{"id":2732,"date":"2024-04-05T12:46:15","date_gmt":"2024-04-05T10:46:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/?p=2732"},"modified":"2024-08-21T14:33:19","modified_gmt":"2024-08-21T12:33:19","slug":"the-chatelperronian-lithic-industries-of-eastern-france-germolles-and-chatelperron","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/the-chatelperronian-lithic-industries-of-eastern-france-germolles-and-chatelperron\/","title":{"rendered":"The Ch\u00e2telperronian Lithic Industries of Eastern France: Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nHeike W\u00fcrschem1<\/sup>, Christian Thomas Hoyer1<\/sup>, Harald Floss1<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/sup> Institute for Pre- and Protohistory and Medieval Archaeology, Department for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of T\u00fcbingen, Germany<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n

In this paper we discuss two Ch\u00e2telperronian sites in eastern France: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, the easternmost known Ch\u00e2telperronian site as of today, and the eponymous site of Grotte des F\u00e9es in Ch\u00e2telperron. While the Ch\u00e2telperronian of the Grotte des F\u00e9es has been at the center of many discussions over the past decade, the Ch\u00e2telperronian assemblage from Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I has not received much attention; there is a prevailing opinion that the number of Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts and the stratigraphic integrity of the latter site are insufficient at best. We revised this view of Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I in an earlier paper by presenting the results of our analyses of the Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts from past excavations and from our own recent work (Floss et al. 2016). Here, we will provide an overview of the Ch\u00e2telperronian lithics of eastern France, with a special focus on the technological aspects of the assemblages by comparing them to our analyses of the lithic material from Grotte des F\u00e9es in Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I in Germolles (Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, Burgundy) represents the easternmost extension of the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex. First discovered and excavated in 1868, its assemblage was used by Henri Breuil in the famous bataille aurignacienne<\/span> to support his positioning of the Aurignacian at the very beginning of the upper Paleolithic (Breuil 1909: 14). Later, Henri Delporte compared the Ch\u00e2telperronian of Germolles to that of the Grotte des F\u00e9es complex in the eponymous site of Ch\u00e2telperron (Allier) (Delporte 1955b). Discovered in the middle of the 19th century, Ch\u00e2telperron shares with Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I a long research history, along with the stratigraphic difficulties linked to this; both sites also provide key evidence for the transition between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic.<\/p>\n

In this paper, we provide an overview of the Ch\u00e2telperronian of both sites, including their research history, the current debates and the new findings of our own analyses of the lithic raw material. In order to embed these two sites within a wider geographical context, and to give an overview of the Ch\u00e2telperronian characteristics of eastern France, we compare them to each other and to other well-known Ch\u00e2telperronian sites.<\/p>\n

Germolles<\/h2>\n

Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I (Germolles, Burgundy) is situated on the right bank of the River Orbize, on a cliff-side called the Plateau de Montadiot or Plateau de Chauvirey, an Upper Jurassic limestone massif (Dutkiewicz and Floss 2015: 14). At the time of writing this paper, this site marks the easternmost verified extension of the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex, situated around 10 km north-west of Chalon-sur-Sa\u00f4ne (Burgundy), in the municipality of Mellecey (Fig. 1). However, as has been mentioned elsewhere (Floss et al. 2016: 171; W\u00fcrschem in prep.), there are indications for the existence of a Ch\u00e2telperronian component at the site of Trou de la M\u00e8re Clochette in Rochefort-sur-Nenon, situated some 85 km north-east of Germolles (Desbrosse 1976: 1351; Desbrosse 1982: 1984).<\/p>\n

\"Location<\/a>
Fig. 1: On the left: Location of the sites Grotte des F\u00e9es (Ch\u00e2telperron) and Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I (Germolles). On the right: Ch\u00e2telperronian sites in the C\u00f4te Chalonnais; 1: La Tour Fondue, 2: Theillat, 3: Grotte des F\u00e9es, 4: Neuzy-Paray, 5: Saint-Vallerin, 6: Chenoves \u201cRue Cataux,\u201d 7: Sermoyer \u201cLes Charmes,\u201d 8: Saint-Martin-sous-Montaigu \u201cLa Roche,\u201d 9: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I and II, 10: Dracy-le-Fort \u201cLa Foussotte,\u201d 11: Gergy \u201cBougerot,\u201d 12: Abri Virely (base map: European Environmental Agency; image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Since its discovery by Charles M\u00e9ray in 1868 during the construction of a road between Germolles and Mellecey, Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I has yielded an abundance of archaeological finds, spanning from the Middle Paleolithic right up to the Medieval period. In particular, the existence of stratified layers documenting the transition between Middle and Upper Paleolithic marks this site as one of the key sites for understanding this period in eastern France. In 2006, during investigations carried out by a team from the University of T\u00fcbingen, a second cave was discovered some 50 m from Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I; this recently discovered site has been termed Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re II. Today these two caves open to the north, but since they are in fact two collapsed rockshelters, their original orientation was probably towards the north-east.<\/p>\n

After its discovery and subsequent excavation by M\u00e9ray, Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I has been the subject of many other investigations, including test trenches, surface collections and further excavations, both legal and illegal. Its research history spans over 150 years and has been the subject of several detailed studies (see Dutkiewicz 2011; Dutkiewicz and Floss 2015).<\/p>\n

At the beginning of the 20th century, the site played an important role in the research history of the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex; Henri Breuil published his analysis of the Ch\u00e2telperronian assemblage of the Grotte des F\u00e9es (Ch\u00e2telperron) and highlighted the striking similarities between the artifacts from this site and some of the artifacts from Germolles (Breuil 1911: 39\u201340; Floss et al. 2016). From then on, the Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I became one of the reference sites for the Ch\u00e2telperronian, largely due to the work carried out by Henri Delporte who, after completing his first excavation season in Ch\u00e2telperron, started to work simultaneously at Germolles (his excavations in Ch\u00e2telperron ended in 1954 and were resumed in 1962). Although he had not been able to identify intact Ch\u00e2telperronian layers at Germolles, he compared the two sites in 1953 (published in Delporte 1955b).<\/p>\n

In 1959, Jean Combier carried out an excavation of VP I, but today little information is available about his work at the site, apart from a plan of the cave and a sketch of the stratigraphy he found (Dutkiewicz and Floss 2015: 27; Floss et al. 2016). It includes a layer described as \u201cNiveau Moust\u00e9rien \u00e0 \u00e9clats ou Ch\u00e2telperronien<\/q>\u201d (Floss et al. 2013: Fig. 4), but during our own work it was not possible to confirm his observations. Thus, for a long time, there was no tangible evidence for an intact Ch\u00e2telperronian layer at the site.<\/p>\n

