Here and now or a previously planned strategy? Rethinking the concept of ramification for micro-production in expedient contexts: Implications for Neanderthal socio-economic behaviour

Abstract

Ramification is the term used to classify branched productive sequences in which a functional item (the flake) was exploited as a productive item (the core). This technological behaviour was present in Europe and the Levant beginning in the Lower and Early Middle Palaeolithic, but ramified productions were intensely developed in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. Traditionally, ramification has been interpreted as a well-structured behaviour, implying its integration into the provisioning strategies of past humans. This viewpoint has significant implications for the understanding of technological evolution in Neanderthals, suggesting specific cognitive and socioeconomic capacities. Ramified procedures were characterised by high flexibility due to the versatile patterns of the core-on-flake and are described in the literature as corresponding to several different knapping concepts and technical procedures. This research aimed to describe the role of ramification in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. We analysed two assemblages from the Abric Romaní site (located in the northeast part of the Iberian Peninsula) characterised by informal, expedient technologies. The focus was on the spatial and temporal fragmentation of the ramified sequences based on the identification of single technical events. The reduction of the scale of analysis and the resulting implementation of temporal resolution of the stone tool assemblages in such expedient contexts allowed us to understand ramification from an innovative perspective, setting aside our bias toward well-defined productive methods associated with preconceived economic and mobility patterns. The results showed that ramification reflected a range of behaviours, implying a variety of planning proficiency, economic strategies and social interactions. This means that 'ramified production' is not meaningful unless is linked with a detailed description of human choices and an understanding of temporal and spatial relationships between knapping events. Furthermore, the results showed that, to approach behavioural issues, we as researchers must change our unitary vision of assemblages and enlarge the scope of categories to which we apply that vision.

Neanderthal Spatial Patterns and Occupation Dynamics: A Focus on the Central Region in Mediterranean Iberia

“…This suggests that these decisions are made more from a sense of knowhow and accumulated experience over generations than from the influence of technological traditions learned and repeated in an unreflective way. This pattern coincides with what may be deduced in consideration of the reflexivity and versatility of the culturally-mediated adaptation of developed lithic production (Bourguignon et al 2004;Rios et al 2014;Romagnoli et al 2018). Significant features include: the change from one method to another in the management of the same core-depending on the platform types needed for the envisaged task(s) (Lenoir and Turq 1995;Jaubert and Farizy 1995;Slimak 1998;Terradas 2003;Mourre 2003); flake-and core-recycling (Mora et al 2004;Hiscock 2009;Barkai et al 2010;Vaquero 2011;Thiébaut et al 2012;Vaquero et al 2015;Baena et al 2017); and the directed production of small items for reasons unconnected to any upper size limits in the raw material itself (Bordes 1981;Goren Inbar 1988;Koumouzelis et al 2001;Kuhn and Elston 2002;Moncel 2003;Mora et al 2004;Dibble and Mc Pherron 2006;Turq et al 2008;Moles and Boutié 2009;Rios 2010;Villaverde et al 2012).…”

Lithic refitting and the analysis of Middle Palaeolithic settlement dynamics: a high-temporal resolution example from El Pastor rock shelter (Eastern Iberia)

“…Furthermore, the combined study of their technical and spatial features has been revealed as a potential tool for approaching site function and duration of Palaeolithic human occupations (e.g. Adler et al 2003;Amick 2007;Conard and Adler 1997;López et al 2017;Machado and Pérez 2016;Machado et al 2013;Romagnoli et al , 2017Thiébaut et al 2010;Vaquero 2008Vaquero , 2011Vaquero et al 2012aVaquero et al , b, 2017.…”

The challenges of applying refitting analysis in the Palaeolithic archaeology of the twenty-first century: an actualised overview and future perspectives

“…Moreover, stone tool refits allow for the identification of which blanks a knapping procedure is mainly designed for and the recognition of the variability in the technical procedures that were applied to achieve these technological goals (Bachellerie et al 2007;Bernard-Guelle et al 2017; Ortiz Nieto-Márquez and Baena Preysler 2017). Recent studies have shown a great variability in the economic behaviours hidden in the concept of ramification in the Middle Palaeolithic, and these behaviours respond to the different strategies that led the choices regarding which tools will circulate as personal gear and why (Romagnoli et al 2018b;Turq et al 2013). In addition, the intra-site movement of lithics indicates which types of artefacts were more likely to have been considered as useful, allowing for the concept of the tool in Palaeolithic technologies to be assessed (Clark 2019).…”