Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability

Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability Karen Ruebens Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO), University of Southampton, Avenue Campus, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 23 March 2013 Accepted 7 June 2013 Available online xxx

Population dynamics between and within Pleistocene groups are vital to understanding wider behavioural processes like social transmission and cultural variation. The late Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5d-3, ca. 115,000e35,000 BP [years before present]) permits a novel, data-driven assessment of these concepts through a unique record: bifacial tools made by classic Neanderthals. Previously, studies of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools were hampered by a convoluted plethora of competing terms, types and regional entities. This paper presents a large-scale intercomparison of this tool type, and bridges typotechnological and spatio-temporal data from across Western Europe (Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany). Results indicate a high level of variation among individual bifacial tools and assemblages. Each bifacial tool concept is correlated with various methods of production, resulting in large degrees of morphological variation. Despite such variation, a distinct three-fold, macro-regional pattern was identified: the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) in the southwest dominated by handaxes, the Keilmessergruppen (KMG) in the northeast typified by backed and leaf-shaped bifacial tools, and, finally a new unit, the Mousterian with Bifacial Tools (MBT), geographically situated between these two major entities, and characterised by a wider variety of bifacial tools. Differing local conditions, such as raw material or function, are not sufficient to explain this observed macro-regional tripartite. Instead, the MTA and KMG can be viewed as two distinct cultural traditions, where the production of a specific bifacial tool concept was passed on over generations. Conversely, the MBT is interpreted as a border zone where highly mobile groups of Neanderthals from both the east (KMG) and west (MTA) interacted. Principally, this study presents an archaeological contribution to behavioural concepts such as regionality, culture, social transmission and population dynamics. It illustrates the interpretive potential of large-scale lithic studies, and more specifically the presence of regionalised cultural behaviour amongst late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mousterian Keilmessergruppen Neanderthal behaviour Population dynamics Regionality

Introduction Regional behaviour, cultural diversity, social transmission and elements of population dynamics such as size, stability, density, migrations and interactions are behavioural concepts crucial for understanding many aspects of human evolution. These concepts are often difficult to identify directly in the Palaeolithic archaeological record but have recently been approached, and proved of great relevance, through other disciplines such as genetics,

E-mail address: [email protected].

primatology, palaeoanthropology, biology and computational modelling (Boesch, 2003; Caramelli et al., 2006; Rosas et al., 2006; Fabre et al., 2009; Premo and Hublin, 2009; Lycett, 2010; Premo and Kuhn, 2010; Kamilar and Marshack, 2011; Dalen et al., 2012; Hawks, 2012; Luncz et al., 2012; Kobayashi and Aoki, 2012; Kuhn, 2012). Within Palaeolithic archaeology stone tools provide the most direct, durable and largest source of behavioural information. However, the capacities to identify patterns of behavioural significance among the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic stone tool record have rightly been questioned (Davidson and Noble, 1993; Davidson, 2002; Clark, 2005; Clark and Riel-Salvatore, 2006; Dibble et al., 2006; Richter et al., 2013). The main argument relates to the

0047-2484/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

2

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

handaxes in MIS-3 Britain (White and Jacobi, 2002; White and Pettitt, 2011) and cleavers in the Vasconian entity of the western Pyrenees and Cantabria (Deschamps, 2010; Deschamps and Mourre, 2012; Thiébaut et al., 2012). These entities are regionally restricted and contain a specific set of shared features, making them unique within different regions. This phenomenon occurs from MIS-5 onwards and has been linked to the first appearance in the archaeological record of regionality (Richter, 2000; Jöris, 2004). The exact mechanisms behind these broader scale regionalised patterns and their behavioural significance are still in an early stage of development, and again, wider-scale studies are rare. The research presented here integrates data from late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools and from various regions of Western Europe (Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and France) providing a reassessment and detailed characterisation of patterns of typo-technological, spatial and temporal variation. The results allow for a new discussion on the factors that cause lithic variability, both at a micro- and macro-scale. Moreover, the observed variation can be linked to wider patterns of Neanderthal behaviour, including concepts of regionality, cultural variation and population dynamics, making a comprehensive archaeological contribution to these crucial behavioural concepts.

recovered stone tool form not resulting from the intention of the knapper and hence not reflecting an intended end-product; the socalled finished artefact fallacy (Frison, 1968; Dibble, 1987, 1995; Davidson and Noble, 1993; Davidson, 2002). Conversely, many studies stress the unique interpretive potential of bifacially worked tools, such as handaxes and leaf points, describing them as exhibiting more effort than functionally necessary and reflecting intended concepts; the so-called biface enigma (Mellars, 1996; Wynn, 1996; Richter, 2000; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Clark and RielSalvatore, 2006; White and Pettitt, 2011). To test both viewpoints, data has been collected and analysed from the late Middle Palaeolithic, representing one of the largest and best contextualised samples of bifacial tools. The wider interpretive potential of this lithic record has not been explored in detail due to various epistemological issues and past research foci. The presence of bifacial tools was already extensively acknowledged in early classificatory frameworks of Middle Palaeolithic entities (Bordes, 1961; Bosinski, 1967). Subsequent debates on the Middle Palaeolithic have long been dominated by competing explanations for the micro-scale variation present among the recovered and classified stone tools and lithic assemblages (Bordes, 1961, 1973; Mellars, 1965, 1986; Binford, 1973; Dibble, 1987, 1991, 1995; Dibble and Rolland, 1992; Kuhn, 1995). However, these discussions frequently focussed on the varying proportions of different types of unifacial tools, e.g., scrapers, notches and denticulates, with only a secondary role for the bifacially worked pieces. Also, these studies predominantly concentrated on the rich Middle Palaeolithic record from southwest France and rarely involved wider comparative studies, incorporating data from different regions. Despite intensive research since the 1960s, it remains largely unclear what exact effect causal factors such as raw material, site function, tool function, resharpening and the knapper’s skills and knowledge have in Middle Palaeolithic lithic variability (Richter et al., 2013). In contrast to this observed variability stands the notion that the Middle Palaeolithic is a period of stasis. Especially from a broad temporal perspective, the Middle Palaeolithic has been described as a period with few technological and behavioural changes for over 250,000 years (Mithen, 1996; Kuhn and Stiner, 1998; Gamble, 1999; Klein, 1999). However, pioneering studies (Bordes, 1961; Bosinski, 1967) and especially more recent research suggest that specific spatial and chronological tendencies exist amongst Neanderthal stone tool assemblages, predominantly, but not exclusively, among the bifacial tools (Soressi, 2002, 2005; Jöris, 2004; Hovers and Kuhn, 2006; Locht et al., 2010; Koehler, 2011). Within the late Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5d-3, ca. 115,000e35,000 BP [years before present]) several of these spatio-temporal entities can be identified, such as the specific occurrence of blade technologies in northern France during MIS-5 (Depaepe, 2007; Goval, 2008), bout coupé

Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability Handaxes and bifacial technologies are the defining hallmark of the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean (Table 1; Clark, 1994; Santonja and Villa, 2006) but decline strongly during the early Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 9-5e), coinciding with the emergence of the Levallois technique (Monnier, 2006; Scott, 2011). Throughout this time period, bifacial tools occur only in very low numbers across Western Europe (Brenet et al., 2008). However, from MIS 5d onwards bifacial tools form a regular component of the Neanderthal toolkit (Soressi, 2002; Jöris, 2004). These late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools comprise a large number of types including handaxes and backed bifacial knives. Subsequently, the use of bifacial technologies again decreases from mid MIS-3 onwards. In several ‘transitional’ technocomplexes such as the Szeletian and LincombianeRanisianeJerzmanowician, they still occur as bifacial leaf points (Flas, 2008, 2011) to then become even rarer in the various Upper Palaeolithic industries, with exception of the Solutrean (Table 1). Hence, late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are distinct from their Lower Palaeolithic counterparts, occur in association with classic Neanderthals and include claims of technological, functional, morphological, spatial and temporal variation (Soressi, 2002; Jöris, 2004; Ruebens, 2007a, b; Iovita and McPherron, 2011). This variation and the restricted regional research focus of many previous studies have resulted in the emergence of a plethora of competing late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool terms, types and

Table 1 A diachronic overview of the occurrence of bifacial tools within Palaeolithic industries. Time frame

Lower Palaeolithic Early Middle Palaeolithic Late Middle Palaeolithic Final Middle Palaeolithic Early Upper Palaeolithic Later Upper Palaeolithic

Years BP (approx.) Start

End

2.7 mya 1.7 mya 300 kya 115 kya 45 kya 45 kya 32 kya 22 kya 18 kya

600 kya 200 kya 115 kya 35 kya 35 kya 30 kya 22 kya 17 kya 10 kya

Industries

Associated hominin

Oldowan Acheulean Mousterian Mousterian, KMG ‘Transitional’ industries Aurignacian Gravettian Solutrean Magdalenian

Australopithecines, early Homo H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis Early Neanderthals Classic Neanderthals Classic Neanderthals Early modern humans Early modern humans Early modern humans Early modern humans

Amount of bifacial tools

Low High Low High Medium Low Low Medium Low

Bifacial tool types

Rare bifacial choppers Defined by handaxes, cleavers Rare handaxes Handaxes, backed knives Leaf points Very rare bifacial foliates Rare bifacial points Bifacial points common Bifacial tools very rare

Period studied in this paper in bold. mya ¼ millions of years ago; kya ¼ thousands of years ago.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

entities. Alongside the bifacial tool types defined in the main Middle Palaeolithic classificatory frameworks of Bordes (1961) and Bosinski (1967), a range of local terms and types have also been created. Currently, over 25 types of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are frequently used in the Western and Central European literature (Koulakovskaya et al., 1993; Debénath and Dibble, 1994; Richter, 1997; Jöris, 2004, 2006, 2012). These terms and types are surrounded by epistemological confusion with similar tool types having different names in different languages, single terms having varying definitions in different academic traditions and the common use of various terms without providing a clear definition. An illustrative example is the term pradnik (also known as prodnik or prondnik). In some contexts pradnik is used to indicate any backed knife type, because in the Polish literature it is the equivalent term for the German Keilmesser. However, other researchers only use the term pradnik for Keilmesser with a lateral tranchet blow (Burdukiewicz, 2000). Moreover, the term pradnik is often used in relation to any tool (not just Keilmesser) that has been sharpened using these lateral blows (Conard and Fischer, 2000). Therefore, the term pradnik in the literature can relate to various meanings. In addition, across Western, Central and Eastern Europe different taxonomic entities have been created to group assemblages with specific bifacial tool characteristic (Table 2). An intercomparative reassessment indicates that these were created based on differing defining criteria (Table 2). Typology plays a central role in the definition of most entities, but some are strongly centred on metric or technological characteristics. The two main entities with bifacial tools that are currently distinguished in the Western Europe late Middle Palaeolithic record are the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) and the recent Micoquian or Keilmessergruppen (KMG). Clear differences exist between these two prolific industries both in terms of bifacial tool characteristics and spatial distribution. The MTA is centred in southwest France and is characterised by cordiform and triangular handaxes (Fig. 1; Peyrony, 1920; Bordes, 1961; Soressi, 2002, 2005). The KMG occurs in Central and Eastern Europe and contains a wider variety of bifacial tools, commonly dominated by backed bifacial knives; the so-called Keilmesser (Fig. 2; Mania, 1990; Veil et al., 1994; Conard and Fischer, 2000; Jöris, 2004, 2006, 2012). Other taxonomic entities are less well-defined, more restricted in space and studied in less detail. In combination, these produce a complex image of late

3

Figure 1. Late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. A: Cordiform handaxe from Le Moustier (SW France); B: triangular handaxe from St. Just en Chaussée (N France); C: bout coupé handaxe from Lynford (UK).

Table 2 The major late Middle Palaeolithic entities rich in bifacial tools currently distinguished in Western and Central Europe, including their geographic and chronological occurrence, their defining criteria, characteristics and main sites. Entity

Region

Chronology

Bifacial hallmark

Defining criteria

Main sites

Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) Mousterian with bout coupé handaxes Keilmessergruppen (KMG)

Southwest France

MIS-3

Cordiform handaxes

Typological

Le Moustier, Pech de l’Azé I, Abri Peyrony, Fonseigner, Grotte XVI, La Rochette St-Just en Chaussée, Marcoing, Catigny

Northern France

MIS-5 and 3

Large triangular handaxes

Britain

MIS-3

Bout coupé handaxes

Typological and metric Typological

Central and Eastern Europe

MIS-5 and 3

Keilmesser and Fausstkeilblätter

Typological and technological

Mousterian with bifacial retouch Mousterian with bifacial tools Charentian with Micoquian influence Mousterian with small bifaces ‘Mixed’ entities

Belgium

Unknown

Wide range of bifacial tools

Western France

Unknown

Wide range of bifacial tools

Eastern France

MIS-3, MIS-5?

Wide range of bifacial tools

Normandy

MIS-3, MIS-5?

Small handaxes

Typological and technological Typological and technological Typological and technological Metric

St-Brice sous Rânes, St-Julien-de-la-Lièue

Germany, Belgium

MIS-3, MIS-5?

Wide range of bifacial tools

Typological and technological

Oosthoven, Aalter Hageland, Kogelstein, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt

Lynford, Coygan Cave, Bournemouth Bockstein, Klausennische, Schambach, Sesselfelsgrotte, Lichtenberg, Köigsaue, Balve, Buhlen, Schulerloch Grotte du Docteur, Ramioul, Goyet Bois-du-Rocher, Clos Rouge, Kervouster, Kareg-ar-Yellan Champlost, Germolles, Pont-des-Planches

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

4

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Figure 2. Late Middle Palaeolithic backed and leaf-shaped bifacial tools. A: Keilmesser from Sesselfesgrotte (Germany); B: Keilmesser from Abri du Musée (SW France); C: Faustkeilblatt from Königsaue (Germany).

Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability with a variety of small, large, overlapping and distinct entities (Table 2). At present, this mosaic of terms, types and taxonomic entities has hampered wider comparative studies and risks obscuring genuine archaeological and behavioural patterns of difference and similarity. As a result, a disjointed view currently exists on the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool phenomenon in Western Europe. Therefore, this study aims to unravel the existing epistemological complexity and provide a wider inter-comparative assessment and behavioural interpretation of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability. Material and methods To achieve these aims, data from 81 Western European late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages rich in bifacial tools were collected. This includes 14 case study sites, resulting in new

primary data for 1303 bifacial tools (Appendix A), and 67 comparison sites for which bifacial tool data was available through the published literature (Appendix B). To compare assemblage and bifacial tool characteristics across this sample two main methodological approaches were applied. Firstly, the existing abundance of terminologies and typologies in relation to late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools was reassessed. To identify broad patterns, a new comparative framework was created based around the least common denominators present in the bifacial tool record. Among the currently used 25 bifacial tool types certain sets of features are recurrent and indicate an underlying bifacial tool concept. The 25 types could all be incorporated into five bifacial tool concepts: ‘classic’ handaxes, backed bifacial tools, leaf-shaped bifacial tools, bifacial scrapers and partial bifaces (Table 3). Each of these concepts is defined by a diagnostic combination of technological and typological attributes, including the location and extent of the bifacial shaping and/or retouch, the number of cutting and backed edges, the cross section of the piece and its overall outline shape (Table 3). All five concepts can be viewed as rather distinct, with only few transitional forms being present in the archaeological record. Since each concept is based on least common denominators, morphological variation is present within each category, as expressed by differences in size and exact outline shape. The main aim of this new classificatory framework is to simplify the current multitude of terms and types, and to facilitate comparisons between late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool assemblages from all areas of Western Europe. Moreover, this scheme can be applied to well-published assemblages of bifacial tools that have previously been recorded using Bordean, Bosinskian or local typologies, overcoming existing epistemological complexity and facilitating new intercomparisons in a uniform way. Secondly, detailed typo-technological attribute data was collected from 1303 late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools from 14 case study sites. These 14 assemblages were selected to form a sample representative of the bifacial tool variation across the study area, including classic French MTA and German KMG assemblages, assemblages from other, lesser-studied areas, and assemblages that do not conform to the MTA/KMG dichotomy (for an overview see Table A.1). The recorded attributes were aimed at providing comparative data on artefact condition, technology (including raw material, blank, cortex, back, cross section, shaping and edge angles), typology (including both bifacial tool concept and bifacial tool type) and metrics (including linear measurements and calculated ratios). A detailed comparison of the different bifacial tool concepts in 81 late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages together with detailed typo-technological data of 1303 bifacial tools, allows for a systematic assessment of both micro- and broader-scale variability among bifacial tools in Western Europe. Results Environment and chronology Bifacially worked artefacts are a common occurrence across Western Europe throughout the late Middle Palaeolithic and in a mosaic of environmental settings and locations (Tables A.2 and B.1). These tool types have been recovered from caves and rock shelters as well as open-air localities. Palaeoenvironmental data, including faunal remains and/or pollen data, is available for 37 of the 81 (45.7%) studied sites. For many sites, but especially the open-air localities in Belgium, and northern, eastern and western France, this type of data has not been preserved. Despite this dichotomy in preservation, it is clear that bifacial tools were produced and used in both temperate, forested and cold, open environments across all

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

5

Table 3 The defining typo-technological characteristics of the bifacial tool concepts. Bifacial tool concepts

Extent of shaping/ retouch

Location of shaping/ retouch

Cross section

Outline shape

Cutting edge

Back

Classic handaxes

Covering

Bifacial

Biconvex or planoconvex

Variable, convergent point

2

No

Backed bifacial tools

Variable

Bifacial

Wedge-shaped

Variable, asymmetric back

1 or 2

Yes

Leaf-shaped bifacial tools

Covering

Bifacial

Variable

Short or long

Bifacial

At least partly leaf-shaped Variable

2

Bifacial scrapers

At least partly biplano Variable

1 or 2

Variable

Partial bifaces

Covering

Variable

Biconvex or planoconvex

Variable, convergent point

2

Variable

Incorporated bifacial tool types (Sub)triangular, (sub)cordiform, discoidal, ovate, lanceolate, amygdaloid and bout-coupe handaxe, limande, ficron and fäustel Keilmesser of type Klausennische, Bockstein, Königsaue, Pradnik or Ciemna, Balve, Lichtenberg and Buhlener Leaf-shaped scrapers, Faustkeilblätter, leaf points All types of bifacially worked scrapers, including Quina scrapers Unifaces and Halbkeile

Each concept is defined by a distinct set of technological features while typological shape is more variable. The final column indicates the integration of the existing multitude of bifacial tool types into the five overarching bifacial tool concepts based on their least common denominators.

regions. Clear links between a specific bifacial technology and a specific environment or hunting strategy are still difficult to establish, although non-selective predation has been suggested for the MTA in southwest France particularly in relation to the development of forests during warmer climates (Delagnes and Rendu, 2011). Combined with stratigraphic data, the majority of the studied assemblages can be placed within the late Middle Palaeolithic time

frame, but more detailed chronological reconstructions are often not possible. Currently, 31 assemblages with late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools have been radiometrically dated, representing over 150 individual dates, obtained by thermoluminescence (TL), optical stimulated luminescence (OSL), electron spin resonance (ESR), uranium series and radiocarbon dating (C14) (Fig. 3). These dated sites are located throughout the study area and cover most regions (Britain, Belgium, France and Germany). They represent

Figure 3. Dataplot with averaged radiometric dates currently available for assemblages rich in Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools in Western Europe, dates with two standard deviations (95%) and in Cal BP on vertical axis. Symbols indicate the dating method employed: Thermoluminescence (D); Optically Stimulated Luminescence (:); C14 (ø); AMS C14 (C); Ultrafiltration C14 (B); Uranium-series (,); Electron Spin Resonance (-) (based on Ruebens, 2012 and references therein).

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

6

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

assemblages that have been assigned to the MTA and KMG, as well as other biface-bearing entities. Most of the radiometrically dated assemblages (96.7%) are allocated to MIS-3, more specifically within the time range of 60,000e40,000 Cal BP (Fig. 3). Additionally, several assemblages, e.g., Balve and Buhlen in Germany (Jöris, 1992, 2001), could be securely assigned to MIS-5 based on robust stratigraphic sequences. Conversely, none of the bifacial tool assemblages can be attributed to the MIS-4 climatic deterioration phase. This is in line with the general observation of a decrease in assemblages during this specific time frame (Bocquet-Appel and Tuffreau, 2009; Roebroeks et al., 2011). Overall, even though individual dates should not be compared or taken at face value since they were obtained with a range of techniques, by a variety of labs and at different points in time, this summary of the chronological data available clearly illustrates the ubiquitous nature of bifacial tools throughout Western Europe during both MIS-5 and 3. A difference does exist between northern France, Belgium and Germany with secure attributions to both MIS5 and 3, and southwest France and Britain where the current chronological data points towards a dominant presence of bifacial tools during MIS-3 (see also McPherron et al., 2012) and absence during MIS-5. However, based on the current chronological data more detailed patterns of bifacial tool absence or presence cannot be sustained. In general, it is clear that bifacial tools occurred throughout both the warmer and colder phases of both MIS-5 and 3. Raw material, core reduction and unifacial tools Across the study area artefacts were mainly produced on locally available fine-grained raw materials, with a strong dominance of flint, complemented by chert and quartzite (Table A.2 and Table B.1). A variety of flaking methods were applied at all sites, frequently including Levallois, discoidal and laminar reduction methods as well as more informal core reduction strategies. These flaking methods occur in a variety of combinations and in cooccurrence with different types of bifacial tools. Moreover, all types of flaking strategies occur across Western Europe throughout both MIS-5 and 3, without indicating specific chronological trends within these bifacial tool assemblages. Besides a strong representation of bifacially worked artefacts, unifacial tools are present at most sites as well, dominated by generic Middle Palaeolithic tool types such as scrapers, points, notches and denticulates (Table A.2 and Table B.1). In various assemblages, low portions of other types such as end scrapers and burins are present. Most Middle Palaeolithic flake tool types are a common occurrence within most bifacial tool assemblages, though at present the data does not indicate specific patterns of variation among these unifacial tools. Based on the available data, the knapping techniques and flake tools used alongside these bifacial tools seem varied and without clear patterning. However, more detailed studies and especially further reanalyses of existing collections are required to provide a larger body of comparative data, which was beyond the scope of this study. Bifacial tool variability

Figure 4. Correlation between bifacial tool concepts and different types of raw material.

over 30 bifacial tools are rare. Conversely, in Belgium, France and Germany, several larger, well-stratified and well-excavated assemblages rich in bifacial tools are present. Especially in northern, western and southern France, assemblages containing several hundred bifacial tools are a common occurrence. It is difficult to assess if this relates to a real behavioural pattern or to preservation/ taphonomic issues. Thirdly, detailed analyses of the recorded attributes indicate a high degree of typological, technological and metric variation. This variation occurs despite most artefacts being made on fine-grained raw materials with similar knapping potential (Fig. 4). The different bifacial tool concepts are all applied to various types of locally available raw material (Fig. 4), indicating their flexible nature. There is also a lot of flexibility in the ways the bifacial tools were manufactured, with evidence for the common use of both formshaping and flake blanks at most sites and in relation to most tool types (Table 4). These differing manufacture strategies are further expressed through varying cortex remnants (Table 5), cross sections (Table 6) and edge angles (Table 7). Also, the dimensions of the bifacial tools in the sample vary considerably, with maximum length measurements ranging between 21.00 and 177.00 mm with a mean value around 67.92 mm (Table 8). However, the mean dimensions of the different bifacial tool concepts cluster around the same value and are not statistically different (Kruskall-Wallis pvalues of 0.000). Beside this variability among individual bifacial tools, variation is also noted at an assemblage level. With one exception, each case study assemblage contains more than one bifacial tool concept (Table 9). In general, assemblages strongly dominated by merely one bifacial tool form are sparse, with high degrees of morphological variation being common (Table B.2). Alongside diagnostic types, such as bout coupés, Keilmesser, cordiform or triangular handaxes, a range of other bifacial tools co-exists. However, detailed intercomparisons indicate that despite this wide range of

Table 4 Correlation between different bifacial tool concepts and blank types. Blank

Nodule n

High amounts of variation exist within and between individual bifacial tools and assemblages, both in terms of quantity and typotechnological characteristics. Firstly, late Middle Palaeolithic sites with bifacial tools occur across Western Europe but there is some regional variation; for example a near absence of bifacial tool sites in southeastern France (Szmidt, 2003). Secondly, there are great differences in the quantities of bifacial tools. In Britain and the Netherlands, the Middle Palaeolithic record is mainly represented by isolated finds whilst assemblages with

Natural fragm.

%

Flake blank

%

n

%

Indeterminate n

%

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bif. tools Bifacial scraper Partial bifaces

56 6.7 e 22 24.7 e 10 14.3 e 10 13.9 2 1 2.0 1

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.0

151 26 19 41 42

18.2 29.2 27.1 56.9 82.4

623 41 41 19 7

75.1 46.1 58.6 26.4 13.7

Total

99

0.3

279

25.1

731

65.7

8.9 3

n

The original blanks were identified based on diagnostic features, which was especially difficult for the classic handaxes and leaf-shaped bifacial tools due to high amounts of bifacial shaping.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22 Table 5 Percentage of cortex remnant for each bifacial tool concept. Cortex

<25%

Absent n

%

n

%

25e50%

50e75%

>75%

n

n

n

%

%

Table 7 Correlation between the different bifacial tool concepts and the dominant worked edge angle.

430 13 31 26 25

57.1 15.5 56.4 43.3 50.0

294 52 15 19 20

39.0 61.9 27.3 31.7 40.0

27 13 7 10 5

3.6 15.5 12.7 16.7 10.0

2 6 1 2 e

0.3 7.1 1.8 3.3 0.0

e e 1 3 e

0.0 0.0 1.8 5.0 0.0

Total

525

52.4

400

39.9

62

6.2

11

1.1

4

0.4

<35

Edge angles

%

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bif. tools Bifacial scraper Partial bifaces

7

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bif. tools Bifacial scraper Partial bifaces Total

Cortex remnant relates to the complete surface of the tool and was measured for all unbroken pieces.

35e65

>65

n

%

n

%

n

%

56 29 27 15 7

7.5 34.9 45.8 24.6 14.6

677 45 32 44 37

90.9 54.2 54.2 72.1 77.1

12 9 0 2 4

1.6 10.8 0.0 3.3 8.3

134

13.5

835

83.8

27

2.7

Categories were defined following methodologies of Keeley (1980) and Soressi (2002).

techno-typological variability several clear trends can be identified among late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools. Firstly, all recorded attributes (Tables 4e8) indicate that classic handaxes form a homogeneous group with the lowest amount of variation in their typo-technological characteristics and the smallest standard deviations for their measurements. The other four tool concepts, including backed bifacial tools, are more varied in their attributes and dimensions. Secondly, negative correlations exist between the presence and/ or absence of various tool concepts (Table 9). For example, where classic handaxes are common, backed and leaf-shaped bifacial tools are sparse and vice versa. Based on these correlations, three main typo-technological groups can be distinguished among the bifacial tool assemblages. A first assemblage group is dominated by ‘classic’ handaxes with low occurrences of any other bifacial tool types. This contrasts sharply with assemblage group 2 where classic handaxes are absent or very rare and the dominant bifacial tool type is either backed or leaf-shaped. Thirdly, assemblages occur with a more varied record of bifacial tools, always including a significant portion of classic handaxes, but with no single tool type dominant. The distinction between these assemblage groups is also indicated by differing coefficients of variation (CV; standard deviation/mean). The average CV of an assemblage was calculated based on CV values for six metric variables (Length, Width, Thickness, Elongation, Flatness and Refinement). While handaxe-dominated assemblages have low CV values (<0.25), the other assemblages have varying values with the highest amounts of variation present in assemblage group 2 (Table 9). This three-fold typo-technological pattern was identified by focussing on the least common denominators of the bifacial tools and the occurrence of specific bifacial tool concepts. This method overcomes previous epistemological issues related to the application of differentiating academic traditions or typological frameworks. Moreover, through its application across Western Europe it allows for a uniform assessment and detailed characterisation of regional trends among late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools and late Neanderthal groups.

