The contribution of lithic production systems to the interpretation of Mousterian industrial variability in south-western France: The example of Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France)

Abstract

International audienceDisentangling the relative contribution of the various factors underlying Middle Palaeolithic industrial variability remains one of the foremost problems for researchers interested in Neandertal technological and behavioural adaptations. The site of Combe-Grenal (Dordogne) has figured prominently in these discussions given its long stratigraphic sequence and rich archaeological record that extends from MIS 6 to MIS 3 and contains all of F. Bordes' Mousterian facies. Departing from a strict typological approach, we provide a revised vision of the site's sequence focused on individualising lithic production systems. We investigate to what extent typologically different industries, beyond their separation imposed by the very idea of discrete Mousterian facies, nevertheless portray comparable production systems. By eschewing a chronology of the traditional Mousterian facies, our technological approach to the Combe-Grenal assemblages succeeded in identifying a clear stratigraphic succession where strictly typological approaches had previously failed. Moreover, comparison with other regional sequences shows the succession of Mousterian technological systems identified at Combe-Grenal not to be an exception in south-western France. We propose a revised chronology for the site's sequence based on a correlation of changes in the structure of regional faunal communities with independent palaeo-environmental data. Finally, comparing technological data with raw material provisioning strategies and elements of faunal exploitation, such as prey availability, provides insights concerning the interpretation of Mousterian variability and the investigation of changing patterns of Neandertal landscape use

MTA-B or not to be? Recycled bifaces and shifting hunting strategies at Le Moustier and their implication for the late Middle Palaeolithic in southwestern France

“…Upon closer inspection, several could probably be re-assigned to other techno-complexes given the absence of a dedicated production of elongated flakes, considered a key characteristic of the MTA-B. The Discoid production system is dominant in five cases (as at Le Moustier and Combe Grenal; Faivre et al, 2014) and the Levallois in one (Table 4). Additionally, the exclusively Discoid technology of layer C4 of Barbas III (Bo€ eda and Ortega, 1996) is accompanied by only a handful of retouched tools, including a single biface and an atypical backed knife on a partially cortical flake.…”

Establishing statistical confidence in Cortex Ratios within and among lithic assemblages: a case study of the Middle Paleolithic of southwestern France

“…Specifically, the correlation between the occurrence of various Mousterian technological systems and fauna assemblage compositions in southwestern France has been interpreted to reflect changes in technological organization and mobility strategies as responses to environmental shifts (Delagnes and Rendu, 2011;Discamps et al, 2011;Faivre et al, 2014;Hiscock et al, 2009;Meignen et al, 2009). At Roc de Marsal and Pech de l'Az e IV, the Levallois rich layers at the lower half of the stratigraphic sequence exhibit less extensive artifact movement and therefore likely reflect lower degrees of mobility.…”

“…For the following colder periods, potentially corresponding to MIS 3 and 4, the greater excess or deficit in cortex at the three sites indicate a tendency for artifacts to be transported away from the sites and but not returned as frequently, or vice versa. This pattern suggests a changing Neanderthal mobility pattern possibly between unevenly distributed and spatially localized resource patches (Delagnes and Rendu, 2011;Faivre et al, 2014;Kuhn, 1995). The distinct cortex patterns during this period at Roc de Marsal and Pech de l'Az e IV also suggest that forms of artifact transport differ spatially between sites (see Soressi, 2002).…”

On the local Mousterian origin of the Châtelperronian: Integrating typo-technological, chronostratigraphic and contextual data

“…Jaubert et al, 2011;Morin et al, 2014;Thi ebaut et al, 2014). This culturegroup, historical view of lithic variability has been long promoted by Mellars (1969Mellars ( , 1996 and has evolved over the years from mainly based on retouched tool types to mainly based on techniques of blank production (Delagnes and Meignen, 2006;Delagnes et al, 2007;Faivre et al, 2014). Even though it finds much stratigraphic support, it remains difficult to demonstrate independently with radiometric dating whether these claimed technological entities consistently reflect strict chronological successions or not Vieillevigne et al, 2008;Richter et al, 2013b).…”