Soressi, M., & Roussel, M. (2014). European Middle to Upper Transitional Industries: Châtelperronian. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (pp. 2679-2693). Springer New York.

European Middle to Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2679 E

Session C28, Volume 40 (BAR International series Mediterranean . Journal of Archaeological 1999): 3–20. Oxford: Archaeopress. Science 2008 (under corrected proof): 1–11. DJINDJIAN, F., J. KOZLOWSKI &M.OTTE. 1999. Le Pale´ SMITH, P.E.L. 1966. Le Solutre´enen France (Publications olithique supe´rieuren . Paris: Armand Colin. de l’Institut du Quaternaire de l’Universite´ de FEBLOT-AUGUSTINS, J. 1997. La circulation des matie`res Bordeaux 5). Bordeaux: Delmas. premie`res au Pale´olithique (ERAUL 75). 2 vols. Lie`ge SMITH, F., E. TRINKAUS, P.B. PETTITT,I.KARAVANIC & Universite´ de Lie`ge. M. PAUNOVIC. 1999. Direct radiocarbon dates for GREEN, R.E., A.W. BRIGGS,J.KRAUSE,K.PRU¨ FER, H.A. Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina hominid remains. Pro- BURBANO,M.SIEBAUER,M.LACHMANN &S.PA¨ A¨ BO. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 2009. The genome and ancient DNA of America 96: 12281–6. authenticity. EMBO Journal 28: 2494–502. STEPANCHUK, V.N. & V.YU.COHEN. 2000–2001. HENRY-GAMBIER, D. 2002. Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon Kremenician, Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transi- (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne): nouvelles donne´es tional in the western . Pre´histoire E sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution Europe´enne 16–17: 75–100. culturelle. Bulletins et Me´moires de la Socie´te´ TESCHLER-NICOLA, M. (ed.) 2006. Early modern at d’Anthropologie de Paris, N. S. 14: 89–112. the Moravian Gate. Wien: Springer (eBooks). HUBLIN, J.J. 2010. Les restes humains, in M. Otte (ed.) Les TRINKAUS, E., S¸. MILOTA,R.RODRIGO,M.GHERASE & Aurignaciens: 95–112. Paris: Errance. O. MOLDOVAN. 2003. Early modern cranial HUET, B., J.L. MONNIER,T.ROUXEL & J.C. SANGLEBOEUF. remains from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, . Journal 2003. Economie des matie`res premie`res au of 45: 245–53. pale´olithique moyen dans le massif armoricain: apport TUFFREAU, A. & S. RE´ VILLON. (ed.) 1994. Les industries de l’e´tude des proprie´te´sme´caniques des mate´riaux. laminaires au Pale´olithiquemoyen. Actes de la table Collectif: les matie`res premie`res lithiques en ronde internationale organise´epar l’ERA 37 du CRA- pre´histoire. Table-ronde d’Aurillac, 20–22 Juin 2002. CNRS a` Villeneuve-d’Ascq 13 et 14 Novembre 1991. Pre´histoiredu Sud-Ouest, Supple´ment 5: 199–206. (Dossier de Documentation arche´ologique 18). Paris: KRINGS,M,A.STONE, R.W. CHMITZ,H.KRAINITZKI, CNRS. M. STONEKING &S.PA¨ A¨ BO. 1997. Neanderthal DNA WILD, E.M., M. TESCHLER-NICOLA,W.KUTSCHERA, sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90: P. STEIER,E.TRINKAUS &W.WANEK. 2005. Direct 19–30. dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human remains LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1964–1965. Le geste et la parole. from Mladec. 435: 332–5. Volume 1: techniques et langage (1964); Volume 2: Les me´moireset les rythmes (1965). - 1965. Pre´histoirede l’ occidental. Paris: Mazenod. MELLARS, P. 1969. The chronology of indus- tries in the Perigord region of south-western France. European Middle to Upper Proceedings of Prehistoric 35: 134–71. Paleolithic Transitional Industries: MONNIER, J.L. 1991. La pre´histoire de Bretagne et d’Armorique. Paris: Editions Jean-Paul Gisserot, Les Chaˆtelperronian Universels Gisserot. NEGRINO,F.&E.STARNINI. 2003. Patterns of lithic raw Marie Soressi1,2,3 and Morgan Roussel2,3 material exploitation in Liguria from the Palaeolithic to 1Institut national de recherches arche´ologiques the copper age. Collectif: les matie`res premie`res lithiques en pre´histoire. Table-ronde d’Aurillac, 20–22 Juin 2002. pre´ventives, Centre Arche´ologique d’Orle´ans, Pre´histoire du Sud-Ouest, Supple´ment 5: 235–44. Saint–Cyr–en–Val, France OLIVA, M. 1984. Le Bohunicien, un nouveau groupe 2Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck culturel en Moravie: quelques aspects psycho- Institute for Evolutionary , technologiques du de´veloppement des industries pale´olithiques. L’Anthropologie 88: 209–20. Leipzig, 3 OTTE, M. & J. KOZLOWSKI. 2009. Origines du Pale´olithique CNRS, UMR7041– ArsScan/AnTet, MAE, supe´rieur en Asie occidentale, in M. Otte (ed.) Le Pale´ Nanterre, France olithique d’, XV congre`s UISPP, Lisbonne 2006, Volume 28 (BAR International series 1968): 57–72. Oxford: Archaeopress. PASTOORS, A., G.C. WENIGER & J.F. KEGLER. 2008. The State of Knowledge and Current Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition at Yabroud II Debates (Syria). A re-evaluation of the lithic material from the Rust excavation. Pale´orient 34: 47–65. SLIMAK, L. 2008. The Neronian and the historical structure About 45,000 ago, anatomically modern of cultural shifts from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in humans migrated into Europe, and a few E 2680 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian thousand years later Neanderthal populations had Because the Chaˆtelperronian is in a strati- completely vanished from Europe. This replace- graphic position at the crossroads of the Middle ment of the local populations by anatomically and Upper Paleolithic, because it is of Upper modern humans also happened in the rest of Paleolithic type, and because only Neanderthal . It explains why today we are the only remains were discovered associated with it, the human species on the planet when Hominin Chaˆtelperronian is often called a “transitional groups flourished for several million years. industry.” Even if Mousterian “souvenirs” had The Chaˆtelperronian industry been actively searched within Chaˆtelperronian (Chaˆtelperronien or Castelperronien in French) industries, they are almost nonexistent (see is considered to be the very last behavioral testi- below). It is indeed clear that the Chaˆtelperronian mony of in France and northern is neither an intermediate between the Middle and . For a few millennia, Neanderthals the Upper Paleolithic nor a mix of Middle and switched to systematic production, focused Upper Paleolithic behaviors. On the contrary, it is on stone that could also be used as projec- a unique set of behaviors that shares commonali- tile points, and in some instances produced ties with contemporaneous industries. domestic and used black and red It is interesting to note that the use of contem- as as personal ornaments. porary ideological construction is sometimes What appears to be a brief episode, compared pleaded for (e.g., Zilha˜o et al. 2008) to contest to other Late industries, is indeed interpretative models of the Middle to Upper often considered as a Neanderthal “swan song.” Paleolithic transition. This passion is also visible Chaˆtelperronian behaviors are actually part of in popular science movies and journals, and a more global industrial change and evolutionary certainly illustrates how much Paleolithic archae- trajectory. This global industrial change would ology can be a popular topic grounded on an have been driven by the search for stone-tipped ongoing debate. This entry aims to summarize weapons, and possibly correlated with new the current state of understanding on a highly organic and lithic material procurement strate- debated topic: the nature and significance of the gies as well as a new social network organization Chaˆtelperronian. (Bon 2010). The model of a clear-cut revolution with the arrival of modern Humans in Europe The Recognition and the of the (Mellars & Stringer 1989) was put forward in Chaˆtelperronian the mid-1980s. At that time, it was grounded on The Chaˆtelperronian was originally defined by available data on , which H. Breuil after the lithic industry found at the were a compilation of Neanderthal behavior of fairies (“la grotte des Fe´es”) in over the Middle and the . During Chaˆtelperron, a small village in central France. the last decade, new data on Neanderthal This industry contained a specific blade and point behavior during the last glacial cycle (including with a back shaped with abrupt retouches, the Neanderthals right before the peopling of Europe back of the point type being curved. Breuil by modern humans) nuanced this model. In fact, emphasized the similarities between the almost every behavior previously thought to be Chaˆtelperronian and the Abri Audi type industry, unique to anatomically modern humans was later attributed to the Mousterian of shared, at least occasionally, by Neanderthals; Tradition (MTA), especially the high frequency image production on durable support is still one of backed blades and poorness of bone tools. For major difference (d’Errico 2003; Soressi 2005; Breuil, the Chaˆtelperronian as well as the Mous- Peresani et al. 2011). The Chaˆtelperronian no terian of Acheulean Tradition were the first stage longer appears as an “avatar of a dying middle of the Upper Paleolithic. At the time, the Paleolithic but [indeed] as the first machinery Upper Paleolithic was divided into “Lower of an Upper Paleolithic to become” ” (MTA and Chaˆtelperronian), (Bon 2010: 139). “Middle Aurignacian” (the actual early European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2681 E

Aurignacian), and “Upper Aurignacian” (the by about 10,000 years (Mellars et al. 1987). The actual ); these were all clustered within interstratification between the Chaˆtelperronian pre- sites (Breuil 1909–1911). and Aurignacian were also shown to be not of Twenty-five years later, D. Peyrony put the anthropic origin and related to geological distur- emphasis on what he called the Perigordian com- bance (Bordes 2003). Finally, another attempt to plex (Pe´rigordien complex in French). He support potential interstratification (Gravina et al. suggested that the Chaˆtelperronian and the 2005), or at least evidence for contemporaneity Gravettian were part of the same phylum, as they between the Aurignacian and Chaˆtelperronian, shared an emphasis on backed pieces with abrupt was recently put forward but seems to suffer retouches. The “Middle Aurignacian” would be from insufficient demonstration (see Zilha˜o E indeed intrusive in southwestern France and et al. 2008). would have developed there, while the Perigordian In fact, the major change of perspective on would have found refuge in remote places and the Chaˆtelperronian came at the end of the would be indeed only exceptionally visible in the 1970s and was caused by the unexpected discov- archaeological record (Peyrony 1936). ery of Neanderthal remains, and noticeably an With the start of the second half of the twen- almost complete skeleton, in a Chaˆtelperronian tieth century, Peyrony’s theory and the context (Le´veˆque & Vandermeersch 1980). The Perigordian phylum started to be disputed, first Gravettian, Aurignacian, and Chaˆtelperronian by H. Delporte. From his excavation and study of were not only technically different industries Chaˆtelperron and La Gravette, Delporte advo- but were also generated by two biologically dif- cated that these industries are not genetically ferent human populations. The equation between related and should be named Chaˆtelperronian the type industry and and Gravettian (Delporte 1954). D. Sonneville- Neanderthals, or Upper Paleolithic type industry Bordes argued that the second stage of the and anatomically modern humans, then started to Perigordian complex, the “Pe´rigordien II,” be questioned in Europe, as it had already been results from mixing the Aurignacian with some questioned in the . intrusive backed pieces (Sonneville-Bordes 1955). However, Sonneville-Bordes as well as The Makers of the Chaˆtelperronian others (including F. Bordes and L. Pradel), were Chaˆtelperronian human remains (some of which convinced of the evolutionary link between what are illustrated in Fig. 1) are overwhelmingly more they renamed the Lower Perigordian (equivalent abundant than human remains found in the late of the former Perigordian I, i.e., the Mousterian or in early phases of the Aurignacian. Chaˆtelperronian) and the Upper Perigordian There are 29 isolated teeth, one temporal bone, (actual Gravettian). They used the interstrati- and other fragmentary remains in the fication Chaˆtelperronian and Aurignacian recog- Chaˆtelperronian from at nized in 1967 at Le Piage and Roc-de-Combe as Arcy-sur-Cure. All the teeth but one were evidence of contemporaneity of the two indus- assigned to the reference Neanderthal group tries (see references to original publications in with posterior probabilities ranging from 59 % Bordes 2003). And, they indeed supported to 99.9 % (Bailey & Hublin 2006). The morphol- Peyrony’s view that the Aurignacian episode ogy of the Grotte du Renne inner ear preserved in was caused by the intrusion of a non-local group the temporal bone is typical of Neanderthal mor- into the Perigordian territory. phology (Hublin et al. 1996 ). Chaˆtelperronian The debate went on through the 1960s but lost human remains also include one nearly complete some of its interest during the following two skeleton and some extra isolated teeth found at decades. It eventually shifted towards the Saint-Ce´saire (Le´veˆque & Vandermeersch 1980). independence between the Chaˆtelperronian and Taxonomic attribution for the Saint-Ce´saire skel- Gravettian when the first radiometric dates eton has been confirmed by several authors, and showed that the two industries were separated the Saint-Ce´saire isolated teeth also display E 2682 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 1 Chaˆtelperronian human remains from Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-cure (a: teeth and b: temporal bone), and from Saint-Ce´saire (c: in-situ skeleton and d: close up of the skull of the skeleton after reconstruction) (After Bailey & Hublin 2006; Hublin et al. 1996; photo of the cast of the in-situ skeleton # Soressi)