Regionality The assessment of the different bifacial tool concepts among the 14 case study sites and the 67 comparison sites has identified three typo-technological assemblage groups, which moreover have specific geographic ranges. The 81 assemblages differentiate along a northeastesouthwest axis. Three main regions can be distinguished (northeast, central NW Europe, southwest) and the differing proportions of the bifacial tool concepts (Fig. 5) indicate that the three assemblage groups relate to three macro-regional entities (Fig. 6). These macro-regional assemblage groups can be correlated to previously defined taxonomic entities (Table 2) and equated to the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA), the Mousterian with bifacial tools (MBT) and the Keilmessergruppen (KMG). Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) Classic handaxes dominate the bifacial toolkit west of the river Rhine. Assemblages with high proportions of handaxes occur in southwest France, northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Britain (Fig. 6). The label ‘Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition’ (MTA) is used here as an umbrella term for this macro-regional pattern. In its original definition, the MTA has a second defining hallmark: the backed knife (Peyrony, 1930; Bordes, 1961). Within France, this led to a specific use of this term, creating the need to define other entities for biface-rich assemblages that lack these backed knives (Table 2). Elsewhere, this backed knife component was disregarded, making the presence of cordiform/triangular handaxes the only defining MTA characteristic. In Britain, the term MTA is commonly used in relation to the bout coupé phenomenon (Coulson, 1990; White and Jacobi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2009; White and Pettitt, 2011; Boismier et al., 2012) and in the Netherlands the stray finds of handaxes are often assigned to the MTA (Stapert, 1985; Deeben et al., 2005), as well as the recently discovered cluster of 30 handaxes from Assen (Niekus et al., 2011). Importantly, in southwest France handaxedominated assemblages occur without these backed knives (Turq, 2000; Prince et al., 2005; Claud, 2008), questioning its relevance

Table 6 Correlation between the different bifacial tool concept and the different cross section types. Section

Biconvex

Plano-convex

Biplano

Plano-convex/plano-convex n

Irregular

n

%

n

%

n

%

%

n

%

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bif. tools Bifacial scraper Partial bifaces

349 3 11 3 2

47.3 3.9 19.3 5.9 4.1

321 34 29 27 43

43.5 44.2 50.9 52.9 86.0

2 e 3 1 e

0.3 0.0 5.3 2.0 0.0

3 e e 1 e

0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

63 40 14 19 5

8.5 51.9 24.6 37.3 10.2

Total

368

37.8

454

46.7

6

0.6

4

0.4

141

14.5

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

8

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Table 8 Metric characteristics for the different bifacial tool concepts. Measurements (mm)

n

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bifacial tools Bifacial scrapers Partial bifaces Total

830 89 70 72 51 1112

Length (L)

Width (W)

Thickness (T)

Elongation (L/W)

Flatness (W/T)

Refinement (T/W)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

68.92 66.00 66.91 60.38 65.42 67.92

20.24 24.46 20.17 19.35 21.75 21.07

53.22 42.25 42.37 43.35 49.19 50.80

13.67 13.38 12.39 12.39 14.04 14.29

20.54 16.93 13.78 15.13 18.63 19.53

6.25 6.80 6.74 5.63 5.14 6.79

1.30 1.59 1.67 1.41 1.33 1.35

0.17 0.41 0.62 0.30 0.18 0.28

2.69 2.72 3.30 3.07 2.73 2.74

0.60 1.02 1.00 0.98 0.71 0.72

0.39 0.41 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.39

0.08 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.99

Measurements were only taken on complete bifacial tools. Maximum length, width and thickness are expressed in millimetres. The calculated ratios (elongation, flatness and refinement) follow definitions of Bordes (1961) and Roe (1968).

as a defining element. The data presented here demonstrates the similarities within assemblages dominated by classic handaxes and their homogenous nature, and this in relation to their metrics, technological and typological aspects (Tables 4e9). Across Europe, a phenomenon of Mousterian assemblages dominated by classic handaxes occurs and hence the most appropriate label to unite these assemblages is MTA. Keilmessergruppen (KMG) East of the Rhine River assemblages occur in which handaxes are rare and high proportions of backed bifacial tools (Keilmesser), leaf-shaped bifacial tools and/or bifacial scrapers are characteristic (Fig. 6). Because of the common dominance of these Keilmesser, and to avoid associations with the problematic term ‘Micoquian’, these assemblages are grouped under the label Keilmessergruppen (KMG) (Veil et al., 1994). Besides the presence and absence of specific bifacial tool concepts, this macro-regional entity is characterised by a high amount of metric variation (see CV values in Table 9) and the common use of the para-burin resharpening technique (lateral tranchet blows), a feature rare elsewhere in the late Middle Palaeolithic. Although the majority of these assemblages occur in Central Europe, a ‘Micoquian’ or ‘KMG’ influence has been mentioned for assemblages across the Netherlands, Belgium, eastern, western and southwest France (Valoch, 1967; Gouédo, 1999; Bourdin, 2006; Ruebens, 2007a, b, 2012; Lamotte et al., 2008, 2012; Ruebens and Van Peer, 2011) (Table 2). This ‘influence’ is badly defined and can relate to various aspects such as the presence of Keilmesser, a varied record of bifacial tools or the specific occurrence of leaf-shaped

bifacial tools. Although handaxe-dominated assemblages do not occur far east of the Rhine River, Keilmesser-dominated assemblages do occur sporadically in the far south of the study region. The best example of this phenomenon is the assemblage of Abri du Musée in southwest France, which contains backed bifacial knives and a common use of the para-burin resharpening technique (Detrain et al., 1991; Bourguignon, 1992). Mousterian with Bifacial Tools (MBT) In addition to the welldefined MTA and KMG entities, a range of assemblages occur that do not fit either definition. Assemblages of this type more commonly occur in the central part of the study area, Belgium, the Netherlands, eastern and western France (Fig. 6). This study has produced a uniform comparison of the typo-technological attributes of assemblages from this region and provided a reassessment of the defining criteria of the various regional taxonomic entities (Table 2). A reassessment of metric data indicates that assemblages both dominated by large or small bifacial tools occur across Europe and do not represent distinct regional trends. For example, the bifacial tools from the ‘Mousterian with small bifaces’ fall within the range of the MTA assemblages from southwest France. Metric characteristics can therefore not be used to identify larger-scale regional tendencies. Conversely, typo-technological attributes illustrate a common ground for all of these assemblages and entities in the central area of the study region. They are characterised by a generalised application of the bifacial shaping technique to a variety of blanks, resulting in a wide variety of bifacial tool types (Fig. 7). These assemblages commonly include classic handaxes and backed bifacial

Table 9 The occurrence of different bifacial tool concepts (based on complete pieces) in each case study assemblage. Case study sites

Köigsaue Sesselfelsgrotte Sint-Geertruid Oosthoven Grotte du Docteur Lynford Champlost St-Just-en-Chaussée St-Julien de la Liègue Pech de l’Azé I Le Moustier Abri Peyrony Abri du Musée Total n, %

Lat.

Long.

Region

51.83 11.40 Germany 48.94 11.79 Germany 50.80 5.75 Netherlands 51.34 4.98 Belgium 50.57 5.17 Belgium 52.49 0.68 Britain 48.02 3.67 E. France 49.50 2.44 N. France 49.14 1.29 N. France 44.85 1.27 S. France 44.99 1.06 S. France 44.77 0.82 S. France 44.94 1.01 S. France

n

Classic handaxes Backed bifacial tools Leaf-shaped bifacial tools Bifacial scrapers Partial bifaces Averaged CV n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

15 114 18 18 38 45 30 25 209 82 257 181 22

0 2 12 4 10 38 13 25 200 78 238 153 1

0.0 1.8 66.7 22.2 26.3 84.4 43.3 100.0 95.7 95.1 92.6 84.5 4.5

5 34 4 7 13 1 2 0 0 0 8 3 12

33.3 29.8 22.2 38.9 34.2 2.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.7 54.5

8 35 1 0 8 0 5 0 7 1 2 0 2

53.3 30.7 5.6 0.0 21.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.8 0.0 9.1

2 38 1 3 4 1 9 0 1 0 0 5 7

13.3 33.3 5.6 16.7 10.5 1.8 30.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 31.8

0 5 0 4 3 5 1 0 1 3 9 19 0

0.0 4.4 0.0 22.2 7.9 11.1 3.3 0.0 0.5 3.7 3.5 10.5 0.0

0.27 0.35 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.22 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.32

1054

774

73.4

89

8.4

69

6.6

71

6.7

50

4.7

0.25

Each site includes the number, proportion and averaged coefficient of variation (CV) for the assemblage (calculated by averaging the CV values for the three linear measurements and three calculated ratios (Table 8). The lower the CV value, the smaller the amount of variation. Bois-du-Rocher was excluded since only a selective sample of bifacial tools was available for study.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

9

Figure 5. Proportional occurrence of different bifacial tool concepts across different macro-regions based on the data from 14 case study sites (Table 9) and 67 comparison sites (Table B.2). ‘Northeast’ relates to the German sites (n: 15), ‘Southwest’ to the sites from southwest France (n: 13) and ‘Central Northwest Europe’ to the sites from the Netherlands (n: 3), Belgium (n: 19), Britain (n: 7), northern France (n: 8), western France (n: 7), and eastern France (n: 9).

tools, explaining past labels as ‘mixed’ or having a ‘Micoquian influence’. Since this bifacial tool variety is the main defining characteristic of all of these entities, and they occur in a distinct geographic region, it seems appropriate to unite them into one macro-regional entity, the Mousterian with Bifacial Tools. This label is preferred since it does not presume any correlation with the

presence of handaxes or backed bifacial tools. It was initially introduced in relation to assemblages with various bifacial tools from Brittany (Monnier, 1990) but it is now clear that it relates to a wider European phenomenon (Figs. 6 and 7). However, it has to be noted that within this broad-scale label there is space for further typo-technological and spatio-temporal variability.

Figure 6. Location of the 14 case study sites in relation to the geographic expansions of the three late Middle Palaeolithic macro-regional entities rich in bifacial tools: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA), Keilmessergruppen (KMG) and Mousterian with Bifacial Tools (MBT).

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

10

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Figure 7. Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools from northern France and Belgium. A: Thick, cordiform handaxe from Bois-du-Rocher (W France); B: small handaxe from Saint-Julien de la Liègue (N France); C: small, backed bifacial tool from Oosthoven (Belgium); D: bifacial tool from Grotte du Docteur (Belgium).

Overall, the identification of this macro-regional variation in the late Middle Palaeolithic record is based on a strong archaeological signature but further regional variability within these macroregional entities exists as well. The best example relates to the MTA where further differentiation exists as expressed through a dominance of bout coupé handaxes in Britain (White and Jacobi, 2002), cordiform handaxes in southwest France and triangular handaxes in northern France (Soressi, 2002). This indicates that even though handaxe-dominated, and hence MTA, assemblages are a large-scale phenomenon, further spatio-temporal trends can be distinguished. Similar regional patterns have been proposed for the KMG (Bosinski, 1967; Jöris, 2004) but based on fewer assemblages and their consolidation requires further testing. Overall, this threefold macro-regional pattern can be seen as an overarching framework, which, importantly, also allows space for further internal variability within the MTA, KMG and MBT. Important here is that this study provides clear archaeological evidence for largerscale regionalised behavioural trends among late Neanderthal groups, prompting questions on their causes and meaning in terms of wider Neanderthal behaviour.

Discussion The late Middle Palaeolithic, in general, and bifacially worked artefacts, specifically, have unique interpretive potentials. Several differences have been highlighted in the Western European

archaeological record between the earlier and later phases of the Middle Palaeolithic (Mellars, 1996; Gamble, 1999; Richter, 2000; White and Pettitt, 2011; Scott, 2011). Alongside lithic variation, further changes include palaeoanthropological features with the emergence of ‘classic’ fully developed Neanderthals (Hublin, 1998; Tattersall and Schwartz, 2008), genetic signatures (Hublin, 1998, 2009; Briggs et al., 2009) and behavioural practice. The latter refers to an increase in the appearance of intra-site variability, single-species hunting, use of bone tools, use of pigments and the potential appearance of burial practices (Kolen et al., 1999; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks, 2000; Villa and d’Errico, 2001; Vaquero et al., 2004; Soressi and D’Errico, 2007; Dusseldorp, 2008; Langley et al., 2008; Zilhão et al., 2010; Pettitt, 2011; Gaudzinski-Windheuser and Kindler, 2012; Zilhão, 2012). Studies of the late Middle Palaeolithic record therefore allow unique insights into the behavioural dynamics of classic Neanderthals. Moreover, bifacial tools played a specific role throughout the late Middle Palaeolithic in the Neanderthal toolkit. Use-wear analyses indicate that they were used for a variety of activities and with varying prehension modes (Claud, 2008, 2012; Rots, 2009). They formed part of a mobile toolkit, as highlighted by the sporadic presence of elements on exotic raw materials as well as by the fragmentation of the knapping process in the landscape, as exemplified by the presence of assemblages with bifacial tool debitage but no actual bifacial tools (Soressi and Hays, 2003; White and Pettitt, 2011). Debitage debris and flake scar patterns illustrate further that this tool type was repeatedly resharpened and recycled, suggesting long use lives and curation (Jöris, 2001; Pastoors, 2001; Soressi, 2004; Wragg Sykes, 2010; Iovita and McPherron, 2011). Finally, these bifacial tools, and especially handaxes, have been described as potential indicators of social and/or symbolic behaviour. This is due to their elaborate design, complex knapping process, extended use-lives and the general observation that the investment of time and energy in the manufacture process of a handaxe is difficult to explain in purely functional terms (Wymer, 1982; Wynn, 1996; Byers, 1999; Richter, 2000; Wenban-Smith, 2004). Therefore, the unique focus of this study on larger-scale patterns of variability and regionality among late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools has the potential to provide new perspectives on debates about regional and social behaviour among classic Neanderthals. In turn, it feeds into a growing body of literature that aims to come to a better understanding regarding the general concepts of cultural variation and population dynamics among Pleistocene groups. These concepts are addressed through a twofold approach: firstly, through a reassessment of the role that various causal factors had in influencing late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability; secondly by linking the observed patterns to current and on-going debates on the nature of Neanderthal population dynamics. Causal factors: local adaptations versus cultural transmission A variety of factors can influence the initial physical appearance of a lithic tool and the final form in which it is discarded, and subsequently recovered, from the archaeological record. The major influencing factors are raw material, site function, tool use, resharpening and use-life, and socio-cultural behaviour. Each of these factors has been discussed in relation to past debates on Mousterian variability (Bordes, 1961, 1973; Mellars, 1965, 1986; Binford, 1973; Dibble, 1987, 1991, 1995; Dibble and Rolland, 1992; Kuhn, 1995) but their causal relationship with bifacial tool variability and regionality is, to date, unclear and hence discussed in more detail here.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Raw material Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages are produced predominantly on local raw materials, generally with a low proportion of exotic raw materials (Féblot-Augustins, 1993, 1999, 2008; Floss, 1994; Turq, 2000; Soressi, 2004; Bourguignon et al., 2006; Meignen et al., 2009; Kuhn, 2011; Spinapolice, 2012). The availability of these raw materials and their specific nature, including the size and shape of the nodules, have been identified as important factors in explaining certain trends in variability within and between Mousterian assemblages (Dibble, 1991; Dibble and Rolland, 1992; Mellars, 1996). Moreover, raw material characteristics can influence the overall shape and size of a bifacial tool as well. For example, different Keilmesser forms have been related to different types of raw material blanks (Veil et al., 1994; Jöris, 2001, 2006). Conversely, at a macro-regional perspective fine-grained raw materials are the dominant raw material used for all Western European late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools and the regional patterns observed do not correlate with regional differences in raw material types. Where different types of raw material occur, the same debitage and façonnage methods seem to be applied to all raw materials, indicating their non-restrictive nature (Richter, 1997; Moncel and Deaujard, 2012). This is confirmed by the observation that all bifacial tool concepts were made both on nodules and flake blanks and a variety of fine-grained raw materials (Table 4; Fig. 4). The concept of the bifacial tool produced was applied regardless of the raw material or blank type utilised. Therefore, raw material availabilities and/or constraints influence the shape of an individual bifacial tool but not the specific regional trends, which exist among the bifacial tool concepts. Site function The exact function of a Middle Palaeolithic site in terms of wider Neanderthal behaviour is difficult to reconstruct and it needs to be noted that site formation processes will have played an important altering role. However, a general distinction can be made between three site locales based on the absence/presence of bifacial tools and/or their debitage (Turq, 2007; Claud, 2008). Transition sites contain bifacial tool debitage but no actual bifacial tools and are commonly represented in the Western European late Middle Palaeolithic; e.g., Ash Tree Cave in Britain (White and Pettitt, 2011). The inverse pattern characterises processing sites and these could be represented by stray bifacial tool finds, a phenomenon that is observed across Western Europe, especially in Britain and the Netherlands. Manufacture sites include both bifacial tools and their debitage and the majority of the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool assemblages belong to this category. The bifacial tool variability at these sites can be related to multifaceted manufacture processes. At these localities, bifacial tools were manufactured and used, but also carried away to be utilised elsewhere and then brought back to be resharpened or reused, potentially for different functions (Jöris, 2006; Claud, 2008, 2012). In general, different site types can help explain why late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are recovered in various quantities, in various environmental settings and in varying combinations with other lithic tool types and technologies (Table A.1, A.2 and B.1). However, all three site locales are present within the KMG, MTA and MBT entity and provide no explanation for the consistent absence of a specific bifacial tool concept in a specific region. Tool function The potential function of a stone tool can be reconstructed through microscopic use wear analyses, as well as by assessing the overall concept of the tool, including its edge angles, active and non-active zones and potential prehensile modes. Use wear studies on late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are sparse. Around 190 artefacts have been microscopically studied and indicate their use in various activities (Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990;

