Late Mousterian lithic technology. Its implications for the pace of the emergence of behavioural modernity and the relationship between behavioural modernity and biological modernity

An analysis is presented of several Mousterian industries of Acheulian tradition from Western Europe dated to the first half of IOS 3 and manufactured by Neanderthals before the arrival of anatomically modern humans in Europe. It is shown that some behaviours previously thought to be characteristic of recent behaviours associated with anatomically modern humans were in fact shared with another species. Among those are: the variability of Mousterian technologies across time and space; the use of Upper Palaeolithic methods of production immediately prior to the arrival of anatomically modern humans in Europe; and the long-term planning of knapping activities across the territory. This paper also demonstrates that some of these specific behaviours (the scheduling of lithic tool production within the territory) might eventually have been abandoned by Neanderthals, while others (the use of a volumetric method of producing blanks) were kept alive by them. These results show that models of the development of behavioural ‘modernity’ have to take into consideration every line of evidence, including the testimony of the behaviour of anatomically non-modern humans. We do not have to consider a priori that anatomically modern humans were better suited or were the only ones capable of behavioural ‘modernity’. On the contrary, it is necessary to demonstrate how they were better adapted than Neanderthals. Evolutionary trajectories might be punctuated, and resulting from a combination of biological and contingent events which created a patchwork of changes. From Tools to Symbols 390 Resume Le lien causal entre la ‘modernite’ culturelle, synthese des changements comportementaux qui deviendront la norme a la fin du Pleistocene, et la modernite biologique doit etre discute a partir de l’ensemble des documents dont nous disposons. L’etude des comportements des Neandertaliens avant l’arrivee des hommes anatomiquement modernes en Europe, en s’appuyant sur les industries lithique MTA de la premiere moitie du stade isotopique 3, montre que des comportements d’abord juges specifiques de notre espece ont en fait ete partages avec les Neandertaliens. Elle montre egalement que certains de ces comportements, comme l’organisation a long terme de l’activite de taille dans le territoire, ont ete finalement abandonnes par les Neandertaliens, tandis que d’autres, comme l’utilisation d’une methode de taille volumetrique, ont ete conserves par les memes Neandertaliens. Nous ne devons pas a priori exclure les Neandertaliens d’une ‘modernite’ comportementale. Au contraire, nous devons rechercher, par une analyse comparee precise des comportements des Neandertaliens et des premiers hommes anatomiquement modernes en Europe, la nature des avantages de ce dernier groupe. L’evolution humaine pourrait bien etre ponctuee et resulter d’une combinaison d’evenements biologiques et contingents qui ont cree un patchwork de changements. Introduction By 30 000 years ago, almost all humanity had adopted a set of new behaviours generally defined as ‘modern’. These behaviours are qualified as ‘modern’ because there is clear continuity between them and the set of behaviours of historic huntergatherers, and because of the apparent coincidence in Europe of these behavioural innovations with the expansion of anatomically modern human populations, while Neanderthals were in the process of disappearing (Klein, 2000). Behavioural modernity is a key question regarding the behavioural differences between us, anatomically modern humans, and our earlier ancestors. It is tackling the relationship between behavioural modernity and anatomical modernity (McBrearty & Brooks, 2000; Klein, 1998, 2000; Mellars, 1989, 1998). Yet, speaking of behavioural modernity certainly does not imply that behaviourally modern people have to be anatomically modern ones (see Chase & Dibble, 1990; Zilhao, 2001; d’Errico, 2003). We have to consider biological evolution and behavioural evolution separately, at least at the initial stage. At a later stage, we should progress towards interpreting the relationship between them. Then, is behavioural modernity linked to modern biology, or could it have arisen within the Neanderthal lineage? Furthermore, does it mean that ‘behavioural modernity’ is a dead concept if it is not specific to our species? Three main models have been proposed to reconstruct the development of behavioural modernity. After a selectively advantageous genetic mutation within anatomically modern humans (Klein, 1998, 2000), ‘modern’ behaviours would have developed rapidly 1. Late Mousterian lithic technology 391 and then dispersed from Africa to Asia and Europe at around 50–40 Ky BP (Klein, 1998, 2000; Ambrose, 1998). Characterised by the use of symbols and a fully elaborated language, the sudden development of behavioural modernity can be considered a ‘revolution’ (Klein, 1989, 1994, 1995, 2000; Mellars & Stringer, 1989; Diamond, 1992; Mellars, 1996a, b; Noble & Davidson, 1991; Bar-Yosef, 1998; Wadley, 2001; Henshilwood & Marean, 2003). Others support an earlier development of modern human behaviours (Deacon, 1989; Brooks et al., 1995; Knight et al., 1995; Barham, 1998; Watts, 1999; Henshilwood et al., 2002). The development of behavioural modernity would have been gradual, as the gradual appearance of several distinct modern behaviours between 250 Ky and 40 Ky BP demonstrates (Deacon & Deacon, 1999; McBrearty & Brooks, 2000; Deacon & Wurz, 2001; Barham, 2001). Both of these models imply that behavioural modernity arose only within anatomically modern humans. Indeed genetic and fossil evidence seems to favour a single origin – or an ‘Out of Africa’ model – over the continuity model for the appearance of modern humans in Europe and Asia (e.g. Stringer, 2003). The Out-of-Africa model is thought to imply that there were behavioural differences between the expanding modern humans and the indigenous population outside of Europe and Asia. This consequently suggests that European Neanderthals were not behaviourally modern – or at least less so than the incoming behaviourally modern humans. This idea must not be accepted without precise knowledge of the behavioural differences between the colonisers and the local populations. The third model has been recently put forward by d’Errico and his colleagues (d’Errico, 2003; d’Errico et al., 2003). Extensive review of available data on Neanderthal behaviours would not support the single-species origin of behavioural modernity. Neanderthals would have contributed to the development of behavioural modernity, as well as anatomically modern humans. Analyses of European Neanderthal behaviour then provides a point of comparison of the behaviour of yet another species. It aids in defining species-specific behaviours, and in testing the tempo of acquisition of new behavioural traits that became the norm after 30 Kya. This paper focuses on two of the traits defining behavioural modernity according to the synthesis made by McBrearty and Brooks (2000): technological innovativeness and planning depth. It provides data on the archaeological signature of those traits within the Mousterian of Acheulian tradition (MTA) from the south-west of France. No anatomically modern human remains have ever been found associated with this industry, only the remains of Neanderthals (Maureille & Soressi, 2000). MTA assemblages have a precise geographic location, centred on the south-west of France 2.