analysis also demonstrated broad changes in the relative abundance of scrapers and burins through time, which might be correlated to the environmental oscillations that characterise the Middle Palaeolithic. Further investigation of this connection, however, is again hampered by inconsistencies in reported data that require reanalysis of excavated assemblages for resolution (Clarkson and Hiscock 2006), clearly beyond the scope of this study.

61 70 800

60 700 600 50 500 40 400 30 300 # of Scrapers of # % Tree Cover 20 200

10 100

0 0

7 2 7 2 8 11 1 13 14 15 16 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 33 35 36 37 3 40 50 52 54 50A Level

% Trees Scrapers Figure 4.6. Relationship between the percentage of tree cover and abundance of scrapers.

70 12

60 10

50 8 40 6 30 # of Burins of #

4 % Tree Cover 20

10 2

0 0

7 5 6 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 3 37 3 40 50 52 54 50A Level

% Trees Burin Figure 4.7. Relationship between the percentage of tree cover and abundance of burins.

In sum, the results of the first lithic analysis were inconclusive and did not present the same trends as revealed in the faunal analysis. It is uncertain whether these trends relate to limitations on the available data, or whether even with a comprehensive dataset correlation between faunal extraction and lithics would be found at all. In contrast, the second analysis displayed a correlation between the abundance of burins and scrapers and environmental oscillations (as measured by % tree cover). In the end, whatever the connection is between these changes in tool types and the environmental conditions through time, this analysis did demonstrate that Neanderthal behaviour as reflected

62 through lithic technology was capable of change, the central issue of this study. As a whole, the lithic analyses were inconclusive. However previous studies on the appearance of the highly innovative MTA at around 50,000 years ago (the period of interest in this study) have highlighted this period, through lithic analysis, as marking a peak in behavioural complexity (Soressi 2005). This industry and its implications will be discussed in full in the following chapter.

Symbolism Sixty-three instances of symbolic behaviour consisting of 31 burial features (most with grave goods) and over 400 individual artefacts were identified and synthesised in Figure 4.6 (see Appendix E). These 63 separate instances of symbolic behaviour were graphed according to their category and time of appearance in the archaeological record. When graphed in a temporal sequence a clear pattern emerges indicating that both the number of instances and the number of symbolic manifestations increase in quantity through time (Figure 4.8).

As the graph demonstrates, burials are the first symbolic manifestation to appear in the archaeological record at 160,000 years BP, quickly followed by a number of instances of modified raw materials starting at 150,000 years BP. In both cases, instances occur consistently and increasingly through time. Pigment and composite technology both appear at around 60,000-50,000 years ago and continue to 40,000 years ago, with the one instance of body modification appearing at 45,000 years ago. All of these instances occur before the advent of the Châtelperronian and their increasing frequency in the archaeological record suggests that Neanderthal symbolic complexity was increasing through time. It should also be mentioned here that if instances of symbolic behaviour included in Châtelperronian contexts were included in this study, the graph would have continued to increase in number of symbolic instances down to 30,000 years ago as these cultural assemblages are notably rich in symbolic content (See d’Errico et al. 1998; Mellars 1996; White and Taborin 2000).

63 180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000 Years Ago Years

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 Instances

Burials Pigment Composite Technology Body Modification Modified Raw Material

Figure 4.8. Symbolic instances by type and time of occurrence.

64 In order to determine whether the increase in both the number of symbolic instances and types of manifestation were simply correlated to increasing population growth, a survey of occupation sequence at Middle Palaeolithic sites with both absolute and relative dates was completed. A histogram of these results reveals that site occupation is not clearly determining the observed increase in symbolic instances and manifestations (Figure 4.9). Again a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of both symbolic instances and sites occupied would act to either confirm or deny this result.

45 14 40 12 35 10 30 25 8 20 6 15 4 Sites Occupied 10 Symbolic Instances 5 2 0 0

0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 ,0 0 ,0 000 000 000 00 00 0, -45, 55, 70, 80 85, 95 10, 25, 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 1 1 0-10 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 000-105,000 000-115,000 000-130,000 000-140,000000-145,000 000-155,000 41, 46,000-50,00051, 56,000-60,00061,000-65,00066, 71,000-75,00076, 81, 86,000-90,00091, 1, 1, 6, 1, 96, 36, 51, 10 106,000-11 116,000-120,000121,000-12 131,000-135,1 14 146,000-150,1 156,000-160,000 Years Ago

Sites Occupied Sites with Symbolic Instances Figure 4.9. Number of symbolic instances against number of sites occupied during the Middle Palaeolithic.

It can therefore be suggested that the archaeological record of Neanderthal symbolic behavioural complexity represents a change towards increasing behavioural complexity through time culminating at around 40,000 to 50,000 years BP – prior to the advent of the Châtelperronian – and suggesting that it would have further continued with the Châtelperronian itself past 30,000 years BP.

Collective Results and Overall Trends Contrary to popular thought, change in behavioural complexity in Neanderthals has been suggested to have been present through the analysis of their faunal extraction and symbolic behaviours in this study. Furthermore, these changes have also been demonstrated to steadily increase towards 41,000-50,000 years BP. This pattern of increasing behavioural complexity is most clearly seen in Figure 4.10 which graphs the

65 results of the faunal extraction and symbolism analyses together as a percentage. Here, both the number of species and environments exploited by Neanderthals steadily increases towards 41,000-50,000 years BP as does the frequency of symbolic instances and types of symbolic manifestation. This graph demonstrates the Neanderthal behavioural complexity is becoming more diverse through time and therefore according to the definition of complexity “more parts and more connections between parts” (Price 1995:142) is increasing in complexity.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

Number of Types (%) Types of Number 10

5

0 30,000-40,000 41,000-50,000 51,000-60,000 61,000-70,000 71,000-80,000 Years Ago

Symbolic Instances Symbolic Types Species Exploited Environments Exploited

Figure 4.10. Changes in faunal extraction and symbolic behaviour through time.

Summary The results of the faunal extraction, technology and symbolism analyses were presented and discussed in terms of their representation of change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity. These results are at odds with conventional understandings of this hominin population and the wider implications of these will be discussed in the following chapter.

66 Chapter 5 Discussion and Wider Implications

Introduction Results of this study demonstrate the potential of diachronic approaches to extract fresh data from currently available archaeological data on Neanderthal behavioural complexity. Through diachronic analysis of three central aspects of Neanderthal behaviour, faunal extraction, technology and symbolism, this study was able to demonstrate change in behavioural complexity and therefore refutes the long-standing perception that Neanderthals were incapable of behavioural change. The wider implications of these results affect the current debate on the origin of MHB in Europe and the behavioural capacities of Neanderthals. The implications for these debates and directions for further advances in diachronic analyses are considered and discussed in this final chapter.

Key Findings Key findings of the diachronic analysis of Neanderthal behavioural complexity as seen through faunal extraction, technology and symbolism are:

o Diversity in faunal exploitation increased through time, peaking at 41,000-50,000 years BP. o Diversity in environment exploitation increased through time, peaking at 41,000- 50,000 years BP. o Number of symbolic instances increased in frequency through time, peaking at around 50,000 years BP with five different types of symbolic manifestation. o Change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity is present as seen through faunal extraction and symbolism analyses. o Diachronic analysis of currently available archaeological data provides fresh information concerning Neanderthal behavioural complexity.