11

Veil et al., 1994; Cliquet, 2001; Soressi and Hays, 2003; Coudenneau, 2005; Claud, 2008, 2012; Rots, 2009; Donahue and Evans, 2012). In the MTA, KMG and MBT entities bifacial tools were used for butchery, wood and hide working activities. There is no clear link between the type of bifacial tool and the activities performed. Conclusive information about the mode of prehension of bifacial tools is limited. Hafting traces have been identified both on MTA handaxes (Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990) and KMG bifacial tools (Rots, 2009) but similar traces are also absent in many of the microscopically studied collections. Studies of edge angles (Table 7), active and non-active zones on late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools also indicate a lot of variability among bifacial tools and within assemblages, again indicative of their potential use in various activities (Boëda, 1997; Pinoit, 2001; Bourdin, 2006). Even though detailed functional analyses of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are still in an early stage of development, and it is difficult to assess what came first, tool use or morphology, it is clear that in each assemblage a similar combination of points, cutting edges and edge angles are present. Differential uses can explain some micro-scale differences, but it cannot be envisaged that at a macro-scale different functional needs were in operation. Resharpening Use-wear, debitage debris and secondary retouch patterns indicate that late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools had extended use-lives and were repeatedly resharpened (Pastoors, 2001; Soressi, 2004; Jöris, 2006; Iovita, 2009, 2010). This recycling process had an important effect on the final form of the discarded bifacial tools. In many instances, this repeated use can help to explain the large amount of variability within assemblages. For example, for the different Keilmesser forms it has been argued they form part of a continuum of shapes representing different stages of resharpening (Jöris, 2001, 2006; Migal and Urbanowski, 2006). Conversely, within the MTA shape maintenance has been observed, regardless of size or further reduction (Iovita, 2008, 2009, 2010), and it is difficult to assess if this maintenance is intended behaviour or the result of alternating resharpening. The overall typo-technological defining characteristics of the five main bifacial tool concepts (Table 3; e.g., presence of a back) remain distinct throughout the reduction process and few transitional forms have been identified in the archaeological record. In relation to late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool assemblages no clear link has been demonstrated between the bifacial tool form and its place in the reduction sequence, as has been done for Middle Palaeolithic scraper types (Dibble, 1987) and Lower Palaeolithic handaxes (McPherron, 1995, 1999). In general, resharpening can be seen as an important factor influencing the exact size and shape of a bifacial tool but does not explain the clear absence of certain bifacial tool concepts, such as backed pieces or triangular shapes, in specific geographic areas. Culture The local factors highlighted above cannot, alone, comprehensively explain the regional patterns observed in this study. Therefore, an additional sphere of interpretation needs to be considered: social transmission and culture. Culture is commonly referred to in explanatory frameworks for lithic variability in late Middle Palaeolithic contexts (Veil et al., 1994; Mellars, 1996; Richter, 2000; Soressi, 2002; Jöris, 2004; Depaepe, 2007; Emery, 2009; Wragg Sykes, 2009; Koehler, 2011; White and Pettitt, 2011). However, the concept of culture is highly problematic and its definition is often not made explicit when used in Palaeolithic contexts (Dibble et al., 2006). In ethology or animal studies, culture refers to information acquired from other group members through learning or imitation that can lead to variation in behaviour between groups (Boyd and Richardson, 1985; Boesch, 2003; Premo and Hublin, 2009). This type of culture has been

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

12

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

observed among both wild and captive non-human primates (Boesch, 2003; Whiten et al., 2009; Kamilar and Marshack, 2012). Both of its defining elements, learning and behavioural variation, can also be related to the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool record and hence Neanderthal populations. The making of a bifacial tool can be seen as information learned from other group members (Noble and Davidson, 1996; Lycett and Gowlett, 2008). Furthermore, the deliberate manufacture of a specific bifacial tool concept in a specific region, regardless of the raw material or blank, could be seen to indicate cultural variation. This would indicate that the different ways of making bifacial tools were passed on from generation to generation, leaving behind distinct, recognisable signatures in the archaeological record. Because of the recurrent strong presence of specific tool concepts in both the MTA and KMG (Table 9 and Table B.2), these two entities can be described as relating to two different cultural units. Cultural units hereby relate to the use of different strategies to satisfy equivalent needs at the same time in neighbouring regions (Sackett, 1990; Wynn, 1996; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Barham, 2001; Soressi, 2002, 2004, 2005). Culture in an anthropological sense, a system of knowledge present within a group that rests on the presence of shared conventions or norms (Lycett, 2010), is regularly mentioned in relation to the late Middle Palaeolithic as well (Richter, 2000; Jöris, 2004; Depaepe, 2007; Koehler, 2011). Variation in lithic technology is hereby interpreted as the reflection of different cultural groups or traditions, which made bifacial tools according to different shared norms. However, shared group norms are a concept difficult to identify in the Palaeolithic record (Clark, 2005; Clark and RielSalvatore, 2006; Dibble et al., 2006). It not only assumes that the final forms in which stone tools were discarded reflect such group norms, it also implies that such norms were initially imposed on the flint knapping methods and their results. The observation of specific patterns of regional variation among bifacial tools made by classic Neanderthals does hint at the presence of this concept but requires further study and wider contextualisation. A recent addition to the concept of culture in Palaeolithic societies is the distinction between cultural performance and capacity (Haidle and Conard, 2011). In relation to late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals, there is a growing corpus of evidence that points towards the potential presence of a collective cultural capacity, including shared norms and a group consciousness. Potential communication tools, especially in the form of ornaments, occur sporadically in the Middle Palaeolithic and increase in late Middle Palaeolithic contexts (d’Errico and Soressi, 2002, 2006; Soressi and d’Errico, 2007; Langley et al., 2008; Zilhão et al., 2010). However, it remains open to debate whether these elements, such as ochre and manganese, were used in a non-utilitarion fashion. The same holds true for bifacial tools, where especially handaxes, have also been described as potential carriers of related social and/or cultural information (Byers, 1999; Kohn and Mithen, 1999; Richter, 2000; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Machin, 2009; McNabb, 2012). Since the patterns observed in this study cannot merely be related to differences in causal, local factors, the regionalised variation among bifacial tools is another aspect potentially indicative of collective cultural behaviour among classic Neanderthals. Firstly, this regional differentiation can be linked to different lines of socially transmitted information, and hence culture in an ethological sense. Secondly, combined with the presence of enigmatic region-specific dominant tool types (for example, bout coupé, triangular or cordiform handaxes) it may reflect shared group norms, and hence culture in an anthropological sense. Additional studies of Neanderthal behaviour, including further comparative lithic analyses, skeletal studies, genetics and computational models, are needed to assess the

mechanisms of social transmission and regionalised cultural behaviour among Neanderthals. However, this study provides an archaeological perspective on these concepts and indicates that referring to cultural variation, at least in an ethological sense and potentially with an anthropological meaning, is required to explain the observed regionally differentiated behaviour among late Neanderthal groups. Neanderthal population dynamics: migrations and interactions The observed patterns of regionalised cultural behaviour provide a unique dataset to comprehend Neanderthal population dynamics, including group migrations and interactions. Although exact estimates of Neanderthal population size and densities are very preliminary, they all suggest small sizes and low densities (Aiello and Dunbar, 1993; Richter, 2006; Hawks, 2008; Briggs et al., 2009; Roebroeks et al., 2011; Kuhn, 2012). These small population groups were highly mobile, as indicated by strontium signatures (Richards et al., 2008; Benson et al., 2013) and raw material transport patterns (Féblot-Augustins, 1993, 1999, 2009; Gamble, 1999; Soressi and Hays, 2003; Slimak and Giraud, 2007; Wragg Sykes, 2010). Furthermore, climatic fluctuations would have inevitably affected resource availability and hence led to migrations and localised extinctions of these small mobile groups of Neanderthals (Richter, 2000; Depaepe, 2007; Hublin and Roebroeks, 2009; Roebroeks et al., 2011; Bradtmöller et al., 2012; Dalen et al., 2012; Davies, 2012). Small population groups cannot generally survive in isolation (Birdsell,1967; Wobst,1974) and therefore Neanderthal groups must have had to regularly interact. Dialogues on Middle Palaeolithic population interactions usually focus on the potential contact between Neanderthals and early modern humans (Conard, 2006 and references therein; Green et al., 2010; Barton and Riel-Salvatore, 2012) with the contacts between Neanderthal groups themselves less frequently discussed (Lalueza-Fox et al., 2010; Eriksson and Manica, 2012; Rendu et al., 2012). The existence of geographically distinct groups is a feature commonly observed amongst chimpanzee populations (Kamilar and Marshack, 2011; Luncz et al., 2012 and references therein) and can also be demonstrated for Neanderthals. Firstly, palaeoanthropological studies indicate the existence of regional differences in Neanderthal skeletal features (Rosas et al., 2006). Secondly, genetic analyses point toward the presence of large, distinct regional groups among European Neanderthals (Caramelli et al., 2006; Fabre et al., 2009; Dalen et al., 2012). The study of Fabre and colleagues, for example, distinguishes three different geographic groups of Neanderthals (Western Europe, Southern Europe, and Western Asia), and furthermore incorporates eco-geographical borders which could have had an impact on Neanderthal migration (Fabre et al., 2009). The macro-regional tripartite identified in this paper adds comprehensive archaeological data to this picture of geographically distinct Neanderthal population groups. The MTA and KMG reflect two well-defined spatial-temporal traditions of social learning. The clarity of this cultural dichotomy is further strengthened by the fact that southwest France and Germany are separated by geographic distance (over 1000 km) and natural borders (for example, the Pyrenees and Massif Central mountains, and the Saône and Rhine rivers). However, the MTA and KMG entities should also be seen as dynamic in nature, exhibiting frequent migrations and local extinctions. The low occurrence of classic handaxes east of the Rhine River implies that the making of this bifacial tool concept was not an important part of the socially transmitted information in this area, but also that MTA Neanderthal groups did not migrate this far east. Contrastingly, KMG elements and assemblages have a wider distribution (Gouédo, 1999; Ruebens, 2007a, b; Lamotte et al., 2008; Ruebens and Di Modica, 2011), indicating the regular

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

transmission of either ideas (acculturation) or people (demic diffusion) southwards. It is possible that small, mobile KMG groups would commonly pass through the MBT region but only sporadically making it as far south as Abri du Musée in (Dordogne). While geographic distance provokes cultural variation, geographic proximity reduces this variation. The MBT assemblages cluster in the Meuse, Yonne/Seine/Vanne and Saône river systems, located at the crossroad of the MTA and KMG ranges. It can be envisaged that small, highly mobile groups of KMG Neanderthals would encounter other population groups while moving southwards, potentially in response to climatic changes. Additionally, the range expansion of Neanderthals with MTA handaxes northwards is illustrated by the re-colonisation of Britain during MIS-3 signified by the occurrence of bout coupé handaxes. Therefore, the area of Belgium, the Netherlands and the northern half of France, including western France, central France and eastern France, can be seen as a transition or border zone at a crossroad of influences. The passing through of influences from both the south and east resulted in assemblages containing a more varied record of bifacial tools, including both MTA classic handaxes and KMG backed bifacial knives. The diversified nature of these assemblages seems to indicate that it is not a third cultural tradition, but rather that a less strict or less developed lineage of socially transmitted behaviour was at play in this area, adopting the various influences. The identification of two distinct cultural traditions, the MTA and KMG, and an overlap entity caused by migrations and interactions of these two cultural units, the MBT, provides a unique insight into the behavioural complexity of late Neanderthal groups, their interactions, cultural variation and its related expression in the archaeological record. Conclusion Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools provide a large dataset with a unique interpretive potential to assess concepts of regional behaviour, cultural variation, social transmission and population dynamics amongst classic Neanderthals. So far, these concepts have been hinted at through various disciplines but they have not been systematically identified in the Palaeolithic archaeological record. Previous lithic studies were hampered by epistemological issues related to the historic presence of different academic traditions and classificatory frameworks in Western Europe. Through the incorporation of the current multitude of terms and types into five distinct bifacial tool concepts and the typo-technological reassessment of 81 assemblages, this study forms a data-driven intercomparison of the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool phenomenon. Firstly, there is a high degree of typo-technological and metric variation among individual bifacial tools and assemblages. Each bifacial tool concept can be created through various production methods, resulting in a high amount of morphological variation. Much of this micro-scale variability can be explained through differential responses to local contexts. Each bifacial tool is the result of a complex, dynamic interplay of various factors such as the local environment (including raw material), site function, tool function, resharpening and the individual knapper’s knowledge and skills. Secondly, several trends that are more restricted in time or space, or culture-specific, could be identified. The occurrence of the different bifacial concepts varies and three main assemblage groups exist. Moreover, these have distinct geographic dispersals and related to three macro-regional entities; the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) in the southwest, the Keilmessergruppen (KMG) in the northeast and the Mousterian with bifacial tools (MBT) in the centre. The extent of the MTA was widened and now includes assemblages from Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the MBT incorporates several previously defined regional entities whose validity could be refuted through a