a Neanderthal morphological pattern (Bailey & Aurignacian layers at the Grotte-du-Renne and Hublin 2006). By comparison, the number and questioned the sampling methodology in the first quality of human remains attributed to the study (Hublin et al. 2012; see details below in the Protoaurignacian are much lower, only some chronology section). Reworking of the Neander- fetal remains and one deciduous tooth, and none thal remains from the underlying Mousterian of them are diagnostic (Hublin in press). layers is inconsistent with the fact that these Nevertheless, the view that the Mousterian layers contained very few human Chaˆtelperronian was made by Neanderthals was remains, and last but not least Neanderthal recently challenged, primarily by questioning the remains were found throughout the four stratigraphic integrity of key sites, rather than Chaˆtelperronian layers at Grotte du Renne, not discovering new human remains that would only the lowermost one (Hublin et al. 2012). have directly challenged the Neanderthal signal The Neanderthal nature of the makers for the Chaˆtelperronian. It was suggested that of the Chaˆtelperronian was also indirectly Neanderthal remains found at the Grotte du challenged by criticizing the local origin of Renne result from contamination from underly- the Chaˆtelperronian. If the origin of the ing Mousterian layers. This conclusion was Chaˆtelperronian is not within the local Mouste- reached thanks to the analysis of a series of 14C rian of Acheulean Tradition type B, as put for- AMS dates that were inconsistently variable in ward first by H. Breuil (1909-11), it opens the door the Chaˆtelperronian layer (Higham et al. 2010). for a non-Neanderthal origin. This hypothesis However, 31 new 14C measurements falsify the is also intriguing inasmuch as anatomically mod- notion that large-scale movements of ern human remains had been recently published archeological material occurred between the in another so-called “transitional” industry: the Mousterian, Chaˆtelperronian, and Proto- from (Benazzi et al. 2011). European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2683 E

E

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional bolded line), the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition type Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 2 Map of the distri- b(shaded line) and the Chaˆtelperronian (dotted line) bution of the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA;

Yet, arguments for a local Mousterian of Acheu- (Roussel 2011 & in press). Backed elongated leanTraditionoriginfortheChaˆtelperronian are flakes and backed blades (i.e. with an asym- as follows: metrical transversal section) are obtained 1. The Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition and directly during the production. The method the Chaˆtelperronian share a unique interest for used to produce blanks within the two indus- backing tools and for unretouched backed tries is relying on the obtainment of a high blanks, quantity of backed blanks, some of which 2. They also share a unique combination of elon- will be retouched. Some extra backed arti- gated and backed blanks or retouched tools, facts, retouched backed knifes and which does not exist in any other contempora- chaˆtelperron points, are obtained through a- neous industry, posteriori retouch of blanks symmetric in 3. The necessity to obtain backed artifacts section. (retouched and unretouched) is actually guid- 4. Geographic distribution of the ing the production of Mousterian of Acheu- Chaˆtelperronian matches outstandingly that lean Tradition elongated flakes (Pelegrin & of the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition Soressi 2007; Soressi 2005) as well as (Fig. 2), and they are chronologically compat- the production of Chaˆtelperronian blades ible (Soressi 2005). E 2684 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Chaˆtelperronian are indicated in yellow) (modified from Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 3 Map of Pelegrin & Soressi 2007 and from Roussel 2011) Chaˆtelperronian sites (sites with several layers of