The T\u00fcbingen team carried out their investigations of the site between 2006 and 2016. Amongst others, the objective of these investigations was to find out if there were any intact layers documenting the transition between Lower and Upper Paleolithic still in place inside or outside the cave. The team unearthed Ch\u00e2telperronian points over the course of almost every excavation season, but always from disturbed contexts. In 2014, we were finally able to identify a small section of a Ch\u00e2telperronian layer within a stratigraphical section which had remained from the old excavation carried out by Mazenot (1919-1925) (Hoyer et al. 2016). It yielded one Ch\u00e2telperronian point and only a small amount of other lithics, including a large blade and some small pieces of debris and chips. Recently, the finds, together with Ch\u00e2telperronian points from disturbed contexts and those from the old excavations of Germolles, were the subject of a Bachelor\u2019s thesis on the Ch\u00e2telperronian of Germolles (W\u00fcrschem 2015; see also Floss 2003, Floss 2005; Floss et al. 2016).<\/p>\n

Ch\u00e2telperron<\/h2>\n

Grotte des F\u00e9es in Ch\u00e2telperron (also known as Bo\u00eete aux F\u00e9es or Cave aux F\u00e9es) is the eponymous site of the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex, a so-called transitional industry between the Mousterian and the Aurignacian technocomplexes (Pelegrin and Soressi 2007: 283). Situated between the communities of Vaumas in the north and Ch\u00e2telperron in the south, and about 30 km south-east of the city of Moulins, the cave lies on the left-hand bank of the small River Graveron\u2014also known as the Ch\u00e2tel (Bailleau 1870; Lacaille 1947)\u2014at around 250 m asl (Fig. 1) (Delporte n.d.; Depraetere 2000: 22). The Graveron is a tributary of the Besbre, which itself flows into the Loire further north.<\/p>\n

\u201cGrotte des F\u00e9es\u201d is the name given to a group of three caves, two of which are still visible today and all of which are oriented towards the east (Delporte n.d.; Lacaille 1947; Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2008). Delporte named the two southern caves after the first two excavators of the sites: the southernmost cave is thus called the Grotte Poirrier, the one in the middle Grotte Bailleau. The northernmost cave had already collapsed at the time of the first excavations, which is why Delporte named it Grotte Effondr\u00e9e (\u201ccollapsed cave\u201d; Delporte n.d.). He also hypothesizes that the stone slabs of the former cave ceiling were used during the construction of the furnaces of Dompierre-sur-Besbre, which is the reason for the late discovery of the cave.<\/p>\n

The site was first discovered by railway engineer A. B. Poirrier between 1840 and 1850 (the exact date varies in different publications; cf. Bailleau 1869; Lacaille 1947; Breuil 1911) during the construction of a railway between Dompierre and Bert. Poirrier was a geologist and paleontologist, and fortunately was able to identify some of the unearthed bones as belonging to Pleistocene fauna. During the years following the discovery, he compiled a large collection of bones from Ch\u00e2telperron, both in the context of the railway construction as well as from his own excavations in Grotte Poirrier and Grotte Bailleau. Unfortunately, only a small portion of his collection has survived. This remaining collection, which includes an engraved bone awl made from a horse metatarsus (Deb\u00e9nath et al. 2002), is today housed in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, but it consists solely of faunal remains since Poirrier did not recognize any stone tools. Those were only discovered between 1864 and 1867 in the debris of his excavation by Dr. Bailleau, a physician from Pierrefitte-sur-Loire (Breuil 1911; Roux and P\u00e9ro 1911: 141; Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2008). Bailleau was an amateur archaeologist, but he was in close contact with well-known experts of his time, for example \u00c9douard Lartet and \u00c9mile Cartailhac (Delporte n.d.). He started his own excavation in the autumn of 1867 inside the two visible caves, with barely any resources at hand and almost no knowledge of the excavation methods of his time. Nevertheless, Delporte describes him as a careful scientist whose published work was very detailed compared to the standards of the 19th century. Around the year 1870, Bailleau discovered the Grotte Effondr\u00e9e, which, at first, he thought to be a \u201csalle \u00e0 manger<\/span>\u201d (dining area) for the inhabitants of the two other caves. He excavated an area measuring around 6 m in length and 4 m in width where he found the highest density of worked materials and also the first lithic artifacts, which he describes as \u201cquantit\u00e9s consid\u00e9rables de silex, \u00e9clats, nucl\u00ebi et instruments entiers, ainsi que plusieurs objets en os ou en ivoire travaill\u00e9<\/q>\u201d (Bailleau 1870: 94). From then on, he concentrated his work in Ch\u00e2telperron on Grotte Effondr\u00e9e, where he excavated the central area to a depth of around 3 m up until 1872. He was not able to identify different layers during this work, explaining why Henri Breuil assumed that all of the lithic tools were part of one single technocomplex. In his 1911 publication, Breuil thus described the Ch\u00e2telperronian as an assemblage consisting of scrapers, endscrapers, unilaterally retouched points (Ch\u00e2telperronian points), handaxes, burins and retouched blades (Breuil 1911: 31). This erroneous assumption that the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex was a mixture of Mousterian handaxes and \u201cUpper Paleolithic\u201d artifact types was only amended following the excavations carried out by Henri Delporte in the 1950s and 1960s; until recently, these were the most important excavations carried out in Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/p>\n

Delporte began his excavations in 1951 by digging a test trench in the entrance, or former entrance, of each cave. In doing so he learned that only Grotte Effondr\u00e9e still contained archaeological remains; this is why he concentrated his efforts on this site, even though it had been greatly disturbed by Bailleau\u2019s previous excavations (Delporte 1955a). He worked in different areas between 1952 and 1954 and again in 1962, trying to avoid any overlap with the debris from the old excavation. During this work, he managed to identify three different layers (Fig. 2, on the left): Layer 1 or A is a disturbed layer consisting of humus and excavation debris; Layer 2 or B is the Ch\u00e2telperronian layer; and Layer 3 or C, is a Mousterian layer containing handaxes (Delporte 1955c). The Ch\u00e2telperronian layer he observed was finely stratified with five sub-layers which he initially called Layers 2a to 2e, later B1 to B5. These sub-layers where defined by their red color. According to Delporte, the red sub-layers yielded the largest numbers of lithic artifacts (Delporte 1999: 12).<\/p>\n

Henri Delporte subsequently compared the stratigraphies of Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles (Fig. 2) and commented on the strong similarities between the two sites (Delporte 1955b). It has to be pointed out, however, that we were unable to verify the accuracy of his stratigraphy for Germolles over the course of our own work.<\/p>\n

\"Idealized<\/a>
Fig. 2: Idealized stratigraphy of Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles, as described by H. Delporte. Layers 0: topsoil; 1: a Ch\u00e2telperronian layer in Ch\u00e2telperron and a disturbed layer with Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts in Germolles; 2: Mousterian layer (after Delporte 1955b: Fig. 1).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

During the last decade, the integrity of the Ch\u00e2telperron stratigraphy as documented by Delporte has been the subject of heated discussion marked by strong ideological viewpoints (see Gravina et al. 2005; Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2006; Mellars et al. 2007; Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2008; Mellars et al. 2008). In the course of an excavation carried out in the context of a joint research project of the T\u00fcbingen University and the SRA-DRAC Auvergne-Rh\u00f4ne-Alpes in 2021 (Angevin et al. 2022) and the study of letters sent from Bailleau to Lartet during his own excavations in the 19th century (Angevin and Lacoste 2019), we were, however, able to comprehensibly prove Delporte\u2019s stratigraphy to be a product of secondarily displaced sediments from the older excavations and the railroad construction. For that reason, we decided to ignore the layers and sub-layers identified by Delporte during our own work; instead we considered the artifacts from a strictly neutral point of view.<\/p>\n