13

wider reassessment of their defining criteria. This macro-regional MTA-KMG-MBT pattern adds a new dimension to debates on Mousterian lithic variability and cannot be explained merely by referring to differing local conditions. This research illustrated how specific tool concepts were applied in a specific region regardless of raw material, blank or function and can be seen as an expression of cultural variation. Culture is defined here as different traditions of social learning passed on from generation to generation. The strongest representation of this phenomenon can be seen in the MTA and KMG, which can be interpreted as two different cultural traditions. Conversely, based on the position of the MBT at the crossroads of the MTA and KMG entities, it is argued that this does not represent a third cultural entity. Rather it could be linked in with current understandings on Neanderthal population dynamics and seen as representing a border or transition zone where influences from both the south and east were absorbed. This study illustrates how groups of late Neanderthals had different cultural traditions, as expressed through the regionally restricted dominance of specific bifacial tool concepts. This is a clear illustration of regionalised cultural behaviour in the archaeological record. Moreover, it demonstrates how groups of Neanderthals migrated and interacted and how this is reflected in the archaeological record. While many aspects of lithic variability can be related to raw material, function and/or resharpening, it is clear that this is not the case for the large-scale patterns among the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools. This research highlights a higher degree of behavioural complexity among classic Neanderthals, with potential repercussions for our wider understanding of human evolutionary processes. This study is only a first step in coming to a better understanding of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability and its links to wider Neanderthal behaviour. Limitations currently include a lack of palaeoenvironmental and chronological data for many assemblages, especially in the crucial MBT region. The ability to recognise cultural signatures and population interactions in the Middle Palaeolithic record is also still in an early stage of development. Further work on existing late Middle Palaeolithic collections, in combination with new discoveries, will allow researchers to build up a more fine-grained picture of Neanderthal behaviour and hence the importance of collective culture and group interactions and migrations among late Neanderthal populations. It is hoped that this study will trigger a widening of the debate, incorporating lesser studied areas, and allow for a new glimpse into the interpretive potential of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools and its correlation with different aspects of Neanderthal and wider hominin behaviour. Acknowledgements This paper resulted from a Ph.D. project partly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) conducted at the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO, University of Southampton). I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. John McNabb, for his patient guidance and advice. This work has also benefited from fruitful discussion with Dr. Olaf Jöris, Dr. William Davies and Professor Clive Gamble. Various museums and institutes kindly offered me access to their collections: Musée National de Préhistoire (Les Eyzies), Musée d’Art et d’Archéologie du Périgord (Périgueux), Musée de l’Ancien Evêché (Evreux), Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-deFrance (Nemours), Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris), Université de Liège, KU Leuven, Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden (Leiden), Northamptonshire Archaeology, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Erlangen) and Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen Anhalt (Halle). Further, I owe thanks to Geoff Smith, Radu Iovita, the JHE editors and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on previous drafts.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

14

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Appendix A. Case study sites

Table A.1 General characteristics of the 14 case study sites. Site name

Region

Site type

Recovery

Position

Dating method

Date

Stratified Stratified Surface Stratified Stratified

Stratigraphy and AMS C14 Typology OSL and AMS C14 Stratigraphy and typology Stratigraphy and typology Stratigraphy and typology ESR

MIS 5-3 MIS 3 Unknown MIS 3 MIS 5-3

KMG KMG Other British MTA Other

22 157 24 57 45

MIS 5-3

21

MIS 5

Mousterian with small bifaces Brittany MTA

58

MIS 3

Other

32

MIS 5-3 MIS 5-3

Stratified Stratified

Stratigraphy Not yet published

MIS 5-3 MIS 3

Mousterian with small bifaces Northern French MTA Other Classic MTA

215

Stratified

Stratigraphy and typology Stratigraphy

30 191

Stratified Stratified

TL and ESR AMS C14 and ESR

MIS 3 MIS 3

Classic MTA Classic MTA

323 101

Total

1303

Königsaue Sesselfelsgrotte Sint-Geertruid Lynford Grotte du Docteur

Northern Germany Southern Germany The Netherlands Southern Britain Southern Belgium

Open-air Cave Open-air Open-air Cave

Oosthoven

Northern Belgium

Open-air

Excavated 1963e64 Excavated 1964e81 Collected since 1930’s Excavated 2002 Excavated 1886, 1970s and 1998 Excavated 1993

Bois-du-Rocher

Western France

Open-air

Collected since 1870s

Surface

Champlost

Northeast France

Open-air

Stratified

St-Julien de la Liègue

Western France

Open-air

St-Just-en-Chaussée

Northern France

Open-air

Abri du Musée Abri Peyrony

Southwest France Southwest France

Rock shelter Rock shelter

Le Moustier Pech de l’Azé I

Southwest France Southwest France

Rock shelter Cave

Collected since 20th C, excavated 1982e1992 Collected since end of 19th century Excavated in 1940s, 1950s and 1976 Excavated 1991 Excavated in 1925, 1990, 2009 and 2010 Excavated 1910-1973 Excavated 1930, 1950, 1970 and 2004e2005

Stratified

Surface

Entity

Sample size

27

Table A.2 Characteristics of the lithic assemblages of the 14 case study sites. Region

Site

Layer

Fauna Mammoth, reindeer, horse, bison Mammoth, reindeer, horse e Pin hole MAZ

Environment

Dominant raw material

Assemblage size

Flaking methods

Steppe

Flint, quartzite

1492

Steppe

Chert

85,000

e Cool, grass steppe Temperate

Flint Flint

>2000 2700

Levallois, discoidal, laminar Levallois, discoidal, laminar Levallois, discoidal Irregular

Flint

230

Levallois, discoidal

Flake tools

Germany

Königsaue

A

Germany

Sesselfelsgrotte

G

Netherlands Britain

Sint-Geertruid Lynford

Surface e

Belgium

Grotte du Docteur

e

Horse, rhinoceros, bovid, mammoth

Belgium

Oosthoven

e

e

Moderate

Flint

107

N. France

Bois-du-Rocher

Surface

e

e

Glossy sandstone

5645

Levallois, discoidal, laminar Levallois (rare), discoidal, laminar

N. France N. France N. France S. France

Champlost St-Julien de la Liègue St-Just-en-Chaussée Abri du Musée

e e Upper VIII

e e e Cold, open

Flint Flint Flint Flint

2000 >10,000 ca. 350 >1000

Levallois Levallois, discoidal Levallois Levallois, discoidal

S. France

Abri Peyrony

e

e

Flint

>2000

Levallois, discoidal

Scrapers, backed knives

S. France

Le Moustier

G

Mixed

Flint

>4500

S. France

Pech de l’Azé I

4

Bovid, horse, cervid e e Mammoth, red deer, reindeer Bovids, horse, cervids Bovids, horse, reindeer Bison, red deer, roe deer, reindeer

Scrapers, notches, denticulates Quina and end scrapers Scrapers, notches, denticulates Scrapers, points, notches, denticulates Scrapers, point, denticulate Scrapers, notches, denticulates, end scrapers, burins, piercers Scrapers, points Scrapers, notches Scrapers Scrapers

Forested

Flint

32,740

Levallois, discoidal, laminar Levallois, laminar

Scrapers, backed knives, notches, denticulates Scrapers, backed knives

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

15

Appendix B. Comparison sites

Table B.1 General site characteristics and characteristics of the lithic assemblages of the 67 comparison sites. Region

Site name

Site type

Layer 2/0 Mitte

Date

Germany Germany

Neumark-Nord Open-air Schulerloch Cave

Germany

Klausennische

Rock shelter C

Germany

Schambach

Cave

C

Germany Germany

Open-air Open-air

e e

Germany

Lichtenberg SalzgitterLebenstedt Bockstein

Cave

III

Germany Germany Germany

Rörshain Wahlen Buhlen

Open-air Open-air Open-air

e e IIIB

Germany

Balve

Cave

II-Iva

Germany Lenderscheid Germany Rheindahlen Netherlands Assen

Open-air Open-air Open-air

Netherlands MeschMescherheide Belgium Snauwenberg Belgium Kesselt

Open-air

e A3 Surface, stratified Surface MIS 5-3

Open-air Open-air

e e

Belgium

SainteWalburge

Open-air

e

Belgium

Ramioul

Cave

e

Belgium

Grotte de l’Hermitage

Cave

e

Belgium

Sclayn

Cave

Ia

Belgium

Goyet

Cave

e

Belgium

Trou Magrite

Cave

Belgium Belgium

Rotselaar Spy

Belgium

Ottenburg

Fauna

MIS 5c MIS 3

Bovid, horse, deer Cave bear, reindeer, horse, rhinoceros, mammoth MIS 5-3 Mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, horse MIS 5-3 Mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer MIS 3 e MIS 3 Mammoth, reindeer, horse, bison MIS 5-3 Reindeer, horse, woolly rhinoceros, cave bear, red deer MIS 5-3 e Unknown e MIS 5a Mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer

Environment

Dominant raw material

Assemblage size

Flaking methods

Flake tools

Temperate Cool

Flint Chert

8103 415

Levallois, irregular Levallois, irregular

Scrapers Scrapers

Cool

Chert

>300

Irregular

Scrapers

Cool

Chert

1500

Levallois, irregular

Scrapers

e Steppe

Flint Flint

405 4200

Levallois Levallois

e

Chert

2791

Levallois, irregular

Scrapers Scrapers, notches Scrapers and points

e e Boreal forest with grass steppe Steppe

Quartzite Quartzite Chert

50,000 e e

Discoidal Levallois, discoidal Levallois

Chert

53,000

Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers laminar

e e e

Quartzite Flint Flint

>1000 e >200

Levallois, discoidal Laminar Levallois

Scrapers e None

e

Flint

e

Levallois

e

Unknown e MIS 4/3 Woolly rhinoceros, horse, deer, bison Unknown e

e Cool

Flint Flint

1000 700

e

Flint

8000

Unknown Cave bear, mammoth, rhinoceros, horse Unknown Horse, aurochs, hyena, rhinoceros, mammoth MIS-3 e

Cool

Flint

>200

Cool

Flint

2247

Levallois, discoidal e Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers laminar Levallois, laminar Scrapers, points, backed knives Levallois Scrapers, notches, denticulates Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers irregular and points

e

Flint

e

Unknown Cave bear, lion, hyena

e

Flint

>3000

e

Unknown Mammoth and rhinoceros

Cool

Flint, phtanite, chert, quartzite

>2000

Open-air Cave

Surface e

Flint Flint

180 >2500

Open-air

Surface

Unknown e e e MIS 5-3 Mammoth, rhinoceros, horse, auroch, hyena Unknown e e

Flint

e

MIS 3

Mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bovid, deer, horse, cave bear, cave hyena Unknown e MIS 4/3 e MIS 5-3 e e

Scrapers Scrapers Scrapers

Levallois, laminar

Scrapers, backed knives, notches, denticulates Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers, irregular limaces, points, raclettes irregular, discoidal Scrapers, points, backed knives, notches, denticulates Levallois, laminar Scrapers Irregular, discoidal Scrapers and points Levallois

e (continued on next page)

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

16

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Table B.1 (continued ) Region

Site name

Site type

Layer

Date

Fauna

Environment

Dominant raw material

Assemblage size

Flaking methods

Flake tools

Belgium Belgium

Franquenies Couvin

Open-air Cave

e

MIS 5a/4 MIS-3

e Bovids, horse

e Temperate

Phtanite Flint

>1000 e

Levallois Laminar

Belgium

VollezeleCongoberg

Open-air

e

MIS-5

Bovids, horse

e

Flint

>1000

Levallois, discoidal, laminar

Belgium

Aalter Nieuwendam Aalter Hageland

Open-air

Surface

MIS 5-3

e

e

Flint

300

Levallois, discoidal

Open-air

Surface

MIS 5-3

e

e

Flint

300

Levallois, discoidal

Belgium

Kemmelberg

Open-air

Surface, MIS 5-3 stratified

e

e

Flint

?

Britain

Oldbury

Open-air

e

MIS 5-3

Unknown

Unknown

Flint

>500

Britain

Little Paxton

Open-air

e

MIS-3

Pin hole mammal assemblage zone (MAZ)

Cool, grass steppe

Flint

236

Britain

Robin Hood Cave

Cave

MIS-3

Pin hole MAZ

Cool, grass steppe

Quartzite, ironstone, flint

500

Britain

Hyaena Den

Cave

Lower cave earth Cave earth

MIS-3

Pin hole MAZ

cool, grass steppe

Flint, greensand >41 chert

Britain

Kent’s cavern

Cave

MIS-3

Pin hole MAZ

Cool, grass steppe

Flint, greensand 1400 chert

Britain

Coygan Cave

Cave

Loamy cave earth e

MIS-3

Pin hole MAZ

Igneous rocks

5

e

e

N. France

St-Amandles-Eaux Marcoing Hamel Mont de Beuvry Catigny

Open-air

e

MIS-3

e

Cool, grass steppe e

Flint

10,000

e

e

Open-air Open-air Open-air

Surface e Surface

MIS-5 e MIS 5-3 e Unknown e

e e e

Flint Flint Flint

324 451 11

e Levallois, discoidal e

e Scrapers e

Open-air

e

MIS 5 (?)

e

e

Flint

623

Levallois, discoidal

Open-air

e

MIS 3

e

e

Flint

100,000

Levallois

Scrapers, backed knives, notches, denticulates Scrapers

Cave

VIII

Unknown e

e

Chert and flint

270

Levallois, discoidal

Scrapers Scrapers and points Scrapers, denticulates, burins Scrapers, points, notches, denticulates Scrapers, point Scrapers, denticulates, point, backed knives

Belgium

N. France N. France N. France N. France

N. France

Scrapers, backed knives, limaces Levallois, discoidal Side scrapers, points, knives, denticulates and notches Discoidal Scrapers, nat backed knives, notches, denticulates Laminar, discoidal Scrapers, denticulate, nat backed knives Discoidal, irregualr Scrapers, denticulates, notches Irregular Scrapers, notches, denticulates Levallois Scrapers

Open-air

e

MIS-3

e

e

Flint

>400

Levallois

E. France

St-Brice-sousRânes La Baume de Gigny Pont-desPlanches Vantoux B

Open-air

e

Unknown e

e

Flint

>2000

Levallois, laminar, discoidal

E. France

Germolles

Cave

e

Unknown e

e

Flint

e

Levallois, discoidal

E. France

VilleneuveOpen-air l’Archevêque C Open-air Molinons

C

MIS-5

e

e

Flint

130

Levallois, irregular

A site Est

MIS-5

e

e

Flint

423

Levallois

E. France E. France

E. France

Scrapers Unifacial leaf points Scrapers, points, notches, denticulates, nat backed knives Scrapers

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

17

Table B.1 (continued ) Region

Site name

Site type

Layer

Date

Fauna

Environment

Dominant raw material

Assemblage size

Flaking methods

Flake tools

E. France

Lailly

Open-air

I

MIS 4/3

e

e

Flint

3616

Levallois

E. France

Petit Nareye

Open-air

e

Unknown e

e

>1000

Levallois, discoidal

W. France W. France W. France

Bons-Tassilly Open-air Montbert Open-air Bois-du-Rocher Open-air

e Surface Surface

MIS 5-3 MIS 5-3 MIS-5

e e e

e e e

Flint and quartzite Flint Quartzite Glossy sandstone

>1000 230 5645

Levallois Levallois, laminar Levallois (rare), discoidal, laminar

W. France

Clos Rouge

Open-air

e

MIS-5

e

e

e

Levallois (rare)

W. France

Rock shelter e

MIS-3

e

e

e

Levallois (rare)

e

Rock shelter e

MIS-4

e

e

e

Levallois (rare)

e

W. France

Traou-anArcouest Karreg-arYellan Kervouster

open-air

e

MIS 4/3

e

e

3421

Levallois (rare)

e

S. France

Croix-Guénard

Open-air

Surface

Unknown e

e

Glossy sandstone Microgranite, flint Microgranite, flint Glossy sandstone Flint

Scrapers e Scrapers, notches, denticulates, end scrapers, burins, piercers Scrapers

>2000

S. France

Fontmaure

Open-air

e

Unknown e

e

Flint

e

S. France

Grotte XVI

Cave

e

MIS-3

Flint

2500

S. France

La Rochette

Rock shelter 7

MIS 3

Reindeer, red deer, e horse, bovids Reindeer and bovids e

Discoidal, irregular, Notches, Levallois denticulates, scrapers Irregular, laminar Points, scrapers, notches Levallois Scrapers

Flint

3500

Discoidal, laminar, Levallois

S. France

Fonseigner

Open-air

MIS-3

Bovids, mammoth, roe deer, reindeer

_

Flint

2067

Levallois

S. France

La Quina

Rock shelter 6d

MIS-3

Flint

588

Levallois, discoidal

S. France

Grotte Marcel Clouet

Cave

MIS-4

Bovids, horse, e reindeer, red deer Horse, bovid, hyena, e cervids

Flint

175

Levallois, discoidal

S. France

Jonzac

Rock shelter 7

MIS-3

Bovids, horse, reindeer

Temperate, forested

Flint

>1000

Levallois, discoidal

S. France

Basté

Open-air

Unknown e

e

Flint

e

e

W. France

Dsup

5&4

4

Scrapers, points, backed knives Scrapers

Backed knives, scrapers, denticulates Scrapers, notches, denticulates Scrapers Scrapers, points, backed knives Scrapers, denticulates, notches, end scrapers e

Table B.2 Characteristics of the bifacial tools from 67 Late Middle Palaeolithic comparison sites. In many site reports exact numbers are not given for the different types of bifacial tools. Therefore for comparison purposes the occurrence of bifacial tools was divided into four categories: absent (blank), low (<15%), medium (15e50%) and high (>50%). Site name Neumark-Nord 2/0 Schulerloch Klausennische Schambach C Lichtenberg Salzgitter-Lebenstedt Bockstein Rörshain Wahlen Buhlen III Balve III Lenderscheid Rheindahlen Assen

Lat.