Geographic Distribution geographic distribution of Chaˆtelperronian sites The Chaˆtelperronian point or is quite is relatively small (Fig. 3). A little more than 40 distinctive from other Paleolithic retouched arti- siteshavebeenrecognizedonanarchabout facts and allows for a quite easy diagnosis of 300 km wide, which fits closely the west half Chaˆtelperronian sites (Pelegrin & Soressi of the Massif Central. They are found from Bur- 2007). The map of Chaˆtelperronian sites is gundy, with the famous site Grotte du Renne at indeed reliable. In contrast to other industries Arcy-sur-Cure, extending through the Dordogne of the Middle or Upper Paleolithic, the Valley, down to , with Cueva Morin, European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2685 E and the Oriental Pyrenees with Le Portel thicker samples of cortical bone (Hublin et al. (Fig. 3). No Chaˆtelperronian sites were found 2012). These have shown that: in the Rhone valley, in southeastern France, or 1. younger ages obtained by the first study were in northeastern France, in the heart of the Pari- certainly related to a low collagen content sianbasinorinBrittany. 2. no mixing could be deduced from new AMS 14C measurements done on bone with high Dating percentage of collagen content, The Chaˆtelperronian is always interstratified 3. the age of the Chaˆtelperronian at the site between Mousterian and Aurignacian layers fits between 45,000 and 40,500 years cal. BP (see details about putative stratification Chaˆtelp- with a 2 sigma range. This fits with other E erronian/Aurignacian/Chaˆtelperronian above). If ages obtained at other sites with the same this stratigraphic position is clear, precise dating method (Fig. 4). of the Chaˆtelperronian with radiometric methods is nonetheless difficult. The 14C method is at the Characteristics of the Chaˆtelperronian edge of its time range, and the radiocarbon Lithic Industry community agreed only recently on a calibration The first extensive study of Chaˆtelperronian lithic curve for the time range covered by the industries was done by F. Harrold (1978), who Chaˆtelperronian. Specific methods were recently studied 19 Chaˆtelperronian assemblages from developed to cope with the very low percentage France and northern Spain (after having reviewed of carbon 14 contained in such old samples as more than 100 potential Chaˆtelperronian assem- well as with contamination issues (Higham et al. blages). Using Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot 2010; Hublin et al. 2012). stone- type lists, Harrold highlighted How to properly date Chaˆtelperronian samples the recurrent features of the Chaˆtelperronian. He is intensely debated, as illustrated by a series of showed that the Chaˆtelperron points/knives are papers published on the Grotte du Renne typical of the Chaˆtelperronian, and they count for deposits. First, 31 accelerator mass spectrometry up to 60 % of the typological count. (AMS) ultrafiltrated dates on , , bone Chaˆtelperron points or knives go with end- artifacts, and teeth indicated that the scrapers and burins. The typological spectra of Chaˆtelperronian from Grotte du Renne was 44 these Chaˆtelperronian assemblages allowed to 40,000 years old (cal. BP). The high degree Harrold to conclude that the Chaˆtelperronian is of intralayer variation in the radiometric dates a “distinct lithic tradition of the earliest Upper obtained was used by the authors to support Palaeolithic” (Harrold 1978: 435). admixture between the Chaˆtelperronian, Mouste- A new approach to the Chaˆtelperronian lithic rian, and Protoaurignacian (Higham et al. 2010). industry was brought in by J. Pelegrin in the It is interesting to note that this latter conclusion mid-1980s (Pelegrin 1995). From his analysis of was put forward assuming that enough progress cores, stone-tools, and by- and end-products has been made within 14C dating to make it found at two Chaˆtelperronian sites in south- totally reliable and to become a piece of data western France (Roc-de-Combe and La Coˆte), supporting site integrity on its own. This former he provided the first description of the conclusion was first contested and discussed in Chaˆtelperronian “chaıˆneope´ratoire.” For a long a series of papers that showed that there were time, his study was in fact one of the rare detailed several arguments grounded on the study of the chaıˆne ope´ratoire analyses available for the archaeological material to show that there was no Late Pleistocene. Pelegrin showed that major mixing between layers at the Grotte du Chaˆtelperronian cores are aimed toward the pro- Renne. Also, 35 new measurements were duction of rectilinear blades, and that they are recently performed with a different sampling organized with a narrow and wide surface, the strategy aiming at the acquisition of narrow surface being a maintenance surface. well-preserved collagen, by selecting bigger and Blades obtained on the wide surface and with E 2686 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 4 Two sigma intervals for ages obtained using AMS and ultrafiltrated 14C samples and calculated using a Bayesian model of Chaˆtelperronian and other western European contemporaneous Early Upper Paleolithic industries. Les Cotte´s: see Talamo et al. 2012; Grotte de Fe´es: see Gravina et al. 2005; Grotte du Renne: see Higham et al. 2010; Hublin et al. 2012; Pataud: see Higham et al. 2011 cited in Higham et al. 2012; Geißenklo¨sterle: see Higham et al. 2012. The number of samples is indicated. ** indicates that more than one level was studied. D13C record from the Villars stalagmite indicates a probable warm short event as recorded on the continent in the north of the Aquitaine basin (see Genty et al. 2003). The position of the Heinrich event 4 is also indicated after Bond et al. 1993, cited in Genty et al. 2003

