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

Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne

“…They are therefore among some of the latest Neandertals in western Eurasia, and possible candidates to be involved in gene flow from Neandertals into AMHs (or vice versa) (48). Future analysis of the nuclear genome of these or other Châtelperronian specimens might be able to provide further insights into the direction, extent, and age of gene flow between Late Pleistocene Western European Neandertals and "incoming" AMHs (49,50).…”

The Uluzzian technology of Grotta di Fumane and its implication for reconstructing cultural dynamics in the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition of Western Eurasia

“…The Neanderthal population, although decreased, still remained active in some western Eurasian zones, giving rise to geographically confined techno-complexes that coincided with regional or supra-regional extensions of preceding Mousterian complexes. In southern Spain, the presence of Mousterian industries persists in association with evidence of artistic-symbolic behavior (Zilhão et al, 2010), while in western Europe the Châtelperronian originates with the production of remarkable laminar industries (Ruebens et al, 2015). On a technological level, the difference between the latter and the Uluzzian is marked, although a strong Mousterian component persists in the toolkits of layer EjopINF at La Roche-a-Pierrot a Saint C esaire, demonstrated by a taphonomic and techno-typological distinction (Soressi, 2011).…”

Late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with flake cleavers in the western Pyrenees: The Vasconian reconsidered

“…The KMG is equally typified by the Levallois method, particularly centripetal and blade modalities (J€ oris, 2004;Richter, 2006). On the other hand, like 'bout coup es' assemblages in Great Britain (Wragg Sykes, 2009;White and Pettitt, 2011;Ruebens et al, 2015) Q2 , the Discoid method is best represented in western Pyrenees and is only associated with what remains a minor Levallois component. Differences in the technological composition of these assemblages most likely reflect techno-economic considerations and contingencies, including the preferential selection of specific raw materials and the spatio-temporal fragmentation of the chaîne op eratoire.…”

“…Upper Palaeolithic types and points are rare or absent in Vasconian assemblages, which are dominated by scrapers but that nevertheless contain a considerable denticulate and notched tool component. Similarly, the retouched tool component of British 'bouts-coup es' assemblages are primarily composed scrapers, notches and denticulates (Ruebens et al, 2015). Interpreting differences in the retouched tool components of these techno-complexes is unfortunately hampered by the lack of more nuanced analyses focusing on, for example, blank selection, working edge angles, or functional and specific patterns of tool resharpening and reduction as a function of raw material.…”

“…This is particularly the case with the MTA, which benefits from numerous absolute dates (Valladas et al, 1986;Vieillevigne et al, 2008;Richter et al, 2013) and archeo-stratigraphic evidence (Jaubert, 2013) placing it to between 50 and 45 ka BP. Assemblages containing 'bout-coup es' forms are similarly dated by several methods to roughly the same period between 50 and 35 ka BP (White and Pettitt, 2002;Ruebens et al, 2015). The chronology of the KMG is, on the other hand, slightly less straightforward.…”