Long.

Region

51.34 48.93 48.93 48.88 52.99 52.16 48.52 50.94 50.76 51.19 51.34 50.09 51.15 52.99

11.89 11.82 11.78 11.19 11.12 10.34 10.16 9.26 9.11 9.08 7.87 6.81 6.36 6.56

Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Netherlands

n 90 29 180 60 45 67 375 ? ? 182 74 ? ? >30

Classic

Backed

Leafshaped

low

high med med low med low high med med high med med med

low med med med

low low low low low med low low med low high

med med high high low med low

Partial med low low low low low low low low low med

Bif. Scraper med low med med med med med med low med low

Reference(s) Jurkenas et al., 2006 Beck, 2007 Bosinski, 1967 Rieder, 1992 Veil et al., 1994 Pastoors, 2001 Wetzel and Bosinski, 1969 Fiedler, 1994 Fiedler, 1994 Jöris, 2001 Jöris, 1992, 1993 Luttropp, 1976 Thissen, 2006 Niekus et al., 2011 (continued on next page)

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

18

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Table B.2 (continued ) Site name Mesch-Mescherheide Snauwenberg Kesselt Sainte-Walburge Ramioul Grotte de l’Hermitage Sclayn Ia Goyet Trou Magrite Rotselaar Spy Ottenburg Franquenies Couvin Vollezele-Congoberg Aalter Nieuwendam Aalter Hageland Kemmelberg Oldbury Little Paxton Robin Hood Cave Hyaena Den Kent’s cavern Coygan Cave St-Amand-les-Eaux Marcoing Hamel Mont de Beuvry Catigny St-Brice-sous-Rânes La Baume de Gigny Pont-des-Planches Vantoux B Germolles Villeneuve-l’Archevêque C Molinons Lailly Petit Nareye Bons-Tassilly Montbert Bois-du-Rocher Clos Rouge Traou-an-Arcouest Karreg-ar-Yellan Kervouster Croix-Guénard Fontmaure Grotte XVI La Rochette Fonseigner La Quina Grotte Marcel Clouet Jonzac Basté

Lat.

Long.

Region

n

50.76 50.76 50.84 50.66 50.58 50.54 50.49 50.45 50.22 50.95 50.48 50.75 50.66 50.05 50.77 51.10 51.08 50.78 51.29 52.25 53.26 51.23 50.47 51.77 50.45 50.12 50.28 50.53 49.66 48.68 46.45 47.54 47.43 46.81 48.23 48.23 48.25 43.87 48.96 47.07 48.48 48.48 48.82 48.80 48.04 46.56 46.92 44.80 45.00 45.32 45.51 45.69 45.45 43.47

5.73 5.78 5.63 5.56 5.43 5.19 5.03 5.01 4.91 4.72 4.67 4.61 4.57 4.49 4.01 3.42 3.40 2.81 0.27 0.27 1.19 2.67 3.50 4.47 3.43 3.17 3.08 2.64 2.49 0.19 5.46 5.93 5.85 4.75 3.56 3.54 3.51 1.98 0.23 1.49 1.96 1.97 3.01 3.03 4.20 0.37 0.51 1.16 1.07 0.58 0.29 0.36 0.42 1.45

Netherlands Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain N. France N. France N. France N. France N. France N. France E. France E. France E. France E. France E. France E. France E. France E. France W. France W. France W. France W. France W. France W. France W. France S. France S. France S. France S. France S. France S. France S. France S. France S. France

? >20 6 >20 15 84 2 48 44 8 78 >5 >3 7 5 7 17 >5 13 7 8 4 >7 3 ca. 60 39 15 11 28 >200 7 200 >8 52 16 5 12 13 >50 59 1,926 >35 ? ? 41 407 747 19 235 7 ? 5 >10 19

Classic

Backed

Leafshaped

Partial

high low high high low med high high high high high med high

med med

low

low

low med med

med med med low

low low

low

low low

med

med med med med high

med low med med high high high high high high high high high

Bif. Scraper

low

low low low med

high high

high high med low high med high high high high high med high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

References Aiello, L.C., Dunbar, R.I.M., 1993. Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language. Curr. Anthropol. 34, 184e193. Aldhouse-Green, S., Scott, K., Schwarcz, H., Grün, R., Housley, R., Rae, A., Bevins, R., Redknap, M., 1995. Coygan Cave, Laugharne, South Wales, a Mousterian site and hyena den; a report on the University of Cambridge excavations. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 61, 37e79. Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: functional analysis of stone tools from Southwest France. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, an Archaeological Perspective. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389e418. Barham, L.S., 2001. Central Africa and the emergence of regional identity in the Middle Pleistocene. In: Barham, L., Robson-Brown, K. (Eds.), Human Roots, Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene. Western Academic and Specialist Press, Bristol, pp. 65e80. Barton, C.M., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2012. Agents of change: Modeling biocultural evolution in Upper Pleistocene Western Eurasia. Adv. Complex Syst. 15, 1e24.

low med med low med med med

med low low low low

med med

low med med low low med low low low low low low low

med low low low low low

Reference(s) Kolen et al., 1999 Kolen et al., 1999 Lauwers and Meijs, 1985 Ulrix-Closset, 1975 Ulrix-Closset, 1975 Ulrix-Closset, 1975 Otte et al., 1998 Toussaint et al., 1998 Ulrix-Closset, 1975 Van Peer, 1982 Ulrix-Closset, 1975 Van Peer, 1986 Michel and Haesaerts, 1975 Pirson et al., 2009 Vynckier et al., 1986 Crombé and Van der Haegen, 1994 Crombé and Van der Haegen, 1994 Crombé and Van der Haegen, 1994 Cook and Jacobi, 1998 Tebutt et al., 1927 Coulson, 1990 Tratman et al., 1971 Campbell and Sampson, 1971 Aldhouse-Green et al., 1995 Deschodt et al., 2006 Tuffreau, 1971 Tuffreau, 1971 Marcy, 1991 Tuffreau, 1976 Cliquet et al., 2009 Campy et al., 1989 Lamotte et al., 2012 Lamotte et al., 2008 Frick, 2010 Depaepe, 2007 Depaepe, 2007 Depaepe, 2007 Tavoso, 1976 Cliquet et al., 2001 Gouraud and Tessier, 1990 Molines et al., 2001 Molines et al., 2001 Molines et al., 2001 Monnier, 1990 Molines et al., 2001 Ricard, 1980 Ricard, 1980 Kervazo and Texier, 2006 Soressi, 2002 Geneste, 1985 Debénath and Jelinek, 1998 Matilla and Debénath, 2003 Jaubert et al., 2008 Chauchat and Thibault, 1968

Beck, M., 2007. Die Steinartefakte aus dem Großen Schulerloch (Grabung Birkner 1915). Ph.D. Dissertation. In: Zur Rekonstruktion von Inventaren sowie zur Frage der kulturellen und chronologischen Einordnung eines alt gegrabenen Fundmaterials auf der Basis archäologischer Methoden. University of Erlangen. Benson, A., Kinsley, L., Willmes, M., Defleur, A., Kokkonen, H., Mussie, M., Grün, R., 2013. Laser ablation depth profiling of U-series and Sr isotopes in human fossils. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 2991e3000. Binford, L.R., 1973. Interassemblage variability e the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Cultural Change, Models in Prehistory. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 227e255. Birdsell, J.B., 1967. Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gatherers. In: Lee, R.B., De Vore, I. (Eds.), Man the Hunter. Transaction Publishers, Chicago, pp. 229e240. Boëda, E., 1997. Technogénèse de Systèmes de Production au Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen en Europe Occidentale et au Proche-Orient à Diriger des Recherches. Université de Paris X, Nanterre. Boesch, C., 2003. Is culture a golden barrier between human and chimpanzee? Evol. Anthropol. 12, 82e91.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22 Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Tuffreau, A., 2009. Technological responses of Neanderthals to macroclimatic variations (240,000-40,000 BP). Hum. Biol. 81, 287e307. Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F., 2012. Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage, London. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen vol. Mémoire 1. Delmas, Bordeaux. Bordes, F., 1973. On the chronology and contemporaneity of different Palaeolithic cultures in France. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Cultural Change, Models in Prehistory. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 217e227. Bosinski, G., 1967. Die Mittelpaläolithischen Funde im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. In: Fundamenta A/4. Böhlau-Verlag, Köln. Bourdin, S., 2006. Le Moustérien à outils bifaciaux du Massif armoricain au Pléistocène récent dans son contexte européen: vers la définition d’un faciès régional. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Rennes. Bourguignon, L., 1992. Analyse du processus opératoire des coups de tranchet lateraux dans l’industrie Mousterienne de l’Abri du Musée (Les Eyzies de Tayac, Dordogne). Paléo 4, 69e89. Bourguignon, L., Vieillevigne, E., Guibert, P., Bechtel, F., Beyries, S., Émery-Bariber, A., Deloze, V., Delahaye, C., Sellami, F., Sellier-Segard, N., 2006. Compléments d’informations chronologiques sur le campement moustérien de tradition acheuléenne du gisement de la Folie (Poitiers, Vienne). Paléo 18, 37e44. Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J., 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bradtmöller, M., Pastoors, A., Weninger, B., Weniger, G.-C., 2012. The repeated replacement model e rapid climate change and population dynamics in Late Pleistocene Europe. Quat. Int. 247, 38e49. Brenet, M., Folgado, M., Lenoble, A., Bertran, P., Vieillevigne, E., Guibert, P., 2008. Interprétation de la variabilité technologique de deux industries du Paléolithique moyen ancien du Bergeracois: Cantalouette 1 et Combe Brune 3 (Creysse, Dordogne). Mém. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 47, 57e81. Briggs, A.W., Good, J.M., Green, R.E., Krause, J., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Lalueza-Fox, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovi
c, D., Ku
can, Z., Gusi
c, I., Schmitz, R., Doronichev, L.V., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., Pääbo, S., 2009. Targeted retrieval and analysis of five Neandertal mtDNA genomes. Science 325, 318e321. Burdukiewicz, J.M., 2000. The backed biface assemblages of East Central Europe. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans: the Yabrudian and Micoquian 400e50 K-years, B.A.R. International Series 850, pp. 189e207. Oxford. Byers, A.M., 1999. Communication and material culture: Pleistocene tools as action cues. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 9, 23e41. Campbell, J.B., Sampson, C.G., 1971. A New Analysis of Kent’s Cavern, Devonshire, England. University of Oregon, Eugene. Campy, M., Chaline, J., Vuillemey, M., 1989. Les Rongeurs: leurs significations paléoécologiques et paléoclimatiques in La Baume de Gigny (Jura). Gallia Préhist. 27 (Suppl.), 97e109. Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Condemi, S., Longo, L., Milani, L., Manfredini, A., de Saint Pierre, M., Adoni, F., Lari, M., Giunti, P., Ricci, S., Casoli, A., Calafell, F., Mallegni, F., Bertranpetit, J., Stanyon, R., Bertorelle, G., Barbujani, G., 2006. A highly divergent mtDNA sequence in a Neandertal individual from Italy. Curr. Biol. 16, R630eR632. Chauchat, C., Thibault, C., 1968. La station de plein air du Basté à Saint Pierre d’Irube (Basses-Pyrénées), géologie, étude archéologique préliminaire. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 65, 295e318. Clark, G.A., 2005. Modern approaches to Paleolithic archaeology in Europe e a sampler of research traditions. Am. Antiq. 70, 376e399. Clark, G.A., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2006. Observations on systematics in Paleolithic archaeology. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition. Evolution and Stability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 29e56. Clark, J.D., 1994. The Acheulian industrial complex in Africa and elsewhere. In: Corruccini, R.S., Ciochon, R.L. (Eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 451e469. Claud, E., 2008. Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléolithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Ph.D. Dissertation. In: Étude tracéologique intégrée des outillages des sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et Chez-Pinaud/Jonzac. University of Bordeaux I. Claud, E., 2012. Les bifaces: des outils polyfonctionnels? Étude tracéologique intégrée de bifaces du Paléolithique moyen récent du Sud-Ouest de la France. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 109, 413e439. Cliquet, D. (Ed.), 2001. Les Industries à Outils Bifaciaux du Paléolithique Moyen d’Europe Occidentale. ERAUL 98. Université de Liège, Liège. Cliquet, D., Ladjadj, J., Lautridou, J.-P., Leportier, J., Lorren, P., Michel, D., Pruvost, P., Rivard, J.-J., Vilgrain, G., 2001. Le Paléolithique moyen à outils bifaciaux en Normandie: état de connaissances. In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les Industries à Outils Bifaciaux du Paléolithique Moyen d’Europe Occidentale, ERAUL 98. Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 115e127. Cliquet, D., Mercier, N., Lautridou, J.-P., Alix, P., Beugnier, V., Bianchini, R., Caspar, J.P., Coutard, S., Lasseur, E., Lorren, P., Gosselin, R., Rivard, J.-J., Valladas, H., 2009. Un atelier de production et de consommation d’outils bifaciaux de la fin du Paléolithique moyen à Saint-Brice-sous-Rânes (Orne, France) dans son contexte environnemental. Quaternaire 20, 361e379. Conard, N.J. (Ed.), 2006. When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.

