Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Nature of Culture pp 65–77Cite as

Neanderthal Utilitarian Equipment and Group Identity: The Social Context of Bifacial Tool Manufacture and Use

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology ((VERT))

Abstract

Since personal ornamentation is quite rare prior to the onset of the Upper Paleolithic and, speaking in quantitative terms, lacks the widespread occurrence that would allow for conclusions regarding standardization, this study focuses on stone artifacts as possible social markers . The article explores the role of bifaces as signals for social identity and, at the same time, tries to take into account the temporal and spatial dynamics of operational chains . As a case study, the two main complexes of the European Late Middle Paleolithic with bifaces – the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MtA) and the Micoquian – are investigated. In general, it is assumed that the contemporaneity of these industries, combined with similar environments and land use patterns, reduces the influence of functional factors. Bifaces are identified as spatially and chronologically stable elements, while concepts of core reduction vary. The importance of bifaces in MtA and Micoquian lithic systems is explained by their potential for resharpening . In both the MtA and the Micoquian, bifaces are means providing partial independence from raw material sources. Qualitative comparisons of the operational chains show marked differences, especially in advanced stages of resharpening. As surrogates of their respective operational chains, bifacial tools are considered social makers. The entire operational chain is seen as reducing social insecurity by materially reinforcing intimate social ties in regular face-to-face-contacts, whereas the tools alone signal social identity in contexts of less frequent interaction with socially distant individuals or even random contact with members of other collectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez Fernández, E., & Jöris, O. (2007). Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: An evaluation of the record. Eurasian Prehistory, 5(2), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel, J. (2001). Daggers, knowledge and power. The social aspects of flint-dagger technology. Uppsala: Uppsala University Department of Archaeology & Ancient History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednarik, R. (1992). Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2, 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1937). Social psychology. In E. P. Schmidt (Ed.), Man and society (pp. 144–198). New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boëda, E. (1995). Steinartefakt-Produktionssequenzen im Micoquien der Kulna-Höhle. Quartär, 45(46), 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosinski, G. (1967). Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet-Appel, J.-P., & Demars, P.-Y. (2000). Neanderthal contraction and modern human colonization of Europe. Antiquity, 74, 544–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, A. A. (1994). Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A theoretical and methodological critique. Current Anthropology, 35, 369–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caron, F., d’Errico, F., del Moral, P., Santos, F., & Zilhão, J. (2011). The reality of Neandertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabai, V. P. (2004). The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: Stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability and eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh. (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabai, V. P., Marks, A. E., & Yevtushenko, A. I. (1995). Views of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic: Past and present. Préhistoire Européene, 7, 59–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabai, V. P., Richter, J., Uthmeier, T., & Yevtushenko, A. I. (2002). Neue Forschungen zum Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Krim. Germania, 80, 441–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P. G. (1991). Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Journal of Anthropological Science, 10, 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P. G., & Dibble, H. L. (1987). Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Science, 6, 263–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delagnes, A., & Meignen, L. (2006). Diversity of Lithic Production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France. Are there any chronological trends? In E. Hovers & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition. Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age. (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. (1988). Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilisation of lithic resources of the French Mousterian. In H. Dibble & A. Montet-White (Eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia (pp. 181–197). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhauer, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs- und Kulturgeschichte des Mittelneolithikums in der Wetterau. Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, C. (2007). Origins and reevolutions. Human identity in earliest prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., & Meignen, K. (1990). Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo, 2, 43–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, H. P. (2003). Dinge als Zeichen – eine unscharfe Beziehung. In U. Veit, T. L. Kienlin, C. Kümmel, & S. Schmidt (Eds.), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur (pp. 29–51). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., Wood, R., et al. (2010). Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Châtelperronian. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 107, 20234–20239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, L. (2002). Transkriptivität. Zur medialen Logik der kulturellen Semantik. In L. Jäger & G. Stanitzek (Eds.), Transkribieren. Medien/Lektüre (pp. 19–41). München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, L. (2003). Transkription - zu einem medialen Verfahren an den Schnittstellen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses. TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften, No. 15/2003. http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/06_2/jaeger15.htm. Accessed 1 July 2012.

  • Jöris, O. (2001). Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen (Grabungen 1966–1969). Stratigraphie, Steinartefakte und Fauna des Oberen Fundplatzes. Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöris, O. (2005). Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europäischen Kontext. Bericht der Römisch-germanischen Kommission, 34, 49–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienlin, T. L. (Ed.). (2005). Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1984). Hand und Wort: Die Evolution von Technik, Sprache und Kunst (3rd ed.). Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauss, M. (1979). Sociology and psychology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 423–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. A. (1973). The character of the Middle-Upper transition in southwest France. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The explanation of cultural change: Models (pp. 255–276). London: Duckwort.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. A. (1996). The Neanderthal legacy. An archeological perspective from Western Europe. New York: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. A. (2010). Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: The bursting of a bubble? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 107, 20147–20148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikl-Horke, G. (2001). Soziologie: Historischer Kontext und soziologische Theorie-Entwürfe (5th ed.). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moddermann, P. J. R. (1988). The linear pottery culture: Diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, 38, 63–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R. (2002a). Soziologische Theorie. Band 1: Grundlegung durch die Klassiker. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R. (2002b). Soziologische Theorie. Band 2: Handlungstheorie. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porr, M. (1998). Die Postmoderne Archäologie in Großbritannien. In K. H. Eggert & U. Veit (Eds.), Theorie in der Archäologie: Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion (pp. 183–216). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porr, M. (2005). The making of bifaces and the making of the individual. In C. Gamble & M. Porr (Eds.), The Hominid individual in context. Archaeological investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts (pp. 68–80). London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (1997). Sesselfelsgrotte III: Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte – Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2000). Social memory among late Neanderthals. In J. Orschiedt & G.-C. Weniger (Eds.), Neanderthals and modern humans – Discussing the transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000–30.000 B.P. (pp. 123–132). Mettmann: Neanderthal Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2001). For lack of a wise old man? Late Neanderthal land use patterns in the Altmühl River Valley, Southern Germany. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age (Vol. 1, pp. 205–220). Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2002). Die 14C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Zeitstellung des Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania, 80, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2004). Copies of flakes. Operational sequences of foliate pieces from Buran-Kaya III Level B1. In V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal, & A. E. Marks (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III (pp. 233–247). Liège: Université de Liège.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 59–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1986). Isochrestism and style: A clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology, 28, 595–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2005). The evolutionary dynamics of cultural traditions. In K. T. Kienlin (Ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur (pp. 133–147). Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soressi, M. (2002). Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faciès à partir de l’étude comparée de quatre sites: Pech-de-l’Azé, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Bordeaux I. http://www.paleoanthro.org/dissertations/marie%20soressi.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2012.