References exist to further excavations at Grotte des F\u00e9es, but these are scarce and no primary documentation of any kind is known. In the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie Nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye we found a collection marked \u201cDon Girod<\/span>\u201d (\u201cGirod donation\u201d; also described by Del- porte in his undated manuscript). Girod and Gautier worked in the area of Ch\u00e2telperron at the end of the 19th century. Delporte himself dismissed the idea that Girod excavated in Grotte des F\u00e9es. However, during our own research we came across the following reference to such an excavation in the Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Emulaiton du Bourbonnais from 1921: \u201cLe colonel de Ch\u00e2telperron a donn\u00e9 \u00e0 M. Gauthier [sic], directeur du Mus\u00e9um de Clermont-Ferrand, l\u2019autorisation de faire des fouilles \u00e0 la Grotte des F\u00e9es<\/q>\u201d (Dumont 1921: 286).<\/p>\n

During February and March 2017, two of the authors (HW, HF) visited the three institutions in which the lithic artifacts from Ch\u00e2telperron are housed today: The British Museum in London, the Mus\u00e9e Anne de Beaujeu in Moulins and the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie Nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The lithic assemblages in all three institutions were recorded in databases and important tools were drawn and photographed. These data constitute the basis for the following analysis.<\/p>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian Technology<\/h2>\n

The Ch\u00e2telperronian industry is commonly seen as being \u201cUpper Paleolithic\u201d in nature (Bordes et al. 2011: 12\u201314; Lucas et al. 2003: 289; Soressi and Roussel 2014: 2680). This view stems from several observations: a) Ch\u00e2telperronian core reduction centers on the serial production of blades; b) these blades are often produced using pierre tendre<\/span> (\u201csoft-stone\u201d percussion) or soft hammer percussion; c) there exists little or no regular flake production; d) apart from Ch\u00e2telperronian points, the most common Ch\u00e2telperronian tool types are usually associated with the Upper Paleolithic (i.e., endscrapers, burins, laterally retouched blades, etc.); and e) in some sites, there exist organic tools and symbolic artifacts, commonly associated with industries created by anatomically modern humans (AMH) (Bordes et al. 2011: ibid.). For these reasons, the Ch\u00e2telperronian could easily be classified as the work of AMH, were it not for the discovery of Neanderthal remains associated with the Ch\u00e2telperronian of Saint-C\u00e9saire (Vandermeersch 1984; Mercier et al. 1991) and Grotte du Renne in Arcy-sur-Cure (Hublin et al. 1996; Welker et al. 2017). Much debate surrounds the issue of whether or not these skeletal remains and the organic artifacts are really correlated with the Ch\u00e2telperronian, or whether these findings are just the result of stratigraphic disturbance (see Soressi and Roussel 2014: 2682; Higham et al. 2010; Mellars 2010; Caron et al. 2011; Higham et al. 2011; Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2011; but also, Welker et al. 2017); in the case of the skeleton of Saint-C\u00e9saire, the attribution to the Ch\u00e2telperronian has been refuted by a recent study. The authors conclude \u201cthe Neanderthal-Ch\u00e2telperronian association at Saint C\u00e9saire should be considerable [sic] unreliable at best\u201d (Gravina et al. 2018: 10).<\/p>\n

Blade technology<\/h3>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian blade cores have been intensively studied, e.g., at Grotte du Renne in Arcy-sur-Cure (Connet 2002), Roc-de-Combe (Pelegrin 1995) and Quin\u00e7ay (Roussel 2011). Although the various authors employ different methods and terminologies in their work, the overall concept of the core reduction is strikingly similar for all of the analyzed sites. Roussel and Pelegrin concur that the Ch\u00e2telperronian core technology focuses on the reduction of at least two perpendicular surfaces, usually one broad and one narrow, but three or sometimes even four surfaces also occur. These surfaces are exploited one after another, starting from the natural or modified crest between them, in a reduction scheme that differs from the later Aurignacian or Proto-Aurignacian semi-tournant<\/span> concept in that it consists of two (or more, depending on the number of surfaces exploited) independent reduction steps. If there is a modified crest, it is usually one-sided, creating an acute angle on the intersection of the surfaces (see Roussel 2011 for more detail). During the core reduction, the angle between the surfaces tends to become more obtuse. To restore this angle, the reduction of so-called \u201c\u00e9clats envahissants laminaires<\/span>\u201d (or \u201claminar rejuvenation flakes\u201d; Roussel 2011: 108; Roussel et al. 2016: 17; see also Rios-Garaizar et al. 2012; Baillet et al. 2014) is necessary. These were sometimes used as blanks for Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers (see below).<\/p>\n

In his dissertation, Roussel (2011) was able to show that the Ch\u00e2telperronian method of blade production led to greater quantities of asymmetrically shaped blades. These blades have a natural back, which consists either of cortex, remains of a primary or secondary crest, or of a blade scar which is oriented perpendicular or almost perpendicular to the ventral side of the blade. At Quin\u00e7ay, around one out of four blades displayed such asymmetry. For Roc-de-Combe, Pelegrin (1995: 252) states that core preparation was usually executed by hard hammer percussion; while soft or soft stone hammer percussion was used for the blade production itself. Soft stone percussion is identified by him as the predominant method of blade reduction (Pelegrin 1995; Pelegrin and Soressi 2007).<\/p>\n

Flake technology<\/h3>\n

There are various accounts of the existence of formal flake production in the Ch\u00e2telperronian. In the case of Roc-de-Combe, Pelegrin (1995) has argued that all existing flakes are simply by-products of blade production, since he did not identify any flake cores in the assemblage. At Quin\u00e7ay, there exist nine cores (of a total of 452 cores) which show only unorganized or centripetally produced flake scars (Roussel et al. 2016: 16\u201317). In comparison, there are 363 blade cores and 51 bladelet cores from the site. In contrast to those two sites, Connet (2002) identified centripetal, polyhedral and discoidal core concepts for the Ch\u00e2telperronian at Arcy-sur-Cure, which she described as follows: \u201cDans le Ch\u00e2telperronien d\u2019Arcy, la production d\u2019\u00e9clats par gestion centrip\u00e8te du d\u00e9bitage nous appara\u00eet plut\u00f4t r\u00e9sulter de l\u2019exploitation opportuniste d\u2019une surface non pr\u00e9par\u00e9e, en liaison avec une \u00e9conomie de la mati\u00e8re premi\u00e8re qui entra\u00eene une surexploitation du silex<\/q>\u201d (Connet 2002: 399). She continues: \u201cLes nucleus poly\u00e9driques sont le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une surexploitation conduisant \u00e0 la d\u00e9structuration de l\u2019architecture d\u2019un volume initial qui a pu \u00eatre construit au d\u00e9part comme laminaire<\/q>\u201d (Connet 2002: 400). Flake cores make up almost one third of all cores in Grotte du Renne (264 out of 988, 26.7%; after Connet 2002: Table 69). For the moment, therefore, it seems that there is no clear consensus as to what part flake production played in the overall lithic technology of the Ch\u00e2telperronian.<\/p>\n

Bladelet technology<\/h3>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian bladelet production was first described for the Ch\u00e2telperronian layers of Roc-de-Combe and La C\u00f4te (Pelegrin 1995), but as Roussel (2014: 496) puts it: \u201ccette production reste anecdotique, identifi\u00e9e sur la base de quelques nucleus de petites dimensions qui peuvent \u00eatre le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019un processus de reduction des nucleus \u00e0 lames<\/q>.\u201d If the cores from these two sites are discounted, then the only remaining evidence of bladelet production in the Ch\u00e2telperronian comes from Quin\u00e7ay, where 51 bladelet cores and 40 retouched bladelets where identified in the three Ch\u00e2telperronian layers. Roussel (ibid.) describes them as independent from the blade production, meaning there is no reduction from blades to bladelets on one core. From a technological point of view, however, the reduction concept for bladelets is analogous to the one for blades. Bladelet cores are generally of prismatic shape and produced on blocks or flakes. As with blade cores, most of the bladelet cores are reduced on at least two adjacent surfaces, usually one broad and one narrow. Of the 40 retouched bladelets from Quin\u00e7ay, 30 display inverse marginal retouch, consistent with the definition of Dufour bladelets belonging to the Dufour sub-type (Roussel 2014).<\/p>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian points<\/h3>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian points or knives are defined by Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1956: 547, artifact #46) as tools made on blades that are either short and thick, or long and thin, with a steeply retouched, curved back and an asymmetrically retouched offset tip. The same authors differentiate between these kinds of points, which they call typical Ch\u00e2telperronian points, and atypical Ch\u00e2telperronian points (artifact #47). To be classified as atypical, a Ch\u00e2telperronian point needs to be a) non-continuously backed, b) thinly backed, or c) lacking an offset tip.<\/p>\n

However, we have decided not to apply this distinction between typical and atypical Ch\u00e2telperronian points in our research, as the continuity of the retouch does not change the overall usability or form of the tool. Applying this distinction seems simply to create arbitrary boundaries between one and the same tool type, with the only difference being the amount of time spent on retouching the back. Roussel et al. (2016: 20) argued that the \u201cbacking on Ch\u00e2telperronian points is thus not only the result of retouch, but is also conceptually embedded in the blade production process.\u201d Ch\u00e2telperronian points are often among the most numerous tool types in Ch\u00e2telperronian assemblages (Baffier 1999: 62; Soressi and Roussel 2014: 2685), and the core reduction seems to be aimed at producing a high number of asymmetrical blades. The idea that these asymmetrical blades were specifically produced to simplify the manufacturing of Ch\u00e2telperronian points seems, therefore, not to be far-fetched. If this is the case, the so-called typical and atypical Ch\u00e2telperronian points are both part of the same cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span>, and making a distinction between them is thus unnecessary.<\/p>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers<\/h3>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers were first described by Demars and Laurent as endscrapers retouched \u201csur large \u00e9clat \u00e9pais pr\u00e9sentant un front de grattoir plut\u00f4t \u00e9tendu<\/q>\u201d (Demars and Laurent 1989: 154). The retouch is less pronounced than in later Aurignacian assemblages, and they are often created on laminar rejuvenation flakes, which show \u201csoit des n\u00e9gatifs laminaires parall\u00e8les ou subparall\u00e8les (…), soit des n\u00e9gatifs d\u2019\u00e9clats envahissants ant\u00e9rieurs<\/q>\u201d on their dorsal surface (Roussel 2011: 108).<\/p>\n

The Ch\u00e2telperronian of Germolles<\/h2>\n

The first mention of an intact Ch\u00e2telperronian layer in Germolles was made by Jean Combier in 1959 (see above; Floss et al. 2016). A large part of our own work has focused on verifying this observation; however, during the excavations carried out from 2006 to 2013, no intact Ch\u00e2telperronian layers could be found. This was mainly due to the long research history and subsequent destruction of a large part of the stratigraphy. Despite these problems, in 2014 we were finally able to find a layer of red sediment in which a Ch\u00e2telperronian point was embedded (Fig. 3) (W\u00fcrschem and Floss 2022).<\/p>\n

\"Grotte<\/a>
Fig. 3: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, the Ch\u00e2telperronian layer GH 40 in its stratigraphical context. Above: profile image based on photogrammetry. Bottom left: Photograph of layer GH 40. Bottom right: Photograph of Layer GH 40, modified by DStretch software. The red coloration of the Ch\u00e2telperronian layer is highlighted by color-shift (Floss et al. 2016: Fig. 3).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This intact Ch\u00e2telperronian layer at Germolles, Layer (GH) 40, was dated on a horse molar to around 49,600 \u00b1 3900 uncal BP (AMS-14C), a date which is considered to be quite early. Since only a small part of the layer was preserved for excavation, no further datable material could be unearthed. The lithic assemblage from GH 40 consists of 48 pieces (40 of them < 1 cm), of which the most important artifacts are the previously mentioned Ch\u00e2telperronian point and one large crested blade. Most Ch\u00e2telperronian tools from Germolles originate from disturbed contexts or from old excavations. Since its discovery in 1868, the site has yielded a total of 48 Ch\u00e2telperronian points, 27 of which were uncovered by old excavations: 17 pieces originate from M\u00e9ray\u2019s excavation (1868), 7 from Gros\u2019s excavation (1951-1952), one from Delporte\u2019s excavation (1953-1955), and one from the surface collection carried out by Thevenot (1956-1957). A further 21 were discovered during our own excavations (Floss et al. 2016). Through analysis of the lithic inventory from Germolles, we have identified at least 11 cores which fit into a Ch\u00e2telperronian context, as well as knives of Abri Audi type and asymmetrically produced blanks (Fig. 4), which are considered to be a desired form of blank in the Ch\u00e2telperronian (Fig. 5) (Floss et al. 2016; Roussel 2011). The intact layer may be limited in extent, but it is nevertheless clearly situated between Mousterian layers (GHs 15 B, 41 B, 41 C and 41 D) and an Aurignacian layer (GH 15c).<\/p>\n

\"Site<\/a>
Fig. 4: Site plan of the Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I. Squares recently excavated by the T\u00fcbingen University team and the areas of old excavations are marked. Distribution of the Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts: red: ch\u00e2telperronian points, blue: blanks (blades), yellow: cores, green: knives. The diameter of the symbols reflects the number of pieces, ranging from 1 to 8 (image: C. Hoyer).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Grotte<\/a>
Fig. 5: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, selection of asymmetrical (naturally backed) blades. Depicted are blades with backs formed by cortex, a primary or secondary crest and a negative. 1,5,7: M\u00e9ray excavation; 2-3,6, 8-9: T\u00fcbingen excavations; 4: Gros excavation (image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian points<\/h3>\n