19

Conard, N.J., Fischer, B., 2000. Are there recognisable cultural entities in the German Middle Palaeolithic? In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans: the Yabrudian and Micoquian 400-50 K-years, B.A.R. International Series 850, pp. 7e24. Oxford. Cook, J., Jacobi, R., 1998. Discoidal core technology in the Palaeolithic at Oldbury, Kent. In: Ashton, N. (Ed.), Stone Age Archaeology. Essays in Honour of John Wymer, Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper 6, pp. 124e136. Coudenneau, A., 2005. Analyse Fonctionnelle des Pièces à Coup de Tranchet Latéral au Paléolithique Moyen. Les Exemples de l’Abri du Musée (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne) et de la Baume de Gigny (Gigny, Jura). In: Mémoire de DEA. Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Coulson, S., 1990. Middle Palaeolithic Industries of Great Britain. Holos, Bonn. Crombé, P., Van der Haegen, G., 1994. Het Midden-Paleolithicum in noordwestelijk België. In: Buitengewone Reeks 3. Archeologische Inventaris Vlaanderen, Gent. Dalen, L., Orlando, L., Shaprio, B., Brandström-Durling, M., Quam, R., Gilbert, M.T.P., Fernández-Lomana, J.C.D., Willerslev, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Götherström, A., 2012. Partial genetic turnover in Neandertals: continuity in the east and population replacement in the west. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 1e5. Davidson, I., 2002. The finished artefact fallacy: Acheulian hand-Axes and language origins. In: Wray, A. (Ed.), Transitions to Language, Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 180e203. Davidson, I., Noble, W., 1993. Tools and language in human evolution. In: Gibson, K., Ingold, T. (Eds.), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 363e388. Davies, W., 2012. Climate, creativity and competition: evaluating the Neanderthal ‘glass ceiling’. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 103e128. Debénath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. In: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe, vol. 1. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Debénath, A., Jelinek, A., 1998. Nouvelles fouilles à La Quina (Charente). Résultats préliminaires. Gallia Préhist 40, 29e74. Deeben, J., Drenth, E., van Oorsouw, M.-F., Verhart, L., 2005. De Steentijd van Nederland. In: Archeologie 11/12. Stichting Archeologie, Krips Repro, Meppel. Delagnes, A., Rendu, W., 2011. Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and subsistence strategies in western France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1771e1783. Depaepe, P., 2007. Le Paléolithique Moyen de la Vallée de la Vanne (Yonne, France): Matières Premières, Industries Lithiques et Occupations Humaines. In: Mém. Soc. Préhist. Fr, vol. 41. Société Préhistorique Française, Les Eyzies. d’Errico, F., Soressi, M., 2002. Systematic use of manganese pigment by Pech-del’Azé Neandertals: Implications for the origin of behavioral modernity. J. Hum. Evol. 42, A13. d’Errico, F., Soressi, M., 2006. Des hommes en couleurs. Les Dossiers de la Recherche 24, 84e87. Deschamps, M., 2010. Le Vasconien: Révision de sa signification à partir des industries lithiques d’Olha I et II, d’Isturitz et de Gatzaria. Paléo 21, 103e126. Deschamps, M., Mourre, V., 2012. Le Vasconien, un demi-siècle après sa définition par François Bordes. In: Delpech, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), François Bordes et la Préhistoire, Documents Préhistoriques, vol. 29, pp. 269e279. Bordeaux. Deschodt, L., Feray, P., Vallin, L., 2006. Saint-Amand- les-Eaux (59) «Bas du Mont des Bruyères» (Rapport de Diagnostic Archéologique). Detrain, L., Kervazo, B., Aubry, T., Bourguignon, L., Guadelli, J.L., Marcon, V., Theillet, Ph, 1991. Agrandissement du Musée National de Préhistoire des Eyzies: résultats préliminaires des fouilles de sauvetage. Paléo 3, 75e91. Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. Am. Antiq. 52, 109e117. Dibble, H.L., 1991. Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, vol. 19. University of Kansas, Kansas, pp. 33e47. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Raw material availability, intensity of utilization and Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability. In: Dibble, H.L., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic Site of Combe-capelle Bas (France). University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 289e315. Dibble, H.L., Rolland, N., 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of Western Europe. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P.A. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1e28. Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.J.P., Chase, P.G., Farrand, W.R., Debénath, A., 2006. Taphonomy and the concept of Paleolithic cultures: the case of the Tayacian from Fontéchevade. Paleoanthropology, 1e21. Donahue, R.E., Evans, A.A., 2012. Microwear analysis of the flint artefacts: tool use. In: Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F. (Eds.), Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage, London, pp. 261e273. Dusseldorp, G., 2008. A View to a Kill: Investigating Middle Palaeolithic Subsistence Using an Optimal Foraging Perspective. Sidestone Press, Leiden. Emery, K., 2009. A Re-examination of Variability in the Handaxe Form in the British Palaeolithic. Ph.D. Dissertation. University College London. Eriksson, A., Manica, A., 2012. Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 13956e13960.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

20

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Fabre, V., Condemi, S., Degioanni, A., 2009. Genetic evidence of geographical groups among Neanderthals. Plos One 4, e5151. Féblot-Augustins, J.J., 1993. Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of central Europe and Western Europe: elements of stability and variability. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 12, 211e265. Féblot-Augustins, J.J., 1999. Raw material transport patterns and settlement systems in the European Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: continuity, change and variability. In: Roebroeks, W., Gamble, C. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 193e214. Féblot-Augustins, J.J., 2008. Palaeolithic raw material provenance studies. In: Pearsall, D.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Elsevier, San Diego, pp. 1187e 1198. Féblot-Augustins, J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers: the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm? In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 25e46. Fiedler, L., 1994. Alt- und mittelsteinzeitliche Funde in Hessen. In: Führer zur Hessischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vol. 2 (Stuttgart). Flas, D., 2008. Le Transition du Paléolithique Moyen au Supérieur dans la Plaine Septentrionale de l’Europe. In: Anthropologica et Praehistorica, vol. 119. Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire, Brussels. Flas, D., 2011. Les pointes foliacées et les changements techniques autour de la transition du Paléolithique moyen au supérieur dans le Nord-Ouest de l’Europe. In: Toussaint, M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Paléolithique Moyen en Belgique. Mélanges Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128. University of Liège, Liège, pp. 261e276. Floss, H., 1994. Rohmaterialversorgung im Paläolithikum des Mittelreingebietes. In: Monographien des RGZM, vol. 21 (Neuwied). Frick, J.A., 2010. Les outils du Néandertal: Technologische und typologische Aspekte mittelpaläolithischer Steinartefakte, am Beispiel der Grotte de la Verpillière I in Germolles, Commune de Mellecey, Saône-et-Loire (71), Frankreich. M.A. Dissertation. University of Tübingen. Frison, G., 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. Am. Antiq. 33, 149e155. Gamble, C., 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gaudzinski, S., Roebroeks, W., 2000. Adults only. Reindeer hunting at the Middle Palaeolithic site Salzgitter Lebenstedt, Northern Germany. J. Hum. Evol. 38, 497e521. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Kindler, L., 2012. Research perspectives for the study of Neanderthal subsistence strategies based on the analysis of archaezoological assemblages. Quat. Int. 247, 59e68. Geneste, J.-M., 1985. Analyse d’industries Moustériennes du Périgord: une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique moyen. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Bordeaux. Gouédo, J.-M., 1999. Le technocomplexe Micoquien en Europe de l’Ouest et Centrale; exemples de trois gisements du sud-est du Bassin Parisien, Vinneuf et Champlost (Yonne), Verrieres-le-Buisson (Essonne). Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Lille. Gouraud, G., Tessier, M., 1990. Le site paléolithique moyen de la Brenière à Montbert (Loire-Atlantique). Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest 7, 9e21. Goval, E., 2008. Définitions, analyses et caractérisations des territoires des Néandertaliens au Weichselien ancien en France septentrionale. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Lille. Green, R.E., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N., Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M.H.-Y., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y., Malaspinas, A.-S., Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A., Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., Höber, B., Höffner, B., Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, C., Lander, E.S., Russ, C., Novod, N.,  Gusic, I., Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, C., Rudan, C., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W., Johnson, P.L.F., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E., Mullikin, J.C., Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., Pääbo, S., 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328, 710e722. Haidle, M.N., Conard, N.J., 2011. The nature of culture. In: Synthesis of an Interdisciplinary Symposium Held in Tübingen, Germany, 15e18 June 2011. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, vol. 20, pp. 65e78. Hawks, J., 2008. From genes to numbers: effective population sizes in human evolution. In: Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Palaeodemography Data, Techniques, Patterns. Springer, New York, pp. 9e30. Hawks, J., 2012. Dynamics of genetic and morphological variability within Neanderthals. J. Anthropol. Sci. 90, 1e17. Hovers, E., Kuhn, S., 2006. Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York. Hublin, J.-J., 1998. Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evolution of the Neandertals. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Springer, New York, pp. 295e310. Hublin, J.-J., 2009. The origin of Neandertals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 16022e16027. Hublin, J.-J., Roebroeks, W., 2009. Ebb and flow or regional extinctions? On the character of Neanderthal occupation of Northern environments. C.R. Paleovol. 8, 503e509. Iovita, R.P., 2008. Ontogenetic Scaling in Stone Tools and Its Application to European Middle Palaeolithic Systematics. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Iovita, R.P., 2009. Ontogenetic scaling and lithic systematics: method and application. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1447e1457.

Iovita, R.P., 2010. Quantifying and comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of Elliptical Fourier Analysis. In: Lycett, S., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 235e253. Iovita, R., McPherron, S.P., 2011. The Handaxe reloaded: a morphometric assessment of Acheuliean and Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 61e74. Jaubert, J., Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S., Soressi, M., Bordes, J.-G., Claud, E., Cochard, D., Delagnes, A., Mallye, J.-B., Michel, A., Niclot, M., Niven, L., Park, S.-J., Rendu, W., Richter, D., Roussel, M., Steele, T., Texier, J.-P., Thiébaut, C., 2008. Paléolithique Moyen récent et Paléolithique Supérieur ancien à Jonzac (Charente-Maritime): premiers résultats des campagnes 2004-2006. In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les Sociétés Paléolithiques d’un Grand Sud-ouest: Nouveaux Gisements, Nouvelles Méthodes, Nouveaux Résultats, Mém. Soc. Préhist. Fr, vol. 47. Société Préhistorique Française, Les Eyzies, pp. 203e243. Jöris, O., 1992. Pradniktechnik im Micoquien der Balver Höhle. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22, 1e12. Jöris, O., 1993. Das Mittelpaläolithikum der Balver Höhle - Stratigraphie und Formenkunde. Archäologie im Ruhrgebiet 1, 65e84. Jöris, O., 2001. Der spätmittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen (Grabungen 1966e 69). In: Stratigraphie, Steinartefakte und Fauna des Oberen Fundplatzes, vol. 73. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn. Jöris, O., 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. In: Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europäischer Kontext, vol. 84, pp. 49e153. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission. Jöris, O., 2006. Bifacially backed knives (Keilmesser) in the central European Middle Palaeolithic. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 287e310. Jöris, O., 2012. Keilmesser. In: Floss, H. (Ed.), Steinartefakte: vom Altpaläolithikum bis in die Neuzeit. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 297e308. _ Jurkenas, D., Laurat, T., Brühl, E., 2006. Three archaeological find horizons from the time of the Neanderthals. Preliminary report of the excavations in the lake basin Neumark-Nord 2 (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany). Archaeol. Baltica 7, 209e 232. Kamilar, J.M., Marshack, J.L., 2011. Variation in chimpanzee ‘culture’ is predicted by local ecology, not geography. Biol. Lett.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2011.0376. Kamilar, J.M., Marshack, J.L., 2012. Does geography or ecology best explain ‘cultural’ variation among chimpanzee communities? J. Hum. Evol. 62, 256e260. Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. In: Prehistoric Archeology and Ecology Series. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kervazo, B., Texier, J.-P., 2006. La Grotte XVI. In: Texier, J.-P. (Ed.), Sédimentogenèse de Sites Préhistoriques Classiques du Périgord, Pôle International de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil, pp. 77e83. Klein, R.G., 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kobayashi, Y., Aoki, K., 2012. Innovativeness, population size, and cumulative cultural evolution. Theor. Popul. Biol. 82, 38e47. Koehler, H., 2011. Behavior and technological identity during the Middle Paleolithic: an issue of the scale of analysis? Examples from the Paris Basin (France) during the Early Weichselian. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 20, 13e 31. Kohn, M., Mithen, S., 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518e526. Kolen, J., De Loecker, D., Groenendijk, A.J., de Warrimont, J.P., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic surface scatter: how informative? A case study from Southern Limburg (the Netherlands). In: Roebroeks, W., Gamble, C. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 172e192. Koulakovskaya, L., Kozlowski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 1993. Les couteaux Micoquiens du Würm Ancien. Préhist. Européen 4, 9e32. Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology e an Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Kuhn, S.L., 2011. Neanderthal technoeconomics: an assessment and suggestions for future developments. In: Conard, N., Richter, J. (Eds.), Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology, 150 Years of Neanderthal Study (Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series). Springer, New York, pp. 99e110. Kuhn, S.L., 2012. Emergent patterns of creativity and innovation in early technologies. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 69e88. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M., 1998. The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy). Curr. Anthropol. 39, S175eS189. Lalueza-Fox, C., Rosas, A., Estalrrich, A., Gigli, E., Campos, P.F., García-Tabernero, A., García-Vargas, S., Sánchez-Quinto, F., Ramírez, O., Civit, S., Bastir, M., Huguet, R., Santamaría, D., Gilbert, M.T.P., Willerslev, E., de la Rasilla, M., 2010. Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 250e253. Lamotte, A., Huguenin, G., Willeman, G., Dupas, P., Pirot, J.-M., 2008. Les stations de plein air à outils foliacés dans l’Est de la France. Praehistoria 9-10, 115e124. Lamotte, A., Aubry, D., Debenham, N., Magniez, P., Le Mené, F., Galtier, F., 2012. Le gisement paléolithique de Pont-de-Planches (Haute-Saône, France): cadre paléoenvironnemental et datations des occupations du Paléolithique moyen et Paléolithique supérieur. Quaternaire 23, 291e308.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22 Langley, M.C., Clarkson, C., Ulm, S., 2008. Behavioural complexity in Eurasian Neanderthal populations: a chronological examination of the archaeological evidence. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 18, 289e307. Lauwers, R., Meijs, E., 1985. Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz in Kesselt (Prov. Limburg, Belgien). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 15, 123e129. Locht, J.-L., Goval, E., Antoine, P., 2010. Reconstructing Middle Palaeolithic hominid behaviour during OIS 5 in northern France. In: Conard, N., Delagnes, A. (Eds.), 2010. Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Volume III. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 329e356. Luncz, L.V., Mundry, R., Boesch, C., 2012. Evidence for cultural differences between neighboring chimpanzee communities. Curr. Biol. 22, 922e926. Luttropp, A., 1976. Das erste ‘Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne’ in Deutschland (Festschrift Hermann Schwabedissen. Kölner Jahrbuch fur Vor e und Uhrgeschichte 15, 43e45. Lycett, S.J., 2010. Cultural transmission, genetic models, and lithic variability: integrative analytical approaches. In: Lycett, S., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, New York, pp. 207e234. Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulian ‘tradition’. World Archaeol. 40, 295e315. Machin, A., 2009. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: a multi-factorial model. J. Soc. Archaeol. 9, 35e58. Mania, D., 1990. Auf den Spuren des Urmenschen. In: Die Funde von Bilzingsleben. Theiss, Stuttgart. Marcy, J.-L., 1991. Les Prondniks du Mont de Beuvry à Bethune (Pas-de-Calais). In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), 1991. Paléolithique et Mesolithique du Nord de la France: Nouvelles Recherches II, vol. 3. CERP, Paris, pp. 103e111. Matilla, K., Debénath, A., 2003. La grotte Marcel Clouet à Cognac (Charente). L’Anthropologie 107, 49e115. McBrearty, S., Brooks, A., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e563. McNabb, J., 2012. The importance of conveying visual information in Acheulean society. The background to the visual display hypothesis. Hum. Orig. 1, 1e23. McPherron, S.P., 1995. A re-examination of the British biface data. Lithics 16, 47e63. McPherron, S.P., 1999. Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line. Préhist. Européen 14, 9e32. McPherron, S.P., Talamo, S., Goldberg, P., Niven, L., Sandgathe, D., Richards, M.P., Richter, D., Turq, A., Dibble, H.L., 2012. Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Middle Paleolithic at Pech de l’Azé IV, France. J. Archaeolo. Sci. 39 (11), 3436e3442. Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., Bourguignon, L., 2009. Patterns of lithic material procurement and transformation during the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe. In: Adams, B. (Ed.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Chichester, pp. 15e24. Mellars, P.A., 1965. Sequence and development of Mousterian traditions in Southwestern France. Nature 205, 626e627. Mellars, P.A., 1986. A new chronology for the French Mousterian period. Nature 322, 410e411. Mellars, P.A., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: an Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Michel, J., Haesaerts, P., 1975. Le site Paléolithique de Franquenies. Helinium XV, 209e236. Migal, W., Urbanowski, M., 2006. Pradnik knives reused. Experimental approach. In: Wi
sniewski, T., P1onka, A., Burdukiewicz, J.M. (Eds.), The Stone. Technique and Technology. Uniwersytet Wrocawski, Warschau, pp. 73e89. Mithen, S., 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. Thames and Hudson, London. Molines, N., Hinguant, S., Monnier, J.-L., 2001. Le Paléolithique moyen à outils bifaciaux dans louest de la France: synthèse des données anciennes et rècentes. In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les Industries à Outils Bifaciaux du Paléolithique Moyen d’Europe Occidentale, ERAUL 98. Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 109e115. Moncel, M.-H., Deaujard, C., 2012. The variability of the Middle Palaeolithic on the right bank of the Middle Rhone Valley (Southeast France): technical traditions or functional choices? Quat. Int. 247, 103e124. Monnier, G.F., 2006. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization in Western Europe, an evaluation. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 709e744. Monnier, J.-L., 1990. Paléolithique moyen tardif et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Bretagne e Amon-Ar-Ross. In: Farizy, C. (Ed.), Paléolithique Moyen Récent et Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien en Europe, Mémoires du Musée de Pré- histoire d’Ile-de-France, vol. 3. Nemours, pp. 151e157. Niekus, M.J.L.T., Stapert, D., Beuker, J., Johansen, L., 2011. A new site of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition in the northern Netherlands. Quartär 58, 67e92. Noble, W., Davidson, I., 1996. Human Evolution, Language and the Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Otte, M., Patou-Mathis, M., Bonjean, D. (Eds.), 1998. Recherches aux Grottes de Sclayn. L’Archéologie, vol. 2. Université de Liège, Liège. ERAUL 79. Pastoors, A., 2001. Die mittelpaläolithische Freilandstation von SalzgitterLebenstedt: Genese der Fundstelle und Systematik der Steinbearbeitung. In: Salzgitter-Forschungen, 3. Salzgitter. Pettitt, P.B., 2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. Routledge, Abingdon. Peyrony, D., 1920. Le Moustérien et ses faciès. Comptes Rendus de I’Association Française pour I’Avancement 44, 496e497. Peyrony, D., 1930. Le Moustier, ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches géologiques. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 3e76, 155e176. Pinoit, L., 2001. Analyse typo-technologique du gisement de Bois l’Abbé. (SaintJulien de la Liègue, Eure). In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les Industries à Outils Bifaciaux