regular edges are selected to be retouched into differences from that of the Early Aurignacian. Chaˆtelperron knives or points. Larger and thicker He indeed concluded that differences between blades are retouched into end-scrapers, burins, or Chaˆtelperronian and early Aurignacian retouched blades. End-scrapers are also made out did not support the hypothesis of an acculturation of flakes produced during the shaping of the core. of the last Neanderthals by the first anatomically From a detailed analysis of blade platforms, modern Humans (d’Errico et al. 1998). However, Pelegrin argued for the use of a soft hammer or Pelegrin actually brought new data supporting a soft stone hammer during Chaˆtelperronian a link between the Mousterian of Acheulean blade production (Pelegrin 1995: 252). Scarce Tradition type B and the Chaˆtelperronian. From bladelet production was observed in both sites, his analysis of two MTA B assemblages, he but without any evidence of retouched bladelets. showed that the MTA B and the Chaˆtelperronian Pelegrin argued that Chaˆtelperronian lithic shared an emphasis on backed pieces made on production is specific and shows strong elongated flakes or blades. This was later one European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2687 E confirmed by extensive analysis of several other production is qualified as a “two step rhythm on MTA B assemblages (Soressi 2005). Pelegrin an angular flaking surface.” Blades with strong main point was that this peculiar retouched tool metrical norm, noticeably minimum thickness should be linked to a specific kind of , and and minimum width, as well as technical norm indeed reflects a similar technical answer to com- are selected for Chaˆtelperron points/knives. The parable needs (Pelegrin 1995; Pelegrin & Soressi size of Chaˆtelperronian points ranges between 2007). fixed minimum and maximum dimensions. This Building on Pelegrin’s pioneering work, norm is constant throughout the sequence at a detailed analysis of the Grotte du Renne at Quinc¸ay (Roussel & Soressi 2010; Roussel Arcy-sur-Cure began. The totality of this abun- 2011) and appears to be similar to the one in E dant collection was studied by N. Connet (2002). southwestern France (Bachellerie 2011: She refined the understanding of variations 351-354). Quinc¸ay analysis also suggests that through time and showed an increasing use of semi-circular end-scrapers retouched on large flint relative to other raw materials, coupled cleaning flakes removed at the end of the blade with an increasing use of blades. Backed pieces production on blade core might be another type are more elongated and less curved toward the for the Chaˆtelperronian (Fig. 7: o and p). top of the sequence. Connet (2002) also insisted The blank seems to be specific to Chaˆtelperronian on the fully “Upper Palaeolithic character” of the blade production, as well as to the location of the Chaˆtelperronian from the Grotte du Renne. There retouch (Roussel 2011, in press). is no elaborated flake production at Grotte du Bladelet production is documented in the three Renne, as already seen in other Chaˆtelperronian Chaˆtelperronian layers from Quinc¸ay and follows assemblages by Pelegrin (1995), and recently a method similar to the one used for the blade confirmed by Roussel (2011) and Bachellerie production. However, bladelet cores are not (2011). reduced blade cores. Bladelet production is inde- The first use-wear analysis of Chaˆtelperronian pendent from blade production, and is done on points/knives from Grotte du Renne showed that already small blocks. Bladelets are long and they were used as knives and also certainly as slightly curved and are mainly retouched with projectile tips (Plisson & Schmider 1990). marginal and inverse retouches on one edge A more refined description of Chaˆtelperronian only (Roussel 2011). Bladelet production would blade production, as well as a precise first also be documented in southwestern France, but description of the bladelet production, was the rarity of retouched bladelets as well as poten- recently done from first- analysis of three tial biases in assemblages excavated before the Chaˆtelperronian layers from Quinc¸ay (Roussel systematization of fine screening make it difficult & Soressi 2010; Roussel 2011). At Quinc¸ay, the to interpret (Bachellerie 2011: 367-368). Com- Chaˆtelperronian sequence is sealed by a large parison with the Protoaurignacian production roof fall and there is no other Upper Paleolithic allows the suggestion of stimulus diffusion layer documented in stratigraphy: contamination between Protoaurignacian and Chaˆtelperronian from more recent Upper Paleolithic industry is groups (Roussel 2011; and see below). indeed improbable. The recent technological analysis showed that blades are removed by inde- Personal Ornaments, Bone-Tools, and pendent series on narrow and on wide surfaces of Pigments in the Chaˆtelperronian the core (Roussel in press). Each surface of Personal ornaments and bone-tools are rare a blade core is an independent flaking surface within the Chaˆtelperronian, but one site, Grotte (Fig. 5). Blade cores show mainly a triangular du Renne, revealed a significant collection section. Blades symmetrical in section as well (Hublin et al. 1996; d’Errico et al. 1998, 2001; as blades asymmetrical in section are produced. Carron et al. 2011; Fig. 8). About 40 personal The latter are obtained at the intersection of two ornaments were found at Grotte du Renne, and 6 angular surfaces (Fig. 6). Chaˆtelperronian blade pierced teeth were also found at Quinc¸ay E 2688 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional surfaces with a triangular section, (c) Core exploited on Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 5 Chaˆtelperronian the wider surface with a testimony of a previously blade cores from Quinc¸ay (After Roussel in press) aban- exploited narrow surface, on the right, (d) Core with a doned at different stages. (a) Initialized core with a large cleaning flake on the wider surface dissymmetrical volume, (b) Core exploited on two