  • Soressi, M. (2004a). From the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition type A to type B: A change in technical tradition, raw material, task, or settlement dynamics? In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age II (pp. 343–366). Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soressi, M. (2004b). Die Steintechnologie des Spätmoustérien. Ihre Bedeutung für die Entstehungsgeschwindigkeit modernen Verhaltens und die Beziehung zwischen modernem Verhalten und biologischer Modernität. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 13, 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soressi, M., & Hays, M. (2003). Manufacture, transport and use of Mousterian bifaces. A case study from the Perigord (France). In M. Soressi & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies (pp. 125–147). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tostevin G. B. (2007). Social intimacy, artefact visibility and acculturation models of Neanderthal-Modern Human interaction. In P. A. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution. New behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans (pp. 341–357). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthmeier, T. (2004a). Transformation analysis and the reconstruction of on-site and off-site activities: Methodological remarks. In V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal, & A. E. Marks (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III (pp. 175–191). Liège: Université de Liège.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthmeier, T. (2004b). Landnutzungsmuster im Mittelpaläolithikum der Halbinsel Krim, Ukraine. Ein Beitrag zu Ökonomie und Soziologie der Neandertaler. Habilitation Dissertation, University of Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthmeier, T. (2004c). Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum. Bonn: Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthmeier, T. (2012). The Transition from Middle- to Upper Palaeolithic at Buran Kaya III, Crimea (Ukraine): A case of conceptual continuity of lithic artefact manufacture? In A. Pastoors & M. Peresani (Eds.), Flakes not blades: The role of flake production at the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic (pp. 239–260). Mettmann: Neanderthal Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthmeier, T., & Chabai, V. P. (2010). Neanderthal subsistence tactics in the Crimean Micoquian. In N. J. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age (Vol. III, pp. 195–234). Tübingen: Kerns-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veil, S., Breest, K., Höfle, H.-C., Meyer, H. H., Plisson, H., Urban-Küttel, B., et al. (1994). Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz aus der Weichsel-Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg, Lkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Zwischenbericht über die archäologischen und geowissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen 1987–1992. Germania, 72, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veselsky, A. P. (2008). Kabazi V: Production and rejuvenation of bifacial tools. In V. P. Chabai, J. Richter, & T. Uthmeier (Eds.), Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian and Levallois-Mousterian camp sites, Part II. The Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea 4 (pp. 455–479). Simferopol & Köln: Shlayakh.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Koenigswald, W., Müller-Beck, H., & Pressmar, E. (1974). Die Archäologie und Paläontologie in den Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern), Grabungen 1937–67. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weede, E. (1992). Mensch und Gesellschaft. Soziologie aus der Perspektive des methodologischen Individualismus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1964). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Studienausgabe. Köln: Kiepenreuther und Witsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weißmüller, W. (1995). Die Silexartefakte aus den Unteren Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Moustérien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weißmüller, W. (2003). Von Gestaltungsfreiheit und Standardisierungszwang: Zum Zeichencharakter paläolitischer Steinartefakte. In U. Veit, T. L. Kienlin, C. Kümmel, & S. Schmidt (Eds.), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur (pp. 173–186). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J., & Jacobi, R. (2002). Two sides to every story: Bout coupé handaxes revisted. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21, 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wragg Sykes, R. M. (2010). Beyond bout coupés: The dynamic role of bifaces in the British Mousterian. Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, 31, 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D. E., Badal-García, E., d’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., et al. (2010). Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 1023–1028.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank G.-C. Weniger, M. Bolus, and an anonymous reviewer who helped to improve the present article, as well as R. Miller for the revision of the English language and, last but not least, M. Haidle and M. Bolus for the possibility to participate in the “Nature of Culture” workshop.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut Für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Kochstraße 4/18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Thorsten Uthmeier

Authors
  1. Thorsten Uthmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Uthmeier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Senckenberg Research Institute, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Miriam N. Haidle

  2. Department of Early Prehistory and Quate, Institute of Pre- and Protohistory and M, Tübingen, Germany

    Nicholas J. Conard

  3. Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Human, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Michael Bolus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Uthmeier, T. (2016). Neanderthal Utilitarian Equipment and Group Identity: The Social Context of Bifacial Tool Manufacture and Use. In: Haidle, M., Conard, N., Bolus, M. (eds) The Nature of Culture. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7426-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation