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

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


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 Mousterianof 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.


European Late Middle Paleolithic Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition Micoquian Handaxes Keilmesser Resharpening Symbolic interaction 


  1. Allsworth-Jones, P. (1986). The Szeletian and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Apel, J. (2001). Daggers, knowledge and power. The social aspects of flint-dagger technology. Uppsala: Uppsala University Department of Archaeology & Ancient History.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bednarik, R. (1992). Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumer, H. (1937). Social psychology. In E. P. Schmidt (Ed.), Man and society (pp. 144–198). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Boëda, E. (1995). Steinartefakt-Produktionssequenzen im Micoquien der Kulna-Höhle. Quartär, 45(46), 75–98.Google Scholar
  9. Bosinski, G. (1967). Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  10. Bouquet-Appel, J.-P., & Demars, P.-Y. (2000). Neanderthal contraction and modern human colonization of Europe. Antiquity, 74, 544–552.Google Scholar
  11. Byers, A. A. (1994). Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: A theoretical and methodological critique. Current Anthropology, 35, 369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chabai, V. P. (2004). The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: Stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability and eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Chabai, V. P., Richter, J., Uthmeier, T., & Yevtushenko, A. I. (2002). Neue Forschungen zum Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Krim. Germania, 80, 441–473.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhauer, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs- und Kulturgeschichte des Mittelneolithikums in der Wetterau. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
  22. Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gamble, C. (2007). Origins and reevolutions. Human identity in earliest prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., & Meignen, K. (1990). Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo, 2, 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Jäger, L. (2003). Transkription - zu einem medialen Verfahren an den Schnittstellen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses. TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften, No. 15/2003. Accessed 1 July 2012.
  29. Jöris, O. (2001). Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen (Grabungen 1966–1969). Stratigraphie, Steinartefakte und Fauna des Oberen Fundplatzes. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Kienlin, T. L. (Ed.). (2005). Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
  32. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1984). Hand und Wort: Die Evolution von Technik, Sprache und Kunst (3rd ed.). Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  33. Mauss, M. (1979). Sociology and psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Mellars, P. A. (1996). The Neanderthal legacy. An archeological perspective from Western Europe. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Mikl-Horke, G. (2001). Soziologie: Historischer Kontext und soziologische Theorie-Entwürfe (5th ed.). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Münch, R. (2002a). Soziologische Theorie. Band 1: Grundlegung durch die Klassiker. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Münch, R. (2002b). Soziologische Theorie. Band 2: Handlungstheorie. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Richter, J. (1997). Sesselfelsgrotte III: Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte – Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Richter, J. (2002). Die 14C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Zeitstellung des Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania, 80, 1–22.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Sackett, J. R. (1982). Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sackett, J. R. (1986). Isochrestism and style: A clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology, 28, 595–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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. Accessed 1 July 2012.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Uthmeier, T. (2004c). Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Weede, E. (1992). Mensch und Gesellschaft. Soziologie aus der Perspektive des methodologischen Individualismus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  68. Weber, M. (1964). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Studienausgabe. Köln: Kiepenreuther und Witsch.Google Scholar
  69. Weißmüller, W. (1995). Die Silexartefakte aus den Unteren Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Moustérien. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. White, J., & Jacobi, R. (2002). Two sides to every story: Bout coupé handaxes revisted. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Für Ur- und FrühgeschichteFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations