l’émergence du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe : mutations culturelles et rythmes d’évolution

Abstract

The notion of a ru p t u re dominates reflections on the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. From this perspective, the Aurignacian is interpreted as the culture that would realize the systematization of numerous innovations and become the instrument of v i c t o ry of Modern Humans over Neandertal populations. In this way, the Aurignacian is perceived as the cultural entity whose diff e re n t constitutive elements -blade and bladelet production, systematization of organic tool production, personal ornaments, portable and parietal art -generically define the Upper Paleolithic and distinguish it from the Middle Paleolithic. Based on these technical and symbolic innovations, the Aurignacian is re p resented as a homogeneous and conquering pan-European culture whose origin and expansion are forcibly linked to the unique trajectory of modern humans. The formalization of explicit models associating the development of the Aurignacian with the emergence of modern humans in Europe has thus gradually blurred the variability of this techno-complex, leaving only a skeletal image composed of carinated end-scrapers, Aurignacian blades and split-based points. Our objective is not to minimize the magnitude of changes that occurred with the emergence of the Aurignacian, but rather to present elements in support of the hypothesis that these changes were the result of an evolutionnary process whose diff e rent stages remain to be defined. To put this discussion into context, we shall first review current definitions of the early stages of the European Aurignacian. The beginnings of the Aurignacian : multiple technical and cultural expressions and/or chronological filiation?Several manifestations of the Aurignacian were already defined many years ago. Among the most significant and clearly expressed in the archaeological re c o rd are the Protoaurignacian and the Early Aurignacian.

Identité technique et comportements économiques des groupes proto-aurignaciens à la grotte de l’Observatoire (principauté de Monaco)

“…Les observations archéologiques, du point de vue des systèmes de production, des économies de l'approvisionnement minéral ou encore des témoins symboliques, s'inscrivent assez manifestement en rupture avec les occupations moustériennes antérieures (Kuhn, Stiner, 1998 ;Onoratini, 2004 ;Bietti, Negrino, 2007 ;Porraz, Negrino, 2008). En outre, les -Yosef et al 1996 ;Bon, 2002 ;Teyssandier, 2007). La répartition géographique des sites proto-aurignaciens conduit alors à privilégier l'hypothèse d'une diffusion d'est en ouest le long de l'arc méditerranéen, diffusion volontiers considérée comme rapide (Mellars, 2005 ;Bar-Yosef, 2006).…”

“…Les synthèses et travaux les plus récents reconnaissent aujourd'hui l'antériorité du Proto-Aurignacien sur l'Aurignacien ancien (voir Laplace, 1966 ;Bon, 2002Bon, et 2005Bordes et al, 2008 ;Bar-Yosef, 2006 ;Teyssandier, 2007), modifiant ainsi substantiellement les schémas historiques de ce début du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe occidentale. Quoique non démontrée jusqu'alors, l'hypothèse implicite est celle d'un complexe intrusif d'origine orientale lié à la première vague de peuplement des hommes anatomiquement modernes sur ce continent (Bar-Yosef, 2003 ;Mellars, 2006 ;Zilhao, 2006).…”

“…38-36000 BP) et pour partie contemporain des industries dites de transition. Cet ensemble technoculturel, initialement reconnu dans le Bassin méditerranéen, s'étendrait géographiquement de l'Europe orientale jusqu'à ses rivages atlantiques (Teyssandier, 2007).…”

The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: an experimental challenge

“…Along with the development of personal ornamentation and the invention of figurative art, hunting is the area of human activity that sees the most significant changes in the period from 40 000e35 000 BP in Europe. In this respect, the Aurignacian technocomplex shows technical innovations, notably with the fabrication of split-based points (SBP) in antler (Didon, 1911a;Peyrony, 1928;Henri-Martin, 1931;Leroy-Prost, 1975, 1979Knecht, 1991Knecht, , 1993Liolios, 1999) and the mass production of bladelets, arguably to serve as weapon armatures (Kuhn, 2002;Bon, 2002Bon, , 2005Teyssandier, 2007Teyssandier, , 2008Bordes et al, 2008;Bon et al, 2010). Subsequently, bladelets and osseous points saw a strong expansion and lasted, in one form or another, throughout the entire Upper Paleolithic (Bon et al, 2010).…”

“…Indeed, since the Early Aurignacian, each osseous raw material (bone, antler, ivory) is mainly restricted to a particular technological domain (domestic; hunting; personal ornamentation and portable art) and antler becomes the raw material par excellence for the fabrication of spear points (Liolios, 1999;Tartar et al, 2006). Even bladelet production becomes autonomous and totally independent from blade debitage reserved for the manufacture of domestic equipment (Kuhn, 2002;Bon, 2002Bon, , 2005Teyssandier, 2007Teyssandier, , 2008Bordes et al, 2008;Bon et al, 2010). This autonomy of different functional domaines represents a distinct departure from previous technical traditions (Mousterian, Chatelperronian) where osseous points are absent and where different lithic products are integrated into one and the same chaîne opératoire.…”