Of the 48 Ch\u00e2telperronian points from Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I (Fig. 6), 41 pieces (85.4%) were made from local raw material, i.e., flint from argiles \u00e0 silex<\/span> (flint bearing clays). This material is very common in the C\u00f4te Chalonnaise, and it is the predominant raw material (with an abundancy of over 95%) used throughout the Paleolithic in Germolles, (Hoyer et al. 2016: 158). Relatively speaking, the quantity of exotic raw material belonging to the Ch\u00e2telperronian seems somewhat elevated. This exotic material consists of two pieces made from chaille rose<\/span>, four pieces made from non-identified flint and three more from tertiary flint presumably from the Mont-l\u00e8s-\u00c9trelles region of the Haute-Sa\u00f4ne, situated some 120 km north-east of Germolles. These last points were very likely brought to the site as finished tools, since no cores and hardly any debitage debris of this raw material occur in the lithic assemblage from the site. This would suggest that the Ch\u00e2telperronian people ventured approximately 100 km further east of Germolles, which at the moment is the eastern-most confirmed site.<\/p>\n

\"Grotte<\/a>
Fig. 6: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, Ch\u00e2telperronian points. 1: T\u00fcbingen excavations; 2,4, 6-9: M\u00e9ray excavation; 3,5: Gros excavation (image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Thirty-eight Ch\u00e2telperronian points (79.2%) display unidirectionally removed blade scars on their dorsal side; the other 9 (18.8%) were produced in the context of bidirectional blade production. Of the 20 pieces where the blank is intact, 12 (60%) were struck using soft hammer percussion, 1 (5%) using pierre tendre<\/span>, and 7 (35%) using hard hammer percussion. Regarding the backing of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points, no clearly preferred side could be identified. The ratio between points that are backed on the left side and those backed on the right side is 60.4% to 39.6% (29 on the left to 19 on the right), showing only a minor tendency towards points backed on the left. This makes sense, since the cross section of most Ch\u00e2telperronian points shows transversal symmetry, meaning that the longitudinal orientation of the tool does not make a difference to its usability.<\/p>\n

Eleven (23.4%) pieces bear impact fractures or possible impact fractures, such as crushing, cone fracturing and pseudo-burin fracturing, and on 5 pieces (10.6%) the point was retouched on the basal part of the blank.<\/p>\n

A surprisingly high number of Ch\u00e2telperronian points feature only a partially retouched back, with 22 pieces produced on asymmetrical blades. This amounts to more than three quarters of all unearthed Ch\u00e2telperronian points (45.8%) even though these types of blanks usually only constitute around a fifth of all blades produced (Roussel et al. 2016: 18). In the case of 15 (68.2%) of these artifacts, the back is partially formed by a negative, in three (13.6%) by remains of a primary or secondary crest, and in 4 (18.2%) by cortex.<\/p>\n

The mean length of all intact Ch\u00e2telperronian points (n=21) is 5.61 cm \u00b1 1.44, with an elongation index (length to width) of 2.99 \u00b1 0.50; the mean width of all points is 1.73 cm \u00b1 0.36 and the thickness is 0.66 cm \u00b1 0.19, with a robustness index (width to thickness) of 2.82 \u00b1 0.846.<\/p>\n

At the time of writing, no Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers could be identified in the Germolles assemblage, and there are only three knives of the Abri Audi type, which could be associated with the Ch\u00e2telperronian.<\/p>\n

Cores<\/h3>\n

Although no cores were found in the stratified Ch\u00e2telperronian layer, it was possible to retrieve several cores from the disturbed material; these fit into the typical reduction schemes described above (Fig. 7) (see Floss et al. 2016).<\/p>\n

Five of the exhausted cores have one remaining surface, five more show one broad and an adjacent narrow reduction surface and only one core was reduced on three surfaces, two broad and one narrow. Unidirectional reduction was used on all eleven cores, although sometimes a second striking platform is present. It was, however, only used for the restoration of the core volume, not to produce blanks. Three cores also display a negative of what we believe to be a laminar rejuvenation flake, among them two two-sided cores and the three-sided core.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, four cores are very small in size, with very narrow blade scars. Since our distinction between blades and bladelets is set at a width of 1 cm, and since they also show clear blade scars which suggest that their small size is a result of extensive core reduction, we decided not to define them as bladelet cores. However, without a fully reconstructable cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span>, this deduction is open to debate.<\/p>\n

\"Grotte<\/a>
Fig. 7: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, cores. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11: M\u00e9ray excavations, 2: Pelatin collection; 4, 6, 8: T\u00fcbingen excavations (Floss et al. 2016; Fig. 13).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Ch\u00e2telperronian of Ch\u00e2telperron<\/h2>\n

The corpus of lithic artifacts from the Grotte des F\u00e9es consists of 3643 pieces of silex, which originate from three excavations and which are distributed in three main institutions. The Bailleau collection is split into two parts, one of which is housed in the British Museum in London, the other in the Mus\u00e9e Anne de Beaujeu in Moulins. This latter part of the collection has recently been augmented by a donation of artifacts from the diocese. More lithics belonging to the Bailleau collection can be found in the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie Nationale (MAN) in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where the most important collection from Grotte des F\u00e9es is also housed, namely the corpus from Delporte\u2019s excavation. It consists of around 3000 lithic artifacts. In the year 2000, these lithics were the subject of a Master\u2019s thesis produced by Blandine Depraetere; this thesis is unpublished but can be consulted in the MAN (Depraetere 2000).<\/p>\n

The Poirrier collection consists, to our knowledge, only of faunal remains and some organic artifacts, and has therefore not been included in our analysis. It is currently housed in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and in the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.<\/p>\n

As part of a recent Master\u2019s thesis (W\u00fcrschem 2017), the Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts from Ch\u00e2telperron have been re-evaluated. A total of 72 Ch\u00e2telperronian points have been identified: 26 in the British Museum, 11 in the Mus\u00e9e de Moulins and 35 in the MAN. Other tool types include predominantly laterally retouched or backed blades, endscrapers, burins and truncations (see Table 1).<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperronian<\/a>
Table 1: Ch\u00e2telperronian tool-types from Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian Points<\/h3>\n

Of the 72 Ch\u00e2telperronian points which have been identified in the assemblage from Grotte des F\u00e9es (Fig. 8), 58 (80.6%) are made using the local raw material from Tilly flint, which was first identified by Bailleau in the 19th century in the course of his work on the site of Saligny (Saligny-sur-Roudon). Delporte later analyzed Bailleau\u2019s collection and described the raw material from Tilly as having \u201cun aspect jasp\u00e9 tr\u00e8s esth\u00e9tique, avec des nuances de rouge, de blanc, de vert, qui tiennent \u00e0 la presence d\u2019oxydes min\u00e9raux<\/q>\u201d (Delporte 1999: 21). Tilly is located less than 5 km from Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/a>
Fig. 8: Ch\u00e2telperron. Grotte des F\u00e9es, 1 to 11: Ch\u00e2telperronian points (image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Other types of raw material also occur in the assemblage, such as a grey or white flint which, according to Delporte (ibid.), originates from Berry. A number of quartz and quartzite pebbles originating from Graveron river gravels were also used, as well as a type of amethyst with very poor knapping qualities.<\/p>\n