67 Change in Neanderthal Behavioural Complexity Neanderthal behavioural complexity was observed to have steadily increased and peaked at 40,000-50,000 years BP. The faunal extraction results indicated that through the 50,000 year period under study Neanderthal behaviour increasingly diverged from expectations based on climatically induced environmental trends. This suggests that the Neanderthals of Western and Central Europe were continually developing new subsistence strategies and learning how to best apply them in particular environmental contexts. In other words, Neanderthals were developing more complex subsistence behaviours through time. These are radical ideas in terms of the traditional views of Neanderthal behaviour and their expected level of behavioural complexity and must be further investigated in terms of collecting a larger dataset to confirm the trends observed here.

Also confronting is the increasing frequency in the appearance of symbolic instances through time. Not only do the number of instances increase, but it appears that new types of symbolic manifestation are introduced during the last 20,000-30,000 years of Neanderthal existence, including pigment, composite technologies and body modification. These results suggest that Neanderthals slowly developed their symbolic capacity in a similar manner to that which has been suggested for our own species/sub- species AMHs (d’Errico 2003; Henshilwood and Sealy 1997). Again these trends need to be further investigated in terms of confirming the authenticity of each of the artefacts/features that have not already been analysed, as well as further absolute dating of the artefacts/features to confirm their temporal position.

Whether these changes were similar in the technological component of Neanderthal behaviour is still unknown owing to the inconclusive results of this analysis. However, previous research conducted into Mousterian lithic industries may provide an initial insight into whether this pattern of increasing complexity might also be expected in further technological analyses. Peaks in behavioural complexity observed in both the faunal extraction and symbolism analyses directly correlate with the appearance of the MTA in South-Western France at 50,000 BP. MTA is characterised by small finely

68 retouched cordiform bifaces, back elongated flakes and well-formed end-scrapers and borers (Soressi 2005). Only ever found with Neanderthal skeletal remains, the MTA demonstrates technological innovation and planning depth because it is the only Mousterian industry with an emphasis on elongated backed artefacts and the use of volumetric Upper Palaeolithic methods of blank production. In addition, by study of lithic assemblages from the sites of Pech de l’Aze I, Le Moustier, and La Rochette, Soressi (2005) has demonstrated that the scheduling of the knapping process was not driven by lithic raw material scarcity. These instances of scheduling further demonstrate planning depth within the Neanderthal populations that occupied these sites at this time period. Thus, the MTA could be potentially interpreted as an example of a technological peak in behavioural complexity as it demonstrates a height in innovation and planning depth never identified previously in Mousterian industries (Mellars 2003; Soressi 2005). Interestingly, the MTA also falls into the 40,000-50,000 years BP period of peaked behavioural complexity exhibited in the faunal extraction and symbolism analysis presented here.

With the addition of the MTA to the results of this study, a more complete picture of change in Neanderthal behavioural complexity can be gleaned. A picture that is the direct contradiction of past and present thought which held that Neanderthals were incapable of behavioural change.

Contribution to Current Debate Overturning the long-held belief that Neanderthals were incapable of behavioural change has a wide range of ramifications for current debates concerning the behavioural capacities of Neanderthals and the origins of MHB. For example, it calls for a reassessment of the commonly held theory that Neanderthals disappeared owing to both their inability to adapt to the rapidly changing climatic conditions of OIS 3, and their inability to compete with the highly innovative AMHs migrating into Europe (Finlayson 2004; Mellars 2005). This line of reasoning now appears to conflict with the available data and new theories must be developed to explain their extinction. Obvious possible theories are that there was conflict between the indigenous Neanderthals and migrating

69 AMHs or that there might have been genetic exchange between the two populations, or a combination of both these scenarios.

In terms of symbolic behaviour, some scholars have aggressively argued that Neanderthals were incapable of symbolic abstraction (Davidson and Noble 1996; Mellars 2005). The survey and analysis of the archaeological evidence for Neanderthal symbolic behaviour presented in this study demonstrates, not only that is there adequate evidence for Neanderthals participating in symbolic behaviour, but that this behaviour was increasing in complexity through time, perhaps in a similar fashion to that which has been suggested for AMHs (see d’Errcio 2003; Henshilwood and Sealy 1997). Henceforth, Neanderthals cannot be simply dismissed as wholly incapable of symbolic behaviour. Whether their capacity for symbolic thought was on a similar level to AMHs, however, will remain a contentious debate.

The Single-Species Model for the origin of MHB can now be more aggressively refuted than before because it has been demonstrated that (1) evidence for Neanderthal symbolic behaviour is present and continuous from 200,000 years BP and (2) that behavioural complexity increases through time and peaks at 40,00-50,000 years BP. While d’Errico and colleagues (e.g. d’Errico et al. 1998; Hayden 1993) have previously presented examples of evidence for symbolic behaviour in Neanderthals, they have never offered a complete list of all known reported instances, nor have they considered this evidence temporally. This study’s new approach to symbolic behaviour provides new evidence that supports the notion that Neanderthals produced the symbolically rich Châtelperronian as part of an independent behavioural evolution. Demonstrating that the symbolic behaviour of Neanderthals was changing and increasing in behavioural complexity is a significant new finding for debate about the origins of MHB. Yet it is not the only finding that has bearings on the MHB debate. Further support for Neanderthals capacity for MHB and behavioural change is also found in the faunal extraction results.

Both diversification of exploitation and specialisation of exploitation of animal resources have been stated as representing aspects of MHB (McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars

70 2005; d’Errico 2003; d’Errico et al. 1998). In this study diversification was chosen as more fully fitting the definition of complexity and the faunal extraction results showed a slow but steady increase in both the number species exploited and environments exploited. By this definition, increased diversification supports the idea that Neanderthals were also involved in a behavioural evolution. In combination, the results of the faunal analysis and symbolism data presented in this study provide strong support the Multiple- Species Model for the origins of MHB.

Overall, the discovery that Neanderthal behaviour was not only changing over time but increasing in behavioural complexity forces a reassessment of our knowledge of their existence and extinction at around 30,000 years BP.

Recommendations for Future Research There are many avenues for future research that have become evident in the course of this study. These can be divided into recommendations of methods to be used in diachronic analyses, and recommendations for further advancement in diachronic analysis in Palaeolithic archaeology. The following studies would improve the methodology of diachronic analyses:

o Investigation and development of diachronic and behavioural complexity theory with a particular focus on its use in Palaeolithic archaeology. o Investigation into more accurate methods for measuring behavioural complexity across hominin populations and time periods.

Several suggestions for the advancement of knowledge concerning behavioural complexity in the Palaeolithic include:

o Extensive diachronic analysis of all Middle Palaeolithic sites throughout Western, Central and Eastern Europe, and Western Asia in order to obtain higher resolution results in faunal and technological analyses. Higher resolution results will provide

71 the data needed to ascertain if change in behavioural complexity was similar or different over several geographical regions. o Detailed diachronic analysis of the archaeological record of AMHs. o Comparison of diachronic analyses of Neanderthals and AMHs to determine the similarities and differences in the development of behavioural complexity in each population. o Reanalysis of excavated lithic assemblages using technological rather than typological approaches. o Taphonomic analyses of excavated faunal assemblages to more confidently identify carnivore-derived bone accumulations. o Further absolute dating to improve confidence in chronology of Neanderthal assemblages.