(Granger & Le´veˆque 1997). Some of the bone- areas that do not correspond to areas where the tools from Grotte du Renne are decorated. At Aurignacian bone-tools are found in overlying first, they were interpreted as resulting from deposits. Contamination from the above Aurigna- exchange with Aurignacian groups because they cian layers is indeed unlikely (d’Errico et al. show some similarities with personal ornaments 2001; Caron et al. 2011). Study of perforation discovered in the above Protoaurignacian layer techniques has shown that pressure or percussion (Hublin et al. 1996). Later, it was shown that bone techniques after thinning by scraping were pref- tools manufacturing waste are present at the site erentially used at Quinc¸ay (Granger & Le´veˆque during the Chaˆtelperronian, which does not 1997). Meanwhile, percussion techniques seem support the exchange hypothesis for the bone- more variable at Grotte du Renne and are similar tools (d’Errico et al. 2001). It was also shown to the perforation techniques used during the that the highest number of bone-tools is found Aurignacian (White 2001). in the lower and richest Chaˆtelperronian layer at More than 20 kg of , as well as the Grotte du Renne, and that they are found in pigment grinding tools, have been discovered at European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2689 E

E

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 6 Schematization of blade production in the Chaˆtelperronian and in the Protoaurignacian (After Roussel in press)

Grotte du Renne. Black and red pigments had For the Protoaurignacian, the core volume is been used (without heating), mostly as coarse symmetric instead of being asymmetric in sec- powder to cover large surface areas, soils, or tion, the flaking surface is large and integrates hides, and also as fine and highly coloring powder edges of the core, and the blade production is (Salomon 2009). continuous all over the surface and is divided in series on each side of the core. The production Contacts with Contemporaneous Groups rhythm is continuous on a large and curved sur- The existence of contacts between face and is in essence very different from the Chaˆtelperronian and Aurignacian groups was “two step rhythm on an angular flaking surface.” intensely debated during the late 1990s. The lithic Moreover, the Protoaurignacian blades do not industry was quickly identified as being clearly show any asymmetrical section, and they are different from the Aurignacian (Pelegrin 1995; removed from a platform that is more oblique d’Errico et al. 1998). Nonetheless, the fact that relatively to the debitage surface than the bone-tools and personal ornaments were not intru- Chaˆtelperronian one (Roussel 2011, in press). sive (d’Errico et al. 1998; Carron et al. 2011) Bladelets are obtained following a method simi- seemed irreconcilable with the fact that some of lar to the one used for blades in both industries; them looked like the Aurignacian specimens and they are indeed different in the Chaˆtelperronian used techniques similar to the Aurignacian tech- and in the Protoaurignacian. However, the goal is niques (White 2001). Also, the development of similar: obtaining bladelets with marginal and these behaviors in indigenous groups when Auri- inverse retouches on one edge, i.e., Dufour gnacian groups were entering Europe appeared to sub-type Dufour bladelets (Roussel 2011). be an “impossible coincidence” (Mellars 2005). According to the theoretical model put for- The recent analysis of Quinc¸ay bladelet ward by G. Tostevin (2007), sharing a common production as well as a precise comparison of goal and using a different method of production the blade production within the Protoaurignacian can be interpreted as a testimony of the effects of shed new light on the question of contacts. stimulus diffusion. Stimulus diffusion implies The method, as well as the goals, of the that ideas are diffused inside a territory of one Chaˆtelperronian blade production is clearly group from an adjacent one. These ideas are different from that of the Protoaurignacian. reinterpreted by the borrower group, depending E 2690 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional which were manufactured on a large cleaning flake Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 7 a to l: extracted at the end of the blade production, and which Chaˆtelperronian knives/points; m: Audi type knife; n to might be another type fossil of the Chaˆtelperronian. All r: semi-circular end-scrapers, including two (o and p) artifacts are from Quinc¸ay (After Roussel & Soressi 2010) European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2691 E

E

European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Reproduced after Industries: Chaˆtelperronian, Fig. 8 Chaˆtelperonian Carron et al. 2011) personal ornaments, bone-tools and pigments from La on the contact type between the two groups, and (Roussel 2011). The nature and of personal noticeably depending on the level of social ornaments could also be explained by a similar intimacy. Episodic contacts at places with a low process. degree of social intimacy, like along the path- ways, are opposite to intimate contact at residen- Conclusions tial sites where not only the end-product can be The Chaˆtelperronian is an early Upper Paleolithic observed but also the process of manufacturing it industry with blade and bladelet production, can be observed, learned, and reproduced. personal ornaments and bone-tool production and Depending on the degree of social intimacy and use, and without any formal flake production. The social organization of each group, the results of debate around it fundamentally changed when an contact would vary from conservatism up to total almost complete Neanderthal skeleton was discov- integration of procedures (Tostevin 2007). Given ered and associated with it at Saint-Ce´saire, the geography and the age of the Chaˆtelperronian confirming the earliest discoveries of Neanderthal and of the Protoaurignacian (see above), remains made at Grotte du Renne. From then on, given the similarity between Protoaurignacian what was initially considered as a fully Upper retouched bladelets that could have been lost Paleolithic industry started to be called during the hunt along pathways, and given the a “transitional industry” in order to reconcile the fact that they were produced using different pro- archaic biology of the authors and the advanced cesses, it is indeed probable that the idea of nature of the industry. Nonetheless, except at some Dufour bladelets diffused from one group to the exceptional sites, the Chaˆtelperronian is a well- other. This could have been the case on pathways, defined and fully Upper Paleolithic industry that for instance, and would then imply a low degree is neither a mix nor an intermediary between of social intimacy between the two groups industries, as suggested by the unfortunate term E 2692 European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian

“transitional.” It is only transitional because it is in between climate records from North Atlantic sediment stratigraphic sequences after the Mousterian and and ice. Nature 365: 143-147. BORDES, J.-G. 2003. Lithic taphonomy of the before any other Upper Paleolithic industry. Chaˆtelperronian /Aurignacian interstratifications in The Chaˆtelperronian is always replaced by the Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot, France), in J. Zilha˜o Aurignacian: the stratigraphic position of the & F. d’Errico (ed.) The chronology of the Aurignacian Chaˆtelperronian suggests a global shift. Still, and of the transitional technocomplexes: dating, stra- tigraphies, cultural implications (Trabalhos de this does not preclude contemporaneity and Arqueologia 33): 223-244. Lisboa: Instituto Portugueˆs long-distance contact between the Neanderthal de Arqueologia. makers of the Chaˆtelperronian and other groups, BREUIL, H. 1909–1911. E´ tudes de morphologie ´ especially with anatomically modern humans pale´olithique. Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris 19: 320-340, 21: 29-40, 21: 66-76. using Protoaurignacian . The diffu- CARRON, F., F. D’ERRICO, P., DEL MORAL,F.SANTOS & sion of the idea of Dufour bladelets from one J. ZILHA˜ O. 2011. The reality of Neandertal symbolic group to the other, in the absence of diffusion of behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, the process used to manufacture them, would France. PLoS ONE 6: e21545. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0021545 imply a low degree of social intimacy and only CONNET, N. 2002. Le Chaˆtelperronien: Re´flexions sur episodic contacts on non-residential sites. l’unite´ et l’identite´ techno-e´conomique de l’industrie lithique. L’apport de l’analyse diachronique des indus- tries lithiques des couches Chaˆtelperroniennes de la Grotte du Renne a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Cross-References Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lille 1 (France) University. ▶ European Middle to Upper Paleolithic DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. 1955. La question du Transitional Industries: A Socioeconomic Pe´rigordien II. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ pre´historique franc¸aise 52: 87-203. Approach DELPORTE, H. 1954. Le Pe´rigordien. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ ▶ neanderthalensis pre´historiquefranc¸aise 51: 44-48. ▶ Neanderthals and Their Contemporaries D’ERRICO, F. 2003. The invisible frontier: a multiple spe- cies model for the origin of . Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 188-202. D’ERRICO, F., J. ZILHA˜ O,M.JULIEN,D.BAFFIER & References J. PELEGRIN. 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and BACHELLERIE, F. 2011. Quelle unite´ pour le its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39: S1-S44. Chaˆtelperronien? Apport de l’analyse taphonomique D’ERRICO,F.,M.JULIEN,D.LIOLIOS,D.,BAFFIER & et techno-e´conomique des industries lithiques de trois M. VANHAEREN. 2001. Les poinc¸ons en os des couches gisements aquitains de plein air: le Baste´, Bidart (Pyr- chaˆtelperroniennes et aurignaciennes de la grotte du e´ne´es-Atlantiques) et Canaule II (Dordogne). Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure, Yonne): comparaisons Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bordeaux I (France) technologiques, fonctionnelles et de´cor, in P. Bodu University. & C. Constantin (ed.) Approches fonctionnelles en BAILEY, S.E. & J.-J. HUBLIN. 2006. Dental remains from pre´histoire: 45-66. Paris: Socie´te´ pre´historique Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Journal of franc¸aise. Human Evolution 50: 485-508. GENTY, D., D. BLAMART,R.OUAHDI,M.GILMOUR, BENAZZI,S.,K.DOUKA,C.FORNAI,C.C.BAUER, A. BAKER,J.JOUZEL &S.VAN-EXTER. 2003. Precise O. KULLMER,J.SVOBODA,I.PAP,F.MALLEGNI,P. dating of Dansgaarde Oeschger climate oscillations in BAYLE,M.COQUERELLE,S.CONDEMI,A. western Europe from stalagmite data. Nature 421: RONCHITELLI,K.HARVATI &G.W.WEBER. 2011. 833-837. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and GRANGER, J.-M. & F. LE´ VEˆ QUE. 1997. Parure castelper- implications for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature ronienne et aurignacienne: e´tude de trois se´ries 479: 525-528. ine´dites de dents perce´es et comparaisons. Comptes BON, F. 2010. Les aurignaciens et l’e´mergence du Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Sciences de Paris 325: Pale´olithique supe´rieur, in J. Clottes (ed.) La France 537-543. pre´historique. Un essai d’histoire: 116-141. Paris: GRAVINA, B., P. MELLARS &C.BRONK RAMSEY. 2005. Gallimard. of interstratified Neanderthal and BOND, G., W. BROECKER,S.JOHNSEN,J.MCMANUS,L. occupations at the LABEYRIE,J.JOUZEL &G.BONANI. 1993 Correlations Chaˆtelperronian type-site. Nature 438: 51-56. European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Chaˆtelperronian 2693 E