Dorsal blade scars indicate a unidirectional method of extraction for around three quarters of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points. Soft hammer percussion was the predominant method of blank production, with around 70% of blanks produced by this method. Some 15% show signs of soft stone percussion, and only one Ch\u00e2telperronian point was produced using hard hammer percussion. In 30 pieces (42.9%) the back is situated on the left side and in 40 (57.1 %) on the right, relative to the orientation of the Ch\u00e2telperronian point and not the blade it was produced on. This is important, since on 15 Ch\u00e2telperronian points (21.4 %) the tip was retouched on the basal part of the blank.<\/p>\n

There are impact scars, or possible impacts scars, visible on 10 (14.3%) Ch\u00e2telperronian points. However, since the assemblage consists of artifacts from older excavations, there is quite a high degree of modern abrasion and breakage. This complicates the identification of impact features.<\/p>\n

Thirty of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points display non-continuous backing, with part of the back constituted by either a negative (20 pieces, 66.7%), a primary or secondary crest (4 pieces, 13.3%) or by cortex (6 pieces, 20%). They are retouched on asymmetrical blanks (Fig. 9).<\/p>\n

The intact Ch\u00e2telperronian points (36 pieces, 51.4%) have a mean length of 5.4 cm \u00b1 1.1. The mean width of all pieces is 1.78 cm \u00b1 0.38 and the thickness is 0.63 cm \u00b1 0.24, with an elongation (ratio of length to width) of 3.03 \u00b1 0.36 (n=36) and a robustness (ratio of width to thickness) of 2.8 \u00b1 0.79.<\/p>\n

\"Grotte<\/a>
Fig. 9: Grotte des F\u00e9es, selection of asymmetrical (naturally backed) blades. Depicted are blades with backs formed by cortex (7 to 8, 10), a primary or secondary crest (1, 5-6), and a negative (2-4, 9 and 11) (image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers<\/h3>\n

Fifteen of 65 endscrapers from Ch\u00e2telperron can be classified as Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers after Demars and Laurent (Fig. 10) (1989: 154). They are all made on relatively narrow flakes, which usually display dorsal blade scars. The raw material used is Tilly flint. Some of these endscrapers are retouched on laminar rejuvenation flakes as defined by Roussel (2011: 108; see above).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, there are 13 endscrapers with a broad, semi-circular front as described for some Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers from Quin\u00e7ay (Roussel et al. 2016: 17). This working edge is sometimes retouched laterally or on several edges, but always forms a very distinct semi-circular endscraper front, which cannot be mistaken for a sidescraper edge. They too are made using the local raw material from Tilly.<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/a>
Fig. 10: Ch\u00e2telperron. Grotte des F\u00e9es, 1 to 6: Ch\u00e2telperronian endscrapers (drawings: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Dufour bladelets<\/h3>\n

Eight bladelets from Ch\u00e2telperron show marginal inverse retouch, which is consistent with the definition of Dufour bladelets of the Dufour subtype (Fig. 11). Since their find-context is ambiguous, their attribution to the Ch\u00e2telperronian is provisional. In earlier analyses of the inventory, these bladelets where usually seen as distinct markers for the presence of an Aurignacian intermixture in the Ch\u00e2telperronian. In light of the finds from Quin\u00e7ay (see above), this view must be revised, which is why they are mentioned here as potential Ch\u00e2telperronian artifacts.<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/a>
Fig. 11: Ch\u00e2telperron. Grotte des F\u00e9es, 1-9: Dufour-bladelets. Nr. 6 only after depiction by Delporte (drawings with the numbers 95-97 and 99-100: Delporte n.d.; photos and drawings: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Half of the Dufour bladelets feature retouch on their left side, the other half on the right. The raw material used to produce the bladelets differs from the one usually used to produce blades. This has previously been viewed as an indication that these artifacts do not belong to a Ch\u00e2telperronian but rather an Aurignacian context. It is, however, also possible that the brown, homogeneous raw material which was used for two bladelets was chosen for bladelet production due to its superior knapping properties. There exist bladelet cores of the same raw material, but their attribution to the Ch\u00e2telperronian is ambiguous.<\/p>\n

Cores<\/h3>\n

Blade cores<\/h4>\n

Of a total of 101 cores existing in the assemblage from Grotte des F\u00e9es (including Mousterian artifacts and those of younger technocomplexes), at least 46 blade cores fit into a Ch\u00e2telperronian core reduction concept (Fig. 12). All of these are of prismatic shape. Thirty-six (78.3 %) are made of the raw material from Tilly, nine (19.6 %) of different types of grey flint, and a single core (2.2 %) was made from brown jasper.<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/a>
Fig. 12: Ch\u00e2telperron. Grotte des F\u00e9es, 1-8: blade cores (photos: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Cores reduced on two surfaces, as described by Roussel (2011), are the most numerous core type, constituting around three quarters of the blade cores present (n=21, 45.7%). They are followed by cores reduced on three surfaces (n=13, 28.3%) and exhausted blade cores with only one remaining surface (n=11, 23.9%). Only one core (2.2%) is reduced on four surfaces. The two-sided cores are usually reduced on one narrow and an adjacent broad surface.<\/p>\n

The one-sided cores all show a natural or prepared back. Two of them are bidirectionally reduced, the remaining nine unidirectionally. The two-sided cores show more variation, with 12 of 21 being reduced unidirectionally and 7 bidirectionally. The remaining two pieces exhibit two platforms and bidirectional reduction, but the reduction of each surface remained unidirectional.<\/p>\n

Different types of three-sided cores were observed. Four of them were reduced on two broad surfaces and a narrow one, six on two narrow surfaces and a broad one. For the three remaining cores the original surface size could not be deduced. The four-sided core was initially reduced on three sides, but was later turned and the knapping platform was used as a fourth reduction surface.<\/p>\n

Unidirectional and bidirectional core reduction are represented in similar proportions, with 27 (58.7%) unidirectionally and 19 (41.3%) bidirectionally reduced cores. However, eight of the latter display a method of bidirectional core reduction in which each individual surface is reduced unidirectionally. This has been described at Quin\u00e7ay as an often-used method in the case of three-sided cores (Roussel et al. 2016: 20); it results in blanks featuring only dorsal scars indicative of unidirectional blade production. In Ch\u00e2telperron too, out of the eight cores (17.4%) where this reduction method is used, six are three-sided.<\/p>\n

Bladelet cores<\/h4>\n

Besides these blade cores, there also exist eight bladelet cores, six of which have been attributed to the Ch\u00e2telperronian (Fig. 13, 1-6). Of these six, five were produced on flakes, with two showing bladelet reduction on the flank and the ventral surface of the flake, the other three only on the flank. This translates to a reduction on two surfaces (one narrow, one broad) for the former group and on one surface (one narrow) for the latter. Reduction on three surfaces is absent in the bladelet cores from Ch\u00e2telperron. Three show two surfaces, a narrow one and an adjacent broad one, and the remaining three exhibit only one narrow surface. One of the bladelet cores is pyramidal. All were reduced unidirectionally.<\/p>\n