Conclusion This study has demonstrated that the implementation and further development of diachronic approaches to the issue of Neanderthal behavioural complexity will provide a lucrative new avenue of research. Through the development and application of new diachronic approaches to Neanderthal behaviour and analysis of the three most studied aspects of Neanderthal behaviour, faunal extraction, technology and symbolism, it was demonstrated that the available archaeological evidence does not support the traditional perception that Neanderthals were incapable of behavioural change, instead suggesting that Neanderthal behaviour underwent continuous processes of change towards increasing behavioural complexity. Increasing behavioural complexity in Neanderthals lends weight to the suggestion that Neanderthals were involved in independent behavioural evolution prior to the arrival of AMHs in Europe and, therefore, may have produced the Châtelperronian independently. This new information requires the reassessment of our knowledge of the Neanderthal existence and their eventual extinction.

72

References

Adler, D.S., G. Bar-Oz, A. Belfer-Cohen and O. Bar-Yosef 2006 Ahead of the game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic hunting behaviours in the southern Caucasus. Current Anthropology 47(1):89-118.

Aiello, L.C. and R. Dunbar 1993 Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language. Current Anthropology 34(2):184 -193.

Akazawa, T., S. Muhensen, Y. Dodo, O. Kondo, Y. Mizoguchi, Y. Abe, Y. Nishiaki, S. Ohta, T. Oguchi, J. Haydal, B. Vandermeersch and F. Howell 1995 Neanderthal infant burial from the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria. Paleorient 21(2):77-86.

Arensburg, B., A.M. Tillier, B. Vandermeesch, H. Duday, L.A. Schepartz and Y. Rak 1989 A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone. Nature 338(6218):758-760.

Arnold, J.E. 1996 The archaeology of complex hunter-gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(2):77-126.

Audouze, F. and A. Leroi-Gourhan 1981 France: A continental insularity. World Archaeology 13(2):170-189.

Auel, J. 1980 The Clan of the Cave Bear. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Bamford, D.B. and P. Bleed 1997 Technology, flaked stone technology, and risk. In C.M. Barton and G.A. Clark (eds), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology, pp.109-140. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7. Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Barton, R.N.E. 2000 Mousterian hearths and shellfish: Late Neanderthal activities on Gibraltar. In C.B. Stringer, R.N.E. Barton and J.C. Finlayson (eds), Neanderthals on the Edge: Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbe’s Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar, pp.211-220. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Barton, R.N.E., A.P. Currant, Y. Fernandez-Jalvo, J.C. Finlayson, P. Goldberg, R. Macphail, P.B. Pettitt and C.B. Stringer 1999 Gibraltar Neanderthals and results of recent excavations in Gorham’s, Vanguard and Ibex . Antiquity 73(279):13-23.

Bar-Yosef, O. 2004 Eat what is there: Hunting and gathering in the world of Neanderthals and their neighbours. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3- 4):333-342.

Bar-Yosef, O. and S.L. Kuhn 1999 The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101(2):322-338.

73 Bednarik, R.G. 1992 Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):27-57.

Belfercohen, A. and E. Hovers 1992 In the eye of the beholder: Mousterian and Natufian burials in the Levant. Current Anthropology 33(4):463-471.

Binford, L. 1972 Contemporary model building: Paradigms and the current state of Palaeolithic research. In D.L. Clark (ed.), Models in Archaeology, pp.109-166. London: Methuen.

Binford, L. 1981a Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.

Binford, L. 1981b Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(2):195-208.

Binford, L. 1985 Human ancestors: Changing views of their behaviour. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(4):292-327.

Binford, L. 1988 Etude taphonomique des restes fauniques de la grotte Vaufrey. Memoires de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 19:535-564.

Binford, L. 1989 Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: An organizational approach. In E. Trinkaus (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene, pp.18-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bischoff, J.L., R. Julia and R. Mora 1988 Uranium-series dating of the Mousterian occupation at Abric Romani, Spain. Nature 332(6159):68-70.

Bischoff, J.L., K. Ludwig, J. Garcia, E. Carbonell, M. Vaquero, T.W. Stafford Jr, and A. J.T. Jull 1994 Dating of the basal Aurignacian sandwich at Abric Romaní (Catalunya, Spain) by radiocarbon and uranium-series. Journal of Archaeological Science 21(4):541- 551.

Bisson, M.S. 2000 Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the typology of Francois Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(1):1-48.

Blanton, R.E., G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski and P.N. Peregrine 1993 A dual- processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14.

Boeda, E., J.M. Geneste, C. Griggo, N. Mercier, S. Muhesen, J.L. Reyss, A. Taha and H. Valladas 1999 A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectiles and Mousterian hunting weapons. Antiquity 73(280):394- 402.

74 Bordes, F. 1961 Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134(3482):803-810.

Bordes, F. 1972 A Tale of Two Caves. London: Harper & Row Publishers.

Boyle, K. 2000 Reconstructing Middle Palaeolithic subsistence strategies in the south of France. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):336-356.

Brumm, A. and M.W. Moore 2005 Symbolic revolutions and the Australian archaeological record. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(2):157-175.

Burke, A. 2000 The view from Starosele: Faunal exploitation at a Middle Palaeolithic site in western Crimea. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):325-335.

Cáceres, I., J. Rossell and R. Huguet 1998 Séquence d'utilisation de la biomasse animale dans le gisement de l'Abric Romaní. Quaternaire 9(4):379-383.

Carbonell, E. and Z. Castro-Curel 1992 Paleolithic wooden artefacts from the Abric Romani (Capellades, Barcelona, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 19(6):717- 719.

Carbonell, E., A. Cebria, E. Allue, I. Caceres, Z. Castro, R. Diaz, M. Esteban, A. Olle, I Pasto, X.P. Rodriguez, J. Rosell, R. Sala, J. Vallverdu, M. Vaquero and J. Maria Verges 1996 Behavioural and organizational complexity in the Middle Palaeolithic from the Abric Romani. In E. Carbonell and M. Vaquero (eds), The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans, pp.385-434.Tarragona: Universitat Rovira I Virgili.

Carciumaru, M., M-H. Moncel, M. Anghelinu and R. Cariumaru 2002 The Cioarei- Borosteni cave (Carpathian Mountains, ): Middle Palaeolithic finds and technological analysis of the lithic assemblage. Antiquity 76(293):681-690.

Castro-Curel, Z. and E. Carbonell 1995 Wood pseudomorphs from level 1 at Abric Romani, Barcelona, Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(3):376-384.

Chapman, R. 2003 Archaeologies of Complexity. London: Routledge.

Clark, A.M.B. 1999 Late Pleistocene technology at Rose Cottage Cave: A search for modern behaviour in the MSA context. African Archaeological Review 16(2):93-119.

Clarkson, C. 2006 Interpreting surface assemblage variation in Wardaman Country, Northern Territory: An ecological approach. In S. Ulm and I. Lilley (eds) An Archaeological Life: Papers in Honour of Jay Hall. Brisbane: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Unit, The University of Queensland.

Clarkson, C. and P. Hiscock 2006 Database on File. Accessed 1 July 2006.

75 Conard, N.J. and T.J. Prindiville 2000 Middle Palaeolithic hunting economies in the Rhineland. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):286-309.

Coolidge F.L. and T. Wynn 2004 A cognitive and neuropsychological perspective on the Chatelperronian. Journal of Anthropological Research 60(1):55-73.

Cosgrove, R. and A. Pike-Tay 2004 The Middle Palaeolithic and Late Pleistocene Tasmania hunting behaviour: A reconsideration of the attributes of modern human behaviour. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3-4):321-332.

Cregg Madrigal, T. 2000 Hunter gatherers, complexity, and subsistence. In T. Cregg Madrigal, Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy of Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Complexity in Central New York, pp.18-48. : UMI.

Crémades, M., H. Laville, N. Sirakov and J.K. Kozlowski 1995 Une pierre gravée de 50,000 ans B.P. dans les Balkans. Palaeo 7:201-209.

