Eva Rosenstock
We have invented nothing: welfare and art in prehistory
Pablo Picasso’s famous quote, „after Altamira, all is decadence“ and, „we have invented nothing“ on moder-
nity and the quality of art in the Upper Palaeolithic reects not only on mere artistic expression: It appears
that biological standards of living, a measure of health developed within the eld of economics, seem to
have reached during the Palaeolithic standards not seen until our own times. In this paper we test the notion
that Upper Palaeolithic people were the tallest in prehistory contrasting the results with further develop-
ments through to the Bronze Age. Alongside standard explanations like high protein intake and low work
expenditure, art will also be discussed including questions such as; are times of high biological living stand-
ards also periods of low economic pressure and do they therefore release greater creative energy? And can
we statistically operationalize artistic quantity and quality as comfortably as we can economic variables?
✉ FU Berlin
Morgan Roussel
New insights into the Châtelperronian. What’s its relationship with the Protoaurignacian?
The nature and the interpretation of the Châtelperronian is hotly debated. Recent publications challenged
the chronology and the anthropological attribution of the Châtelperronian.
In order to determine the origin and the signication of the Châtelperronian, the study of lithic techno-
logical systems is particularly useful here. We undertook the study of the lithics from three Châtelperronian
layers preserved in sequence at Quinçay. Quinçay is one of the rare Châtelperronian cave site where an in-
ternal evolution of this technocomplex has been described. The sequence is sealed by a roof fall and there
is no overlying Palaeolithic layer.
This study allowed us to determine the technical system changes over a long time period. In the three
Châtelperronian layers the method for blade production is specic of the Châtelperronian and is different
from the one used during the Protoaurignacian, last technocomplex directly following the Châtelperronian
in terms of chronology and stratigraphy as recognized in few European sites.
At Quinçay, bladelet production is quite frequent in the three Châtelperronian layers. The method used is
different from the one used during the Protoaurignacian but the goal of this bladelet production is similar
to the one of the Protoaurignacian: to obtain blanks for large Dufour bladelets.
The coherence of the lithic technical system from one layer to another, at Quinçay, suggests little to no
change through time. Thus, we can consider that there was no progressive evolution from the Châtelper-
ronian to the Protoaurignacian. Nevertheless, we have to consider the possible inuence of the Protoaurig-
nacian on the Châtelperronian. The idea of projectile and the concept of retouched bladelets would have
diffused from one group to another.
✉ Dr. Morgan Roussel, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Human Evolution,
Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
UMR 7041, ArScAn, AnTET, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, 21 allée de l’Université, F-92023
Nanterre Cedex, France, roussel@eva.mpg.de
Karen Ruebens
Late Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Tools in Western Europe: Terminologies, Types and Territorial
Trends
After declining during the earlier phase of the Middle Palaeolithic, bifacially worked tools (including hand-
axes) become once again a regular component of lithic assemblages during the Late Middle Palaeolithic
(MIS 5d-3, ca. 115-30,000 BP). This reoccurrence is notable all over Western Europe and the bifacial tools
are characterised by a large degree of morphometric variability. Past studies have led to the denition of two
main biface-rich entities:
Comentários a estes Manuais