\"Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/a>
Fig. 13: Ch\u00e2telperron. Grotte des F\u00e9es, bladelet cores 1-5: bladelet cores on flakes; 1-2 and 6: bladelet production on narrow and broad surface; 3-5: bladelet production primarily on narrow surface; 7: probably Aurignacian bladelet core (photos and image: H. W\u00fcrschem).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Comparison<\/h2>\n

The sites of Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron share topological aspects as well as resemblances in their lithics, especially in terms of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points, and they also share a long research history. First discovered and excavated in the 19th century, they played an important part in the early process of establishing a chronology for the Paleolithic period, and they were compared to each other early on by Henri Delporte (1955b). Geographically, both sites are located on a north-south extending cliffside, opening towards a small tributary river: the Orbize and Graveron, respectively. The Graveron flows into the Besbre, which itself is a tributary of the Loire, while the Orbize flows into the Sa\u00f4ne. In Germolles there are two collapsed rockshelters, at a height of 215 m asl; at Ch\u00e2telperron the site consists of three collapsed caves at a height of 250 m asl (Fig. 14). At both sites, the transition between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is documented, with a Mousterian layer underlying the Ch\u00e2telperronian. The Aurignacian as well as younger technocomplexes are well represented in Germolles, while in Ch\u00e2telperron we find mostly isolated occurrences. The linear distance between the two sites is about 100 km.<\/p>\n

\"Situation<\/a>
Fig.14: Situation of the Grottes de la Verpilli\u00e8re ensemble (above) and the Grotte des F\u00e9es ensemble (below). Upper photo by Jean Combier; lower photo after Zilh\u00e3o et al. 2008: Fig. 2.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At both Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron, the most frequently used raw material was sourced locally. For Germolles, the preferred raw material is flint from the argiles-\u00e0-silex<\/span>, several outcrops of which exist within 5 km of the site. For Ch\u00e2telperron, it is Tilly flint, which also occurs less than 5 km away. Both raw materials constitute around 80% of the Ch\u00e2telperronian lithic assemblage. It must be stated, however, that in Germolles anything less than 90% of flint from the argiles-\u00e0-silex<\/span> should be seen as a comparatively small quantity.<\/p>\n

Concerning the lithics, Ch\u00e2telperronian points are an obvious point of comparison between the various Ch\u00e2telperronian sites, as they are usually among the most numerous and best studied tool types. We will start with a comparison between the points from Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles, for which we have been able to record our own attributes. These are summarized in Table 2. It must be stressed that the total number of Ch\u00e2telperronian points from both sites is below the statistically significant quantity. However, strong similarities are still visible, which we do not believe to be the result of chance. Where it is possible, we will also use comparisons with the very rich Ch\u00e2telperronian site of Grotte du Renne of Arcy-sur-Cure, which lies about 130 km north of Ch\u00e2telperron and about 120 km north-west of Germolles, as well as the well-studied and published site of Grande Roche de la Pl\u00e9matrie in Quin\u00e7ay, which lies further west, about 350 km to the west of Germolles and around 260 km west of Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/p>\n

\"Comparison<\/a>
Table 2: Comparison between the attributes of Ch\u00e2telperronian points from Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The most striking similarity between Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles is the large quantity of so-called atypical Ch\u00e2telperronian points present on both sites. In Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron around three-quarters of all Ch\u00e2telperronian points are visibly created on asymmetrical blanks. Assuming that the core reduction scheme at the two sites is comparable to that at Quin\u00e7ay\u2014 which our analyses of the cores imply\u2014this number exceeds the estimated number of asymmetrical blanks created during the core reduction (around 20% asymmetrical blanks; Roussel et al. 2016: 18) and thus is not a result of chance, but indicates a preference on the part of Ch\u00e2telperronian flint knappers for these naturally backed blanks. In Quin\u00e7ay, this preference is not as clearly evident. Instead, the amount of points produced on asymmetrical blanks varies between c. 18% and 25% in the three layers (Roussel 2011: 138).<\/p>\n

Unidirectional core technology is the preferred method of reduction on both sites; at Ch\u00e2telperron there was a preference for the use of soft hammer percussion, while at Germolles there seems to have been no clear preference. A small quantity of Ch\u00e2telperronian points from both sites have their points retouched on the basal part of the blank; in the case of the artifacts from Grotte du Renne, Connet offers the following explanation: \u201cCette inversion est observ\u00e9e lorsque la morphologie de la partie distale du support ne permet pas l\u2019am\u00e9nagement de la pointe, lorsqu\u2019elle est trop \u00e9paisse, outrepass\u00e9e, ou pr\u00e9sente un profil trop courbe ou encore lorsqu\u2019elle est trop fine, ne permettant pas la mise en place de la courbure de la pointe recherch\u00e9e<\/q>\u201d (Connet 2002: 370). She observed between 5 and 15% of such inversely struck points in the different layers. In Quin\u00e7ay, the quantity varied between 10 and 15% in the three layers (Roussel 2011), which is also consistent with the findings from Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron.<\/p>\n

No distinct preference can be seen in the backing of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points at any of the mentioned sites. In Germolles, the ratio of points backed on the left side to those backed on the right is around 42.6% to 57.4%, while in Ch\u00e2telperron 62.5% are backed on the right and 37.5% on the left. In Quin\u00e7ay, the ratio is only known for the 107 complete Ch\u00e2telperronian points and varies slightly from layer to layer, with 52% backed on the right to 48% backed on the left in Layer En, and 45% on the right to 55% on the left in Layer Em. Only Layer Ej shows a clear tendency for points backed on the left side (75% to 25%), but this layer contains a total of only eight complete Ch\u00e2telperronian points (Roussel 2011: 154). In Grotte du Renne, where 380 Ch\u00e2telperronian points have been found, \u201c(…) le dos se situe indiff\u00e9remment \u00e0 gauche ou \u00e0 droite des supports<\/q>\u201d (Connet 2002: 370).<\/p>\n

In Table 3, the dimensions of Ch\u00e2telperronian points from Germolles, Ch\u00e2telperron and two layers from Quin\u00e7ay are compared to each other. The mean length values lie between 5 and 6 cm, the widths between 1.5 and 1.9 cm and the thickness never exceeds 0.7 cm. These similarities clearly suggest strict standardization in the case of the Ch\u00e2telperronian points; however, there still exist a few outliers (see especially Fig. 6, Nr. 7).<\/p>\n