Currant, A.P. 2000 A review of the quaternary mammals of Gibraltar. In C.B. Stringer, R.N.E. Barton and J.C. Finlayson (eds), Neanderthals on the Edge: Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th anniversary of the Forbe’s Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar, pp.201-206. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Davidson, I. and W. Noble 1992 Why the first colonisation of the Australian region is the earliest evidence of modern human behaviour. Archaeology in Oceania 27(3):113-119.

Davidson, I. and W. Noble 1996 Human Evolution, Language and Mind: A Psychological and Archaeological Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, W. 2000 The Stage 3 Project Archaeological Database. Retrieved 15 July 2006 from http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/oistage3/Secure/OIS-3i.html.

Debenath, A. and A.J. Jelinek 1998 Nouvelles Fouilles à La Quina (Charente): Résultats préliminaires. Gallia Prehistoire 40:29-74. d’Errico, F. 2003 The invisible frontier: A multiple species model for the origin of behavioural modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12(4):188-202. d’Errico, F., C. Henshilwood, G. Lawson, M. Vanharen, A. Tillier, M. Soressi, F. Bresson, B. Maureille, A. Nowell, J. Lakarra, L. Blackwell and M. Julien 2003 Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music – An alternative multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17(1):1-70.

D’Errico, F. and V. Laroulandie 2000 Bone technology at the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition: the case of worked bones from Buran-Kaya-III, level C (Crimea, Ukraine). In J. Orschiedt and G.C. Weniger (eds), Neanderthals and Modern Humans - Discussing the

76 Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000-30.000 B.P., pp.227-242. : Wissenschaftliche Schriften des , Band 2. d’Errico, F. and M. Soressi 2002 Systematic use of manganese pigment by Pech-de-l’Aze Neandertals: Implications for the origin of behavioural modernity. Journal of Human Evolution 42(3):A13. d’Errico, F. and P. Villa 1998 Nouvelle analyse des gravés et perforés du paléolithique inférieur et moyen implications pour l'origine de la pensée symbolique. Paléoanthropologie 10:265-285. d’Errico, F., J. Zilhao, M. Julien, D. Baffier and J. Pelegrin 1998 Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe?: A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39(3):S1-S44.

Dickson, D.B. and G. Gang 2002 Evidence of the emergence of “modern” behaviour in the Middle and Late Stone Age lithic assemblages at Shurmai Rockshelter (GnJm1) and Kakwa Lelash Rockshelter (GnJm2) in the Mukogodo Hills of north-central . African Archaeological Review 19(1):1-26.

Drell, J.R.R. 2000 Neanderthals: A history of interpretation. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(1):1-24.

Dupree, L., J.L. Angel, R.H. Brill, E.R. Caley, R.S. Davis, C.C. Kolb, A. Marshack, D. Perkins Jr. and A. Solem (1972) Prehistoric research in (1959-1966). Transactions of the American Philosphical Society 62(4):1-84.

Enloe, J.G., F. David and G. Baryshnikov 2000 Hyenas and hunters: Zooarchaeological investigations at Prolom II cave, Crimera. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):310-324.

Erlandson, J.M. 2004 The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: Paradigms for a new millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(4):287-350.

Falk, D. 1975 Comparative anatomy of larynx in man and chimpanzee: Implications for language in Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43(1):123-132.

Fernandez, J., V. Cabrera Valdes and F. Bernaldo de Quiros 2004 Le debitage lamellaire dans le Mousterien final de cantabrie (Espagne): Le cas de El Castillo et Cueva Morin. L’Anthropologie 108(3-4):367-393.

Finlayson, C. 2004 Neanderthals and Modern Humans: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

77 Fiore, I., M. Gala and A. Tagliacozzo 2004 Ecology and subsistence strategies in eastern Italian Alps during the Middle Palaeolithic. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3-4):273-286.

Flannery, K.V. 1972 The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.

Frayer, D. 1993 On Neanderthal crania and speech: Response to Lieberman. Current Anthropology 34(5):721.

Freeman, L.G. 1983 More on the Mousterian: Flaked bone from Cueva Morin. Current Anthropology 24(3):366-377.

Gargett, R.H. 1989 Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neanderthal burial. Current Anthropology 30(2):157-190.

Gaudzinski, S. 1999 Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 26(2):125-141.

Gaudzinski, S. 2004 A matter of high resolution? The Eemian interglacial (OIS 5e) in north-central Europe and Middle Palaeolithic subsistence. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3-4):201-211.

Gaudzinski, S. and W. Roebroeks 2000 Adults only: Reindeer hunting at the Middle Palaeolithic site Salzgitter Lebenstedt, Northern Germany. Journal of Human Evolution 38(4):497-521.

Graves-Brown, P. 1996 The ghost of Cain? Neanderthals, racism and speciesism. Antiquity 70(270):978-981.

Grayson, D.K. and F. Delpech 1994 The evidence for Middle Palaeolithic scavenging from couche VIII, Grotte Vaufrey (Dordogne, France). Journal of Archaeological Science 21(3):359-375.

Grayson, D.K. and F. Delpech 2004 Specialized early upper Palaeolithic hunters in southwestern France? Journal of Archaeological Science 29(12):1439-1449.

Grayson, D.K., F. Delpech, J. Rigaud and J.F. Simek 2001 Explaining the development of dietary dominance of a single ungulate taxon at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(2):115-125.

Grunberg, J.M. 2002 Middle Palaeolithic birch bark pitch. Antiquity 76(291):15-16.

Habgood, P.J. 2003 A Morphometric Investigation into the Origin(s) of Anatomically Modern Humans. BAR International Series 1176. Oxford: Archaeopress.

78 Hardy, B. 2004 Neanderthal behaviour and function at the Middle Palaeolithic site of La Quina, France. Antiquity 78(308):547-565.

Hayden, B. 1993 The cultural capacities of Neandertals: A review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24(2):113-146.

Henry, D.O., H.J. Hietala, A.M. Rosen, Y.E. Demidenko, V.I. Usik and T.L. Armagan 2004 Human behavioral organization in the Middle Paleolithic: Were Neanderthals different? American Anthropologist 106(1):17-32.

Henshilwood, C.S., F. d’Errico, R. Yates, Z. Jacobs, C. Tribolo, G.A.T. Duller, N. Mercier, J.C. Sealy, H. Valladas, I. Watts and A.G. Wintle 2002 Emergence of Modern Human Behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from . Science 295(5558):1278-1280.

Henshilwood, C.S. and C.W. Marean 2003 The origin of modern human behaviour: Critique of the models and their test implications. Current Anthropology 44(4):627-651.

Henshilwood, C.S. and J.C. Sealy 1997 Bone artefacts from the Middle Stone Age at , southern Cape, South Africa. Current Anthropology 38(5):890-895.

Houghton, P. 1993 Neanderthal supralaryngeal vocal-tract. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90(2):139-146.

Hovers, E., Y. Rak and W.H. Kimbel 1996 Neandertals of the Levant: A baby’s burial sheds light on the development and behaviour of the species. Archaeology 49(1):19-20.

Kaufman, D. 1999 Archaeological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans: A View from the Levant. London: Bergin & Garvey.

Klein, R.G. 1969 Mousterian cultures in European . Science 165(3891):257-265.

Kuhn, S.L. 1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kuhn, S.L., M.C. Stiner, D.S. Reese and E. Gulec 2001 Ornaments of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(13):7641-7646.

Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore 1968 Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1967 Treasures of Prehistoric Art. New York: Abrams.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1975 The flowers found with Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal burial in Iraq. Science 190(4214):562-564.

79 Lev, E., M.E. Kislev and O. Bar-Yosef 2005 Mousterian vegetal food in , Mt. Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(3):475-484.

Leveque, F., A.M. Backer and M. Guilbaud 1993 Context of a Late : Implications of Multidisciplinary Research for the Transition to Upper Palaeolithic Adaptations at Saint-Cesaire, Charente-Maritime, France. Monographs in World Archaeology 16. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Lewin, R. 2005 Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction. 5th ed. Melbourne: Blackwell Publishing.

Lieberman, P. 1996 On Neanderthal speech and human evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19(1):156-158.

Lieberman, P. and J.J. Shea 1994 Behavioural differences between archaic and modern humans in the Levantine Mousterian. American Anthropologist 96(2):300-322.

Lourandos, H. 1985 Problems with the interpretation of late Holocene changes in Australian prehistory. Archaeology in Oceania 20(1):32-37.

Lourandos, H. 1988 Palaeopolitics: Resource intensification in Aboriginal Australia and . In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds), Hunters and Gatherers: History, Evolution and Social Change, pp.148-160. New York: Berg.

Lourandos, H. 1997 Continent of Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectives in Australian Prehistory. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.

Lumley, H. de and E. Ripoll 1962 Le remplissage et l’industrie moustérienne de l’Abric Romani (province de Barcelone). L’Anthropologie LXVI:1-35.

Lycett, S.J., N. Cramon-Taubadel and R.A. Foley 2006 A crossbeam co-ordinate calliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: A description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science. 33(6):847-861.

Maclarnon, A. and G. Hewitt 2004 Increased breathing control: Another factor in the evolution of human language. Evolutionary Anthropology 13(5):181-197.

Marean, C.W. and Z. Assefa 1999 Zooarchaeological evidence for the faunal exploitation behavior of Neandertals and early Modern Humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 8(1):22- 37.

Marean, C.W. and Y.K. Soo 1998 Mousterian large-mammal remains from Koben Cave: Behavioural implications for Neanderthals and early Modern Humans. Current Anthropology 39(2):S79-S113.

80 Marshack, A. 1976 Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origins of language. Current Anthropology 17(2):274-282.

Marshack, A. 1989 Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32(S10):1-34.

Marshack, A. 1996 A Middle Palaeolithic symbolic composition from Golan Heights: The earliest known depictive image. Current Anthropology 37(2):357-365.

Marquet, J. and M. Lorblanchet 2003 A Neanderthal face? The proto-figurine from La Roche-Cotard, Langeais (Indre-et-Loire, France). Antiquity 77(298):661-670.

Martinez, K., J. Garcia, M.G. Chacon and M.C. Fernaandez-Laso 2005 Le paléolithique moyen de l’Abric Romaní. Comportements écosociaux des groupes néandertaliens. L’Anthropologie 109(5):815-839.

Maureille, B. 2002 A lost Neanderthal neonate found. Nature 419(6902):33-34.

McBrearty, S. and A.S. Brooks 2000 The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39(5):453-563.

McGuire, R.H. 1983 Breaking down cultural complexity: Inequality and heterogeneity. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, pp.91-142. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.

Mellars, P. 1996 The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mellars, P. 2004 Stage 3 climate and the Upper Palaeolithic Revolution in Europe: Evolutionary perspectives. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan (eds) Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, pp.27-43. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge University Press.

Mellars, P. 2005 The impossible coincidence: A single species model for the origins of Modern Human Behaviour in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14(1):12-27.

Mercier, N., H. Valladas, G. Valladas, J-L Reyss, A. Jelinek, L. Meignen and J-L. Joron 1995 TL dates of burnt flints from Jelinek’s excavations at Tabun and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(4):495-509.

Miracle, P. 2005 Late Mousterian subsistence and cave use in Dalamtia: The zooarchaeology of Mujina Pecina, Croatia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15(2):84-105.

Mithen, S.1996 The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

81 Movius, H.L. 1953 Mousterian cave of Teshik-Tash, southeastern , Central Asia. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 17:11-71.

Nelson, M.C. 1991 The study of technological organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:57-100. Parry, W.J. and R.L. Kelly 1987 Expedient core technology and sedentism. In J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow (eds), The Organization of Core Technology, pp. 285-304. Boulder: Westview Press.

Patou-Mathis, M. 1997 Les grands mammifères de la couche 5 de Mutzig I (Bas-Rhin). La subsistence au Paléolithique moyen en Alsace, Actes du 7éme Congrès ICAZ, Constance, Paris. Anthropozoologica 25–26:363–374.

Patou-Mathis, M. 2000 Neanderthal subsistence behaviours in Europe. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):379-395.

Pettitt, P.B. 1998 Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Crimea: The radiocarbon chronology. In M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire d’Anatolie: Genè se de deux monde (Anatolian prehistory at the crossroads of two worlds), pp.329–338. Vol. 1 Liège: Université Liège.2

Pettitt, P.B. and R.M. Bailey 2000 AMS radiocarbon and luminescence dating of Gorham’s and Vanguard Caves, Gibraltar, and implications for the middle to upper Palaeolithic transition in Iberia. In C.B. Stringer, R.N.E. Barton and J.C. Finlayson (eds), Neanderthals on the Edge: Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbe’s Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar, pp.155-162. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Pike-Tay, A., V. Cabrera Valdes and F. Bernaldo de Quiros 1999 Seasonal variations of the Middle- transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morin and El Pendo (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 36(3):283-317.

Price, T.D. 1995 Social inequality at the origins of agriculture. In T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (eds), Foundations of Social Inequality, pp.129-151. New York: Plenum Press.

Price, T.D. and J.A. Brown 1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Sydney: Academic Press.

Reitz, E.J. and E.S. Wing 2001 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reynolds, T. 2002 What is modern behaviour? Antiquity 76(293):885-887.

Riel-Salvatore, J. and G.A. Clark 2001 Grave markers: Middle and early Upper Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contempory Paleolithic research. Current Anthropology 42(4):449-479.

82 Rink, W.J., J. Rees-Jones, V. Volterra and H.P. Schwarcz 2000 ESR, OSL, and U-Series chronology of Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar. In C.B. Stringer, R.N.E. Barton and J.C. Finlayson (eds) Neanderthals on the Edge: Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbe’s Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar, pp.165-170. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Rothman, M.S. 2004 Studying the development of complex society: Mesopotamia in the late fifth and fourth millennia BC. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(1):75-119.

Roufs, T. 2006 The Fate of Neanderthal Man: Life and Death in the Ice Age. Retrieved on 4 September 2006 from http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/Fate.html

Sandgathe, D., H.L. Dibble, S.J.P. McPherron and A. Turq 2005 Roc de Marsal (Campagne-de-Bugue, Dordogne) Rapport d’opération pour l’année 2005.

Sandgathe, D. and B. Hayden 2003 Did Neanderthals eat inner bark? Antiquity 77(298):709-718.

Sassaman, K.E. 2004 Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: A North American perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3):227-280.

Schepartz, L. 2004 Neanderthal burials: Excavations of the Dederiyeh Cave, Afrin, Syria. Antiquity 78(301):728-729.

Schiffer, M.B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Press.

Schwarcz, H.P., A. Bietti, W.M. Buhay, M.C. Stiner, R. Grun and A. Segre 1991 On the reexamination of Grotta Guattari: Uranium-Series and Electron-Spin-Resonance dates. Current Anthropology 32(3):313-316.