21

du Paléolithique Moyen dEurope Occidentale, ERAUL 98. Université de Liège, Liège, pp. 85e91. Pirson, S., Cattelain, P., Elzaatari, S., Flas, D., Letourneux, C., Miller, R., Olejniczak, A.J., Otte, M., Toussaint, M., 2009. Le Trou de l’Abîme à Couvin. Bilan des recherches de laboratoire avant la reprise de nouvelles fouilles en septembre 2009. Notae Praehist. 29, 59e75. Premo, L.S., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene Hominins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 33e37. Premo, L.S., Kuhn, S.L., 2010. Modeling effects of local extinctions on culture change and diversity in the Paleolithic. Plos One 5, e15582. Prince, G., Saos, T., Vezian, R., 2005. Le Portel Ouest, la fin des Néandertaliens? In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), Peuplements Humains et Variations Environnementales au Quaternaire, B.A.R. International Series 1352, pp. 117e126. Oxford. Rendu, W., Costamagno, S., Meignen, K., Soulier, M.-C., 2012. Monospecific faunal spectra in Mousterian contexts: Implications for social behavior. Quat. Int. 247, 50e58. Ricard, J.L., 1980. Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne de la Croix-Guémard (Deux-Sèvres). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr 77, 106e116. Richards, M., Harvati, K., Grimes, V., Smith, C., Smith, T., Hublin, J.-J., Karkanas, P., Panagopoulou, E., 2008. Strontium isotope evidence of Neanderthal mobility at the site of Lakonis, Greece using laser-ablation PIMMS. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1251e1256. Richter, J., 1997. Sesselfelsgrotte III: Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte, vol. 7. Quartär-Bibliothek, Saarbrücken. Richter, J., 2000. Social memory among late Neanderthals. In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans e Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50,000e30,000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 30e41. Richter, J., 2006. In: Horn, H.G. (Ed.), Das Paläolithikum in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Neandertaler þ Co. Verlag von Zabern, Mainz, pp. 93e116. Richter, D., Dibble, H., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S., Niven, L., Sandgathe, D., Talamo, S., Turq, A., 2013. The late Middle Palaeolithic in southwest France: new TL dates for the sequence of Pech de l’Azé IV. Quatern. Int. 294, 160e167. Rieder, K.H., 1992. Kritische Analyse alter Grabungsergebnisse aus dem Hohlen Stein bei Schambach aus der Sicht der Profiluntersuchungen 1977e1982. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tübingen. Roe, D.A., 1968. British lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 34, 1e82. Roebroeks, W., Hublin, J.-J., MacDonald, K., 2011. Continuities and discontinuities in Neandertal presence: a closer look at Northwestern Europe. In: Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Stringer, C.B. (Eds.), The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain, Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 14. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 113e123. Rosas, A., Martínez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., García-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Huguet, R., Ortiz, J.E., Julià, R., Soler, V., de Torres, T., Martínez, E., Cañaveras, J.C., Sánchez-Moral, S., Cuezva, S., Lario, J., Santamaría, D., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., 2006. Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidron, Asturias, Spain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 19266e19271. Rots, V., 2009. The functional analysis of the Mousterian and Micoquian assemblages of Sesselfelsgrotte, Germany: aspects of tool use and hafting in the European Late Middle Palaeolithic. Quartär 56, 37e66. Ruebens, K., 2007a. Bifacial elements in continental northwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Cycle (MIS5d-3): the relationship between Mousterian, Micoquian and ‘Mixed’ assemblages. Pap. Inst. Archaeol. 18, 84e100. Ruebens, K., 2007b. A typological dilemma: Micoquian elements in continental northwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Cycle (MIS5d-3). Lithics 27, 58e73. Ruebens, K., 2012. From Keilmesser to Bout Coupé Handaxes: Macro-regional Variability in Western European Late Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Tools. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southampton. Ruebens, K., Di Modica, K., 2011. Les productions bifaciales du Paléolithique moyen sur le territoire belge: présentation d’industries entre deux mondes. In: Toussaint, M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Paléolithique Moyen en Belgique. Mélanges Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128. University of Liège, Liège, pp. 239e260. Ruebens, K., Van Peer, P., 2011. A Middle Palaeolithic site with small bifaces at Oosthoven e Heiende (Northern Belgiun). In: Toussaint, M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Paléolithique Moyen en Belgique. Mélanges Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128. University of Liège, Liège, pp. 353e359. Sackett, J.R., 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestisme. In: Conkey, M., Hastorf, C. (Eds.), The Uses of Style in Archeaology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 33e43. Santonja, M., Villa, P., 2006. The Acheulian of Western Europe. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Gonen, S. (Eds.), Axe Age Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing, London, pp. 429e478. Scott, B., 2011. Becoming Neanderthals. The Earlier British Middle Palaeolithic. Oxbow, Oxford. Slimak, L., Giraud, Y., 2007. Circulations sur pleusieurs de kilometres durant le Paléolithique moyen. Contribution à la connaissance des sociétés néandertaliennes. C.R. Palevol. 6, 359e368. Soressi, M., 2002. Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne du sud-ouest de la France. Ph.D. Dissertation. In: Discussion sur la signification du faciès à partir de l’étude comparée de quatre sites: Pech-de-l’Azé I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. University of Bordeaux. Soressi, M., 2004. From the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition type A to type B: a change in technical tradition, raw material, task or settlement dynamics?. In:

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009

22

K. Ruebens / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e22

Conard, N.J. (Ed.), 2004. Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. II Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 343e366. 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: Backwell, L., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols. University of Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 389e417. Soressi, M., Hays, M.A., 2003. Manufacture, transport and use of Mousterian bifaces. A case study from the Perigord (France). In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 125e147. Soressi, M., d’Errico, F., 2007. Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements symboliques controversés des Néandertaliens. In: Vandermeersch, B., Maureille, B. (Eds.), Les Néandertaliens. Biologie et Cultures, Document Préhistoriques, vol. 23, pp. 297e309. Paris. Spinapolice, E.E., 2012. Raw material economy in Salento (Apulia, Italy): new perspectives on Neanderthal mobility patterns. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 680e689. Stapert, D., 1985. Twee vuistbijlen, in 1984 verworven door het Drents Museum, en het Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne (MTA) in Noordelijk Nederland. Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 102, 97e124. Szmidt, C., 2003. The Mousterian in Mediterranean France. In: B.A.R. International Series 1147 (Oxford). Tattersall, I., Schwartz, J.H., 2008. The distinctiveness and systematic context of Homo neanderthalensis. In: Harvati, K., Harrison, T. (Eds.), Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Springer, New York, pp. 9e22. Tavoso, A., 1976. Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen dans le Bassin du Tarn. La Préhistoire Française 2, 1041e1047. Tebutt, C.F., Marr, J.E., Burkitt, M.C., 1927. Palaeolithic industries from the Great Ouse gravels at and near St Neots. Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia 5, 166e173. Thiébaut, C., Mourre, V., Chalard, P., Cologne, D., Coudenneau, A., Deschamps, M., Sacco-Sonador, A., 2012. Lithic technology of the final Mousterian on both sides of the Pyrenees. Quat. Int. 247, 182e198. Thissen, J., 2006. Die palaolithischen Freilandstationen von Rheindahlen im Loss zwischen Maas und Niederrhein. In: Rheinische Ausgrabungen, vol. 58 (Mainz). Toussaint, M., Becker, A., Lacroix, P., 1998. Recherches 1997e1998 aux grottes de Goyet, à Gesves, Province de Namur. Notae Praehist 18, 33e44. Tratman, E.K., Donovan, D.T., Campbell, J.B., 1971. The hyaena den (Wookey Hole), Mendip Hills, Somerset. In: Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, vol. 12, pp. 245e279. Tuffreau, A., 1971. Quelques aspects du Paléolithique dans le Nord de la France. In: Bulletin de la Société de Préhistoire du Nord, vol. 8 (Lille). Tuffreau, A., 1976. Le Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne de Catigny (Oise). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr 73, 305e320. Turq, A., 2000. Le Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen entre Dordogne et Lot. Société des Amis du Musée National de Préhistoire et de la Recherche Archéologique, Les Eyzies. Turq, A., 2007. Hacia una nueva visión del Musteriense del nordeste aquitano. In: Baquedano, E. (Ed.), El Universo Neanderthal I, Resultado del Curso Organizado por la Fundacion Duques de Soria, Rascafria (Madrid) 5-8 septiembre de 2005. Ibersaf Industrial, pp. 145e167.

Ulrix-Closset, M., 1975. Le Paléolithique Moyen dans le Bassin Mosan en Belgique. Universa, Wetteren.  K Valoch, K., 1967. Paleolitické osídlení jeskyne ulny na Sloupuv Moravském Krasu. Archeologické rozhledy 19, 566e575. Van Peer, P., 1982. A Middle Paleolithic industry from Rotselaar (Brabant). Helinium 22, 238e254. Van Peer, P., 1986. Le Paléolithique Moyen dans le nord-est de la Belgique. Helinium 26, 57e176. Vaquero, M., Rando, J.M., Chacon, G., 2004. Neanderthal spatial behaviour and social structure: heart-related assemblages from the Abric Romani Middle Palaeolithic site. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), 2004. Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. 2. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 367e392. Veil, S., Breest, K., Höfle, H.-C., Meyer, H.-H., Plisson, H., Urban-Küttel, B., Wagner, G., Zöller, L., 1994. Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz der Zeichsel-Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg, Lkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Germania 72, 1e66. Villa, O., d’Errico, F., 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 69e112. Vynckier, P., Vermeersch, P.M., Beeckmans, L., 1986. A Mousterian site at VollezeleCongoberg. Notae Praehist 6, 5e14. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 2004. Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics 25, 11e21. Wetzel, R., Bosinski, G., 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Markung Rammingen, Kreis Ulm). Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Heft 15). Veröffentlichungen des staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege, Stuttgart. White, M.J., Jacobi, R., 2002. Two sides to every story. Bout coupé handaxes revisited. Oxford J. Archaeol. 21, 109e133. White, M.J., Pettitt, P.B., 2011. The British Late Middle Palaeolithic: an interpretative synthesis of Neanderthal occupation at the Northwestern edge of the Pleistocene world. J. World Prehist. 24, 25e97. Whiten, A., Schick, K., Toth, N., 2009. The evolution and cultural transmission of percussive technology: integrating evidence from palaeoanthropology and primatology. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 420e435. Wobst, H.M., 1974. Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems: a simulation approach. Am. Antiq 39, 147e178. Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2009. The British Mousterian: Late Neanderthal Archaeology in Landscape Context. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Sheffield. Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2010. Beyond bout coupés: the dynamic role of bifaces in the British Mousterian. Lithics 31, 20e32. Wymer, J., 1982. The Palaeolithic Age. Croom Helm, London. Wynn, T., 1996. The evolution of tools and symbolic behaviour. In: Lock, A., Peters, C.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 263e287. Zilhão, J., 2012. Personal ornaments and symbolism among Neanderthals. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 35e50. Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D.E., Badal-Garcíc, E., d’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., Douka, K., Higham, T., Martínez-Sánchez, M.-J., Montes-Bernárdez, R., Murcia-Mascarós, S., Pérez-Sirvent, C., Roldán-García, C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V., Wood, R., Zapatal, J., 2010. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neanderthals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 1023e1028.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe: A comparative assessment of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.009