Stone Tools in Shifting Sands: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives on the Châtelperronian Stone Tool Industry

Abstract

The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in France and northern Spain reflects the transition from Neandertals to Homo sapiens and the emergence of novel cultural entities and standardised blade and bladelet technologies between ~ 55 and 40 thousand years ago. The Châtelperronian stone tool industry represents the first unambiguous appearance of Upper Palaeolithic technologies in this region, and is traditionally considered as representing a geographically isolated archaeological entity produced by late Neandertals. However, debate as to the makers and origin of this industry has been ever-present. In recent years, fuel has been thrown onto this discussion through (a) the demonstration that the association between Neandertal remains and Châtelperronian artefacts at the key site of Saint-Césaire could not be reliable, (b) the identification of an immature Homo sapiens pelvic fragment in association with Neandertal remains and Châtelperronian artefacts at the Grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure), and (c) the formulation of a disruptive hypothesis in which the Châtelperronian directly originates from the Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. In conjunction with the increasing evidence for a protracted presence of Homo sapiens across Europe, these observations have led to the arrival of an inflection point for the competing interpretations concerning the origin and implications of this industry. In this paper, we provide a critical review of the Châtelperronian in light of the emerging data—taking into account technological, chronological, geographic, stratigraphic, and genetic perspectives. First we provide a detailed, three-part historiography of this industry and a modern, synthetic review of Châtelperronian lithic technology. Our review reinforces the fact that the Châtelperronian is a fully Upper Palaeolithic industry with no ‘transitional’ nor Initial Upper Palaeolithic-type technological features. Subsequently, we highlight a series of prospects, problems, and uncertainties which remain to be addressed in discussions concerning the origins, maker(s), and implications of the Châtelperronian and the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic in western Europe. Finally, we propose a few potential paths forward and call for an open and critical approach towards the re-conceptualisation of the Châtelperronian in the years to come.