Senut, B. 1985 Computerized tomography of a Neanderthal humerus from Le Regourdou (Dordogne, France): Comparisons with modern man. Journal of Human Evolution 14(8):717-723.

Shea, J.J. 2003 Neandertals, competition, and the origin of modern human behaviour in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 12(4):173-187.

Smith, E.A. 1983 Anthropological applications of optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Current Anthropology 24(5):625-651.

Solecki, R.S. 1975 Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal flower burial in northern Iraq. Science 190(4217):880-881.

83 Soressi, M. 2005 Late Mousterian lithic technology. Its implications for the pace of the emergence of behavioural modernity and the relationship between behavioural modernity and biological modernity. In L. Backwell and F. d’Errico (eds), From Tools to Symbols, pp.389-417. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press.

Stepanchuk, V.N. 1993 Prolom II, a middle Palaeolithic cave site in the eastern Crimea with non-utilitarian bone artefacts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59:17-37. Stewart, J.R. 2004 Neanderthal-Modern Human competition? A comparison between mammals associated with Middle and Upper Palaeolithic industries in Europe during OIS 3. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3-4):178-189.

Stewart, T.D. 1977 The Neanderthal skeletal remains from , Iraq: A summary of findings to date. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 121(2):121-165.

Stiner, M. 1994 Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stringer, C. and C. Gamble 1993 In Search of the Neanderthals. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Trinkaus, E. 1982 Artificial deformation in the Shanidar I and 5 Neanderthals. Current Anthropology 23(2):198-199.

Ugan, A., J. Bright and A. Rogers 2003 When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30(10):1315-1329.

Ulm, S. in press Coastal Themes: An Archaeology of the Southern Curtis Coast, Queensland. Terra Australis 24. Canberra: ANU E Press.

Valensi, P. 2000 The archaeozoology of Lazaret Cave (Nice, France). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10(5):357-367.

Valensi, P. and E. Psathi 2004 Faunal exploitation during the middle Palaeolithic in south-eastern France and north-western Italy. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(3-4):256-272.

Valladas, H., J-L Joron, G. Valladas, B. Arensburg, O. Bar-Yosef, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, L. Meignen, Y. Rak, E. Tchernov, A.M. Tillier and B. Vandermeersch 1987 Thermoluminescence dates for the Neanderthal burial site at Kebara in . Nature 330(6144):159-160.

Vaquero, M., J. Vallverdu, J. Rosell, I. Pasto and E. Allue 2001 Neandertal behavior at the middle Palaeolithic site of Abric Romani, Capellades, Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 28(1/2):93-114.

84 Villa, P., A. Delanges and L. Wadley 2005 A late Middle Stone Age artefact assemblage from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal): Comparisons with the European Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(3):399-422.

Volterra, V., H.P. Schwarz and W.J. Rink 2000 Results of the current program of ESR dating of Gorham’s Cave teeth from the Gibraltar Museum. In C.B. Stringer, R.N.E. Barton and J.C. Finlayson (eds), Neanderthals on the Edge: Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbe’s Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar, pp.163-164. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Wadley, L. 2001 What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11(2):201-221.

Waechter, J.D. 1964 The excavation of Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar 1951-1954. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 4:189-221.

White, T. and Y. Taborin 2000 A technological analysis of the personal ornaments from the Chatelperronian and Aurignacian levels, Grotte du Rennu, Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne), France. Journal of Human Evolution 38(3):A33-A34.

White, T.D. and N. Toth 1991 The question of ritual cannibalism at Grotta Guattari. Current Anthropology 32(2):118-138.

Wong, K. 2000 Who were the Neandertals? Scientific American 282(4):99-107.

Wurz, S. 2002 Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence, 115,000-60,000 years ago at Klasies River, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(9):1001-1015.

Yalden, D.W. 2001 Mammals as climatic indicators. In D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard (eds) Handbook of Archaeological Science, pp.147-154. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.

Yates, F.W. 2001 New estimates of Neanderthal speech capabilities. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32(2):168.

85

86

Appendices

87

88 Appendix A: Sites Included in Study.

France Germany Crimea Israel Grotte de Tournal Tonchesberg Kiik-Koba Amud Saint-Cesaire Salzgitter-Lebenstedt Buran Kaya III Tabun La Chapelle-aux-Saint Bocksteinschmiede Prolom II Kebara Grotte Neron Lehringen Fonseigner Taubach Montagne de Girault Konigsaue Combe Grenal La Quina Pech de l’Aze I & II Roc de Marsal Italy Spain L’Abric Chadourne Grotta di Sant’Agnostino Abric Romani Bacho Kiro Le Moustier Grotta Guattari Castillo Temanta Cave La Ferrassie Grotta dei Moscerini Cueva Morin Le Regourdou Grotta Breuil Axlor Grotte Vaufrey Tagliente Rockshelter

Romania Gibraltar Iraq Cioarei-Borosteni Repolosthohle Gorham’s Cave Shanidar Staroselji Croatia Portugal Uzbekistan Mujina Pecina Spy Oliveira Cave Teshik-Tash

Syria Hungary Dederiyeh Cave Tata Umm el Tlet

89 Appendix B: Faunal Extraction Presence/Absence Dataset. Presence of a species is denoted by the symbol. Cervus Vulpes Equus Canis Sus Bos/bison Capreolus Bos Crocuta Capra Ursus sp. elaphus vulpes caballus lupus scofra capreolus primigenius crocuta ibex 30,000- 40,000 41,000- 50,000 51,000- 60,000 61,000- 70,000 71,000- 80,000

Rangifer Coelodonta Ursus Dama Lepus Panthera Equus Felis Dicerorhinus Rapicapra Rhinoceros tarandus antiquitatis arctos dama sp. (leo) hydruntinus sylvestris sp. rapicapra sp. spelaea 30,000- 40,000 41,000- 50,000 51,000- 60,000 61,000- 70,000 71,000- 80,000

90 Megaceros Mammuthus Panthera Ursus Meles Equus sp. Oryctolagus Arvicola giganteus primigenius pardus spelaeus meles cuniculus terrestris 31,000- 40,000

41,000- 50,000 51,000- 60,000 61,000-

70,000 71,000- 80,000

Monachus Testudo Emys Turtle Mussel Callista Cardinum/ Conch Limpet Scallop Oyster monachus graeca orbicularis Cerastoderma 31,000-

40,000 41,000- 50,000 51,000- 60,000 61,000- 70,000 71,000- 80,000

91 Turbin Turrent Worm Vongola Sponge Pomatias Murella Oxychilus Pupa sp. Retinella Rumina shell shell clam elegans signata sp. spp. decollata 31,000-

40,000 41,000-

50,000 51,000-

60,000 61,000- 70,000 71,000-

80,000

Poiretia Glycymeris Mytilus Patella Patella Mododonta Semicassis Helix dilatata gallo- coerula ferruginea articulota undulata marmorata provincialis 31,000- 40,000 41,000-

50,000 51,000- 60,000 61,000- 70,000 71,000-

80,000

92 Appendix C: Top 40 Ranked Species Habitats and Body Mass (kg). Species Name Habitats Average Body Mass (kg) Cervus elaphus Open Woodlands 286 Vulpes vulpes Forest/tundra 5 Equus caballus Forest/Grasslands 1150 Canis lupus Tundra/forest/mountains 47.5 Sus scofra Woodlands 200 Bos primigenius Grassland/forest 805 Bison priscus Steppe 750 Bos/Bison Steppe/Grassland/Forest 777.5 Capreolus capreolus Forest 26 Crocuta crocuta Savannah/Mountainous forest 62.5 Capra ibex Mountains 82.5 Rangifer tarandus Tundra/ Boreal forest 186.5 Coelodonta antiquitatis steppes N/A Ursus arctos Tundra/forest/mountains 340 Dama dama Forest/Grasslands 55.5 Lepus sp. Grassland/forest/mountain 3.5 Panthera (leo) spelaeas steppes/semi-arid desert 295 Equus hydruntinus Steppe N/A Felis sylvestris Grassland/forest 4.25 Dicerorhinus sp. Forest 1200 Rupicapra rupicapra Tundra/Mountains 50 Rhinoceros merckii Forest N/A Megaceros giganteus Open woodlands & forest edges N/A Mammuthus primigenius Tundra 5500 Panthera pardus Forest/rainforest/mountains/grassland 59 Ursus spelaeus Forest 1000 Meles meles Forest 13 Oryctolagus cuniculus Forest 2 Arvicola terrestris Rivers/Streams 0.160 Alces alces Forest/Wetlands 435 Dama mesopotamica Woodlands 70 Equus ferrus Forest/Steppe 350 Equus asinus Desert 250

93 Species Name Habitats Average Body Mass (kg) Equus cf. latipes N/A N/A Capra aegagus Mountains 50 Capra pyrenaica Mountains 57.50 Saiga tatarica Savanna 37.5 Gazella gazella Mountains 23.25 Hemitragus sp. Mountains/forest 63 Alcephalus sp. Open Plains 137.5 Stephanorhinus hemitoechus Steppe N/A Elephas antiquus Grasslands N/A Hippopotamus amphibious Lake/River 3750 Monachus monachus Coastal 307.5

94

Appendix D: Lithic Dataset.

Western and Central European Sites Presence of a tool type is denoted by the symbol. Bordesian 32- 34- 42- 1-2 3-5 6-7 8-29 30-31 36-38 57-58 50,63 Typology 33 35 44&51,52,54 Time- Levallois Levallois Mousterian Side End Typical/Naturally Stemmed Site Burin Drills Notched Bifacial Blades Handaxe Total Slice Flake Point Point Scraper Scraper Backed Knife Points 30,000- Gorham’s 4 40,000 Cave 41,000- Abric Romani 5 50,000 Combe Grenal 9 La Quina 6 Pech de l’Aze 3 I 51,000- Gorham’s 1 60,000 Cave Roc de Marsal 4 61,000- Combe Grenal 10 70,000 71,000- Combe Grenal 9 80,000 Roc de Marsal 7 L’Abric 2 Chardourne

95

Italian Sites –Grotta Breuil, Grotta Guattari, Grotte dei Moscerini and Grotta de Sant’Agnostino Presence of a tool type is denoted by the symbol.

Bordesian 4,9-11,6- 4,6,7,18-20 30-41,44 45-50 62,63 Typology 8,12,17-229 Points and Upper Retouched Misc. & convgt. Palaeolithic Side Scrapers Points Notched Total Flakes Diverse Scrapers Types Time-Slice 6 30,000-40,000 6 41,000-50,000 5 61,000-70,000 5 71,000-80,000 6

96 Appendix E: Symbolism Dataset.

Archaeological Evidence Symbolic Site Absolute/Relative Mid-Point References Manifestation Date Date 1 250 specimens of maganese dioxide, Pigment Pech de l’Aze I, c.60-50 kya 55 kya Bordes 1972, 1961; d’Errico 2003; ochre and yellow ochre ~ 67 of which France d’Errico and Soressi 2002 display use-wear in the form of scratches or shaping into triangular ‘pencils’ 2 Flat stone of limestone with use-wear Pigment/ Modified Pech de l’Aze I, c.60-50 kya 55 kya Bordes 1972, 1961; d’Errico and indicating use in grinding maganese Raw Material France Soressi 2002 dioxide pigments 3 Burial of a 10-month-old infant found Burial Amud, Israel 61 kya (ESR) 61 kya Hovers et al. 1996, Riel-Salvatore with a red deer jaw placed on its hip and Clark 2001; Rink et al. 2001, (grave good) (Amud 7) Shea 2003 4 Levallois hafted point found embedded Composite Umm el Tlet, Syria 50 kya (TL) 50 kya Boeda et al. 1999 in a vertabrae of a wild ass Technology 5 23 intentionally modified bones, a bone Modified Raw Salzgitter- c.48-55 kya (14C) 51.5 kya Gaudzinski 1999, Sandgathe and point, and a modified antler Material Lebenstedt, Germany Hayden 2003 6 Burial of a young male adult with Burial Le Moustier, France Less than 45 kya 45 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 possible grave goods (bone shard and ‘lithic pillow’) (Le Moustier 1) 7 A convergent scraper, three levallois Composite Umm el Tlet, Syria c.60 kya 60 kya Boeda et al. 1998; d'Errico 2003 flakes, and a cortical flake with traces of Technology bitumen adhesive for hafting 8 Birch-bark pitch Composite Konigsaue, Germany c.43,800 kya (14 C) 43.8 kya d’Errico 2003; Grunberg 2002 Technology 9 Birch-bark pitch Composite Konigsaue, Germany c.48,400 kya (14 C) 48.4 kya d’Errico 2003, Grunberg 2002 Technology 10 Probable bone handle made from a horse Modified Raw Buran Kaya III, c.32,350 (14C AMS) 32.35 kya d’Errico 2003; d’Errico and metapodial Material Crimea Laroulandie 2000 11 Cast of a post Modified Raw Pech de l’Aze I, c.60-50 kya 55 kya Bordes 1972; 1961 Material France 12 Artificial cranial deformation of Body Modification Shanidar, Iraq At least c.45 kya 45 kya Trinkaus 1982; cf. Habgood 2003 Shanidar 1 and 5 13 Shanidar IV Flower burial (grave goods) Burial Shanidar, Iraq c.60 kya 60 kya Leroi-Gorhan 1975; Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; Solecki 1975

97 Archaeological Evidence Symbolic Site Absolute/Relative Mid-Point References Manifestation Date Date 14 Intentionaly burial of a 2 year old child Burial Dederiyeh Cave, c.48-54 kya (14C) 51 kya Akazawa et al. 1995; Schepartz 2004; with a limestone block placed near its Syria Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 head and a flint on its heart 15 Intentionally shaped wooden objects Modified Raw Abric Romani, Spain c.45-49 kya 47 kya Carbonell and Castro-Curel 1992 Material (uranium series) 16 Burial of a woman c.30 years old Burial Tabun, Israel c.160kya (TL) 160 kya d’Errico 2003; Mercier et al. 2000; Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 17 Burial of a child surrounded by 5/6 pairs Burial Teshik-Tash, c.70 kya 70 kya Movius 1953; Riel-Salvatore and of goat horns (grave goods) Uzbekistan Clark 2001 18 Burial of a male c.50 years old with Burial La Chapelle-aux- c.40 kya 40 kya Lewin 2005; Riel-Salvatore and possible grave goods (bones lithics Saint, France Clark 2001 nearby pits) 19 Burial of a child with possible grave Burial Le Moustier, France c.40 kya TL 40 kya Maureille 2002; Riel-Salvatore and goods (lithics nearby pits with lithics Clark 2001 and bone shards) (Le Moustier 2) 20 Burial of a male c.40-45 years old with Burial La Ferrassie, France c.70 kya (Level C) 70 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. possible grave goods (bone shards and Gargett 1989 rocks) (I) 21 Burial of a female c.25-30 years old (La Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. Ferrassie 2) Gargett 1989 22 Burial of a child c.10 years old with Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. possible grave goods (lithics, neaby pits Gargett 1989 with lithics and bone shards) (La Ferrassie 3) 23 Burial of a foetus with possible grave Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. goods ( lithics, rock over grave) (La Gargett 1989 Ferrassie 4a) 24 Burial of a child c.1 month old with Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. possible grave goods (Lithics, rock over Gargett 1989 grave and 3 nearby pits) (La Ferrassie 4b) 25 Burial of a foetus with possible grave Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. goods (lithics) (La Ferrassie 5) Gargett 1989 26 Burial of a child c.3 years old with Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. possible grave goods (lithics rock over Gargett 1989 grave) (La Ferrassie 6)

98 Archaeological Evidence Symbolic Site Absolute/Relative Mid-Point References Manifestation Date Date 27 Burial of a child c.2 years old (La Burial La Ferrassie, France c.75-60 kya 67.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; cf. Ferrassie 8) Gargett 1989 28 Burial of a female 16-30 years with Burial La Quina, France Mid OIS 3 50 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 possible grave goods (spheroid, bone shards, sediment covering?) 29 Burial of an individual of unknown age Burial Le Regourdou, Wurm I 100 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; Senut and sex with possible grave goods France 1985 (lithics, bear bones, rock over skeleton) 30 Burial of a child c.3 years old with Burial Roc de Marsal OIS 4 70 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; possible grave goods (sandstones, bone Sandgathe et al. 2005 shard "pillow" antlers, sediment covering?) 31 Burial of a male c.31-40 years old Burial Spy, Belgium c.60 kya 60 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 32 Burial of a female c.16-30 years old Burial Spy, Belgium c.50 kya 50 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 33 Burial of a male c.30-40 years old with Burial Shanidar, Iraq 46kya (14C) 46 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; possible grave goods (sediment Stewart 1977 covering?) (Shanidar 1) 34 Burial of a male c.20-30 years old with Burial Shanidar, Iraq c.60 kya 60 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; possible grave goods (lithics) (Shanidar Stewart 1977 2) 35 Burial of a male c.40+ years old Burial Shanidar, Iraq c.47 kya 47 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; (Shanidar 3) Stewart 1977 36 Burial of a male c.40+ years old with Burial Shanidar, Iraq c.46 kya 46 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; possible grave goods (large mammal Stewart 1977 bones) (Shanidar 5) 37 Burial of a child c.9 months old Burial Shanidar, Iraq c.70 kya 70 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; (Shanidar 7) Stewart 1977 38 Burial of a male c.16-30 years old Burial Amud, Israel c.53 kya 53 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 () 39 Burial of a child c.7 months old (Kebara Burial Kebara, Israel Between 48-59 kya 53.5 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; 1) (TL) Valladas et al. 1987 40 Burial of a male c.16-30 years old Burial Kebara, Israel c.59 kya (TL) 59 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001; () Valladas et al. 1987 41 Burial of a male c.31-40 years old Burial Kiik-Koba, Crimea Early Wurm 100 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 42 Burial of a child c.1 year old Burial Kiik-Koba, Crimea Early Wurm 100 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001

99 Archaeological Evidence Symbolic Site Absolute/Relative Mid-Point References Manifestation Date Date 43 Burial of a child c.2 years old Burial Staroselji, Austria c.52-60kya 56 kya Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001 44 55 elements of ochre and yellow ochre Pigment Cioarei-Borosteni, c.51-43 kya (14C) 47 kya Carciumaru et al. 2002 through 5 levels Romania 45 8 intentionally modified oval Pigment/Modified Cioarei-Borosteni, c.50 kya (14C) 50 kya Carciumaru et al. 2002 ‘containers’ made from stalagmite with Raw Material Romania ochre stains on the inside only 46 A engraved/notched bone (Utilized bone Modified Raw Cueva Morin, Spain Mousterian level 17 37.5 kya Fernandez et al. 2004; Mellars 1996; fragment with a series of 5 barb-like Material (end of Wurm II) Pike-Tay et al. 1999 markings and a rib fragments with TAQ 39 kya TPQ paired line markings 36kya 47 A perforated bone and wolf tooth plus a Modified Raw Repolosthohle, c.100 kya 100 kya Mellars 1996 flaked bone point Material Austria 48 A perforated wolf metapodium and Modified Raw bocksteinschmiede, c.110 kya 110 kya Holloway 1989; Mellars 1996, vertebra and perforated swan's vertebra Material Germany 49 Fossil nummulite with a cross formed Modified Raw Tata, Hungary c.100 kya 100 kya Marshack 1989; Mellars 1996 through a single line being inscribed at Material right angles to a naturally occuring line 50 Perforated fox canine and reindeer Modified Raw La Quina, France Mousterian Level 65 kya Marshack 1976; Mellars 1996 phalange Material (70-60 kya)? 51 Notched bone with zig-zag marks and 2 Modified Raw Bacho Kiro, Bulgaria c.44 kya 44 kya Marshack 1976; 1996 perforated canines Material 52 3 engraved flints and a limestone cobble Modified Raw Tagliente c.60-30 kya 45 kya Bednarik 1992; Fiore et al. 2004 along with a bone with engraved curved Material Rockshelter, Italy double line and 5 engraved bone fragments and bone retoucher with numerous incised lines 53 Bone artefacts with series of cuts Modified Raw Taubach, Germany Max. of Eemian 125 kya Bednarik 1992; Gaudizinski 2004 Material interglacial (c.125 kya) 54 Engraved schist plaque with c.43 incised Modified Raw Temanta Cave, c.50 kya 50 kya Bednarik; Cremades et al. 1995 sub-parallel lines Material Bulgaria 55 Notched bone found in a grave Modified Raw La Ferrassie, France c.75-65 kya 70 kya Marshack 1976 Material 56 Carved and shaped section of Mammoth Modified Raw Tata, Hungary c.50 kya 50 kya Marshack 1976 molar/ with ochre stains Material

100 Archaeological Evidence Symbolic Site Absolute/Relative Mid-Point References Manifestation Date Date 57 Perforated animal phalanges, plus 4 Modified Raw Prolom II, Crimea c.135-60 kya 97.5 kya Bednarik 1995; Enloe et al. 2000; engraved objects (phalax of a saiga with Material Stepanchuk 1993 7 convergent radial lines, 2 bone splinters with engraved lines one of which is convergent, and a horse canine with 5 engraved lines, 4 of which form 2 convergent pairs) 58 A perforated bone and wolf tooth plus a Modified Raw Repolosthohle, 300kya or 100 kya 200 kya Bednarik 1992; Mellars 1996 flaked bone point Material Austria

59 Perforated bone fragments Modified Raw Pech de l’Aze, Mousterian (c.60-50 55 kya Bednarik 1992 Material France kya)? 60 Shaped circular limestone disc and Modified Raw La Quina, France Mousterian (70-60 65 kya Bednarik 1992 bovid shoulder blade with long parallel Material kya)? lines 61 Circular sandstone pebble with central Modified Raw Axlor, Spain Mousterian (150-40 85 kya Bednarik 1992 grooves and two cupules Material kya) 62 Antler fragment with c.8 transverse tool- Modified Raw Grotte Vaufrey, OIS 6-7 150kya Bednarik 1992 cut notches Material France 63 Wooden spear point - original length of Modified Raw Lehringen, Germany c.110-130 kya 120 kya Mellars 1996 2.4m and was found with a straight- Material tusked elephant skeleton

101

102