H ARROLD, F.B. 1978. A study of the Chaˆtelperronian. PERESANI, M., I. FIORE,M.GALA,M.ROMANDININ & Unpublished PhD dissertation, Chicago Faculty. A. TAGLIACOZZO. 2011. Late Neandertals and the inten- HIGHAM, T., R. JACOBI,M.JULIEN,F.DAVID,L.BASELL, tional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone R. WOOD,W.DAVIES &C.BRONK RAMSEY. 2010. taphonomy at 44 ky B.P., Italy. Pro- Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and ceeding of the National Academy of Science 108: implications for the context of ornaments and human 3888-3893. remains within the Chaˆtelperronian. Proceeding of the PLISSON, H. & B. SCHMIDER. 1990. E´ tude pre´liminaire National Academy of Science 107: 20234-20239. d’une se´rie de pointes de Chaˆtelperron de la grotte du HIGHAM, T.F.G., R. M. JACOBI,L.BASSELL,C.BRONK Renne a` Arcy-sur-Cure. Approche morphome´trique, RAMSEY,L.CHIOTTI &R.NESPOULET. 2011. Precision technologique et trace´ologique, in C. Farizy (ed.) dating of the Palaeolithic: a new radiocarbon chronol- Pale´olithiquemoyen re´centet Pale´olithiquesupe´rieur ogy for the (France), a key Aurignacian ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions: examen sequence. Journal of Human Evolution 61: 549-563. critique des documents arche´ologiques: 313-318. E HIGHAM, T., L. BASELL,R.JACOBI,R.WOOD,C.BRONK Nemours: Association pour la Promotion de la RAMSEY & N.J. CONARD. 2012. Τesting models for the Recherche Arche´ologique en Ile de France. beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figu- ROUSSEL, M. in press. Me´thodes et rythmes du de´bitage rative art and music: the radiocarbon chronology of laminaire au Chaˆtelperronien: comparaison avec le Geißenklo¨sterle. Journal of Human Evolution Protoaurignacien. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 62: 664-676. - 2011. Normes et variations de la production lithique HUBLIN, J.-J. in press. The makers of the Early Upper durant le Chaˆtelperronien: la se´quence de la Grande- Paleolithic in western Eurasia, in F.H. Smith & Roche-de-la Ple´matrie a` Quinc¸ay (Vienne). J.C.M. Ahern (ed.) Origins of modern humans: Unpublished PhD dissertation, Paris Ouest Nanterre - biology reconsidered: 223-52. West Sussex. Wiley- La De´fense (France) University. Blackwell. ROUSSEL, M. & M. SORESSI. 2010. La Grande Roche de la HUBLIN, J.-J., F. SPOOR,M.BRAUN,F.ZONNEVELD & Ple´matrie a` Quinc¸ay (Vienne). L’e´volution du S. CONDEMI. 1996. A late Neanderthal associated with Chaˆtelperronien revisite´e, in J. Buisson-Catil & Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381: 224-226. J. Primault (ed.) Pre´histoire entre Vienne et Charente - HUBLIN, J.-J., S. TALAMO,M.JULIEN,F.DAVID,N.CONNET, Hommes et socie´te´s du Pale´olithique: 203-219. P. BODU,B.VANDERMEERSCH & M.P. RICHARDS. 2012. Chauvigny: Association des Publications Chauvinoises. Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte du Renne and SALOMON, H. 2009. Les matie`res colorantes au de´but du Saint-Ce´saire support a Neandertal origin for the Pale´olithique supe´rieur: sources, transformations et Chaˆtelperronian. Proceedings of the National Acad- fonctions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bordeaux emy of Sciences. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/ I (France) University. pnas.1212924109 SORESSI, M. 2005. Late Mousterian . Its L E´ VEˆ QUE, F. & B. VANDERMEERSCH. 1980. De´couverte de implications for the pace of the emergence of restes humains dans un niveau castelperronien a` Saint- behavioural modernity and the relationship between Ce´saire (Charente-Maritime). Comptes Rendus de behavioural modernity and biological modernity, in: L. l’Acade´miedes Sciences de Paris 291: 187-189. Backwell & F. d’Errico (ed.) From tools to symbols: 389- MELLARS, P. 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single- 417. Johanesburg: University of Witswatersand Press. species model for the origins of modern human behav- TALAMO, S., M. SORESSI,M.ROUSSEL, M.P. RICHARDS & ior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 12-27. J.-J. HUBLIN. 2012. A radiocarbon chronology for the MELLARS, P. & C. Stringer. 1989. The human revolution: complete Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitional behavioural and biological perspectives on the sequence of Les Cotte´s (France). Journal of Archaeo- origins of modern humans. Edinburgh: Edinburgh logical Science 39: 175-183. University Press. TOSTEVIN, G.B. 2007. Social intimacy, artefact visibility MELLARS, P., H.M. BRICKER, A.J. GOWLETT & R.E.M. and acculturation models of Neanderthal- HEDGES. 1987. Radiocarbon accelerator dating of Modern Human interaction, in P. Mellars, K. Boyle, French Upper Palaeolithic sites. Current Anthropology O. Bar-Yosef & C. Stringer (ed.) Rethinking the human 28: 128-133. revolution. New behavioural and biological perspec- PELEGRIN, J. 1995. Technologie lithique: le tives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans: Chaˆtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Coˆte 341-357. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archae- (Dordogne).Paris:CNRS. ological Research. PELEGRIN, J. & M. SORESSI. 2007. Le Chaˆtelperronien et ses WHITE, R. 2001. Personal ornaments from the Grotte du rapports avec le Mouste´rien, in B. Vandermeersch & Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. Athena Review 2: 41-46. B. Maureille (ed.) Les Ne´andertaliens. Biologie et ZILHA˜ O, J., F. D’ERRICO, J.-G. BORDES,A.LENOBLE, J.-P. : 297-309. Paris: CTHS. TEXIER & J.-P. RIGAUD. 2008. Grotte des Fe´es PEYRONY, D. 1936. Le Pe´rigordien et l’Aurignacien (Chaˆtelperron): history of research, stratigraphy, dat- (Nouvelles observations). Bulletin de la Socie´te´ pre´ ing, and archaeology of the Chaˆtelperronian type-site. historique franc¸aise 33: 616-619. PaleoAnthropology 2008: 1-42.