\"Dimensions<\/a>
Table 3: Dimensions of Ch\u00e2telperronian points from Ch\u00e2telperron, Germolles and Quin\u00e7ay (metrics from Quin\u00e7ay according to Roussel et al. 2016: Tab. 3).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The remaining tools in the Ch\u00e2telperronian inventories from Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron are harder to compare, since in the case of Ch\u00e2telperron a strong pre-selection of tools and a loss of part of the inventory must be assumed, and in the case of Germolles there are no stratified tools from the intact layers. Nevertheless, some general conclusions can be drawn despite these problems. Laterally retouched blades, endscrapers and backed blades (including Ch\u00e2telperronian points) constitute around 72% of all tool types in Ch\u00e2telperron, which is relatively high compared to Quin\u00e7ay, where they represent around 57% (after Roussel et al. 2016: Table 2). The remaining tool types identified at Quin\u00e7ay, such as truncations, burins, endscrapers, splintered pieces and sidescrapers are all represented in Ch\u00e2telperron in comparable quantities; however, borers are almost entirely absent in Ch\u00e2telperron, as are notches and denticulates.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Two of the sites representing the eastern-most extension of the Ch\u00e2telperronian technocomplex have been discussed: The Grotte des F\u00e9es in Ch\u00e2telperron and the Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I in Germolles. They share a long and complicated research history, starting in the 19th century, and both played an important role in the genesis of our profession (Table 4). Despite the problems that arise from old excavated material, we were able to highlight indications for a strong standardization of the production of Ch\u00e2telperronian points at both sites, from the general dimensions of the points to a similar strategy of raw material use and a strikingly similar approach to blank selection. In both Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles, asymmetrical, i.e., naturally backed blades, were preferably used to retouch Ch\u00e2telperronian points, constituting around three quarters of all Ch\u00e2telperronian points within the assemblage. Seeing as the Ch\u00e2telperronian cores from both sites fit into the reduction scheme defined by Roussel (2011), the amount of such asymmetrical blades created during the core reduction should be approximately the same as that identified for Quin\u00e7ay, around one in five blades. While in Quin\u00e7ay the number of Ch\u00e2telperronian points retouched on such blades is proportional to that number, it is far exceeded in Ch\u00e2telperron and Germolles. The reason for this is unclear, but although the number of tools is lower than in Quin\u00e7ay, we do not believe this to be the result of chance. The fact that in the Ch\u00e2telperronian a method of core reduction was used that seemed to be specifically aimed at producing such asymmetrical blades\u2014which, at times, already have the general shape and size of the finished tool\u2014seems to us to be another indication for this standardization and a technology that is specifically aimed at producing Ch\u00e2telperronian points.<\/p>\n

\"Comparison<\/a>
Table 4: Comparison between the research history of Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I and Ch\u00e2telperron (after Dutkiewicz and Floss2015; Delporte 1999; Depraetere 2000).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Further research into the Ch\u00e2telperronian of Eastern France has also been done during a recently finished dissertation (W\u00fcrschem in prep.), which revisited the sites of Trou de la M\u00e8re Clochette, Frettes (Lamotte et al. 2014) and Grotte du Renne in Arcy-sur-Cure, among others.<\/p>\n

Concerning the site of Ch\u00e2telperron, there is considerable potential for future work. This includes an analysis of the faunal remains, which are principally housed in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, but also a continuation of our field work which was started in 2021. Delporte himself wrote: \u201cL\u2019exp\u00e9rience montre qu\u2019il est exceptionnel qu\u2019un gisement pr\u00e9historique ait \u00e9t\u00e9 totalement \u2018vid\u00e9\u2019 par les anciens fouilleurs<\/q>\u201d (Delporte 1999: 10). While the existence of remaining intact sediments seems to be rather unlikely at the current time, it could be shown that the excavation of Delporte took place in sediments disturbed by earlier excavations and the building of the railway (W\u00fcrschem et al. 2022).<\/p>\n

Acknowledgments<\/h2>\n

The authors would like to thank the Service Regional d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie de Bourgogne \u2013 Franche-Comt\u00e9, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Department of Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, the University of T\u00fcbingen, Mellecey City Hall, all team members who took part in the excavations at Grottes de la Verpilli\u00e8re and Ch\u00e2telperron, the members of the PCR \u201cPal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur ancien en Bourgogne M\u00e9ridional,\u201d Mus\u00e9e Denon, Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie Nationale of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the British Museum, Emmanuelle Audry-Brunet, Rapha\u00ebl Angevin, Jill Cook, Klaus Herkert, Thomas Higham, Claire Lucas and Catherine Schwab.<\/p>\n

We are particularly grateful to H\u00e9loise Koehler, Nicholas Conard, Agn\u00e8s Lamotte, Kevin di Modica and Fabio Wegmueller.<\/p>\n

Literature<\/h2>\n

Baffier, D. 1999. Les derniers N\u00e9andertaliens. Le Ch\u00e2telperronien. Paris: La maison des roches (Histoire de la France pr\u00e9historique).<\/p>\n

Bailleau, J.-G. 1869. Extrait: Grotte des F\u00e9es de Ch\u00e2telperron. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9mulation du d\u00e9partement de l\u2019Allier 10: 384\u20138.<\/p>\n

Bailleau, J.-G. 1870. Grotte des F\u00e9es de Ch\u00e2telperron. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9mulation du d\u00e9partement de l\u2019Allier 11: 81\u2013101.<\/p>\n

Baillet, M., F. Bachellerie and J.-G. Bordes 2014. Enqu\u00eate autour d’un outil: approche techno-\u00e9conomique, fonctionnelle et exp\u00e9rimentale des grattoirs ch\u00e2telperroniens de Canaule II (Creysse, Dordogne, France). PALEO 25: 7\u201336.<\/p>\n

Bordes, J.-G., F. Bachellerie, F. le Brun-Ricalens, and A. Michel. 2011. Towards a new \u201ctransition\u201d: New data concerning the lithic industries from the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic in southwestern France. In Characteristc features of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Eurasia, Proceeding of the International Symposium, \u201cCharacteristic features of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Eurasia: Development of Culture and Evolution of Homo Genus\u201c (July 4-10, Denisova Cave, Altai), ed. by A. P. Derevianko, and M. Shunkov, pp. 116\u2013129. Novosibirsk: Department of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS.<\/p>\n

Breuil, H. 1909. L\u2019Aurignacien pr\u00e9solutr\u00e9en. \u00c9pilogue d\u2019une controverse. Revue pr\u00e9historique 4 (8-9): 5\u201346.<\/p>\n

Breuil, H. 1911. \u00c9tudes de Morphologie Pal\u00e9olithique II, L\u2019Industrie de la Grotte de Chatelperron (Allier) et d\u2019autres gisements similaires. Revue anthropologique 2: 29\u201376.<\/p>\n

Caron, F., F. d\u2019Errico, P. Del Moral, F. Santos, and J. Zilh\u00e3o. 2011. The Reality of Neandertal Symbolic Behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS ONE 6 (6): e21545.<\/p>\n

Connet, N. 2002. Le Ch\u00e2telperronien. R\u00e9flexions sur l\u2019unit\u00e9 et l\u2019identit\u00e9 techno-\u00e9conomique de l\u2019industrie lithique. L\u2019apport de l\u2019analyse diachronique des industries lithiques des couches Ch\u00e2telperroniennes de la grotte du Renne \u00e0 Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Dissertation, Universit\u00e9 de Lille I.<\/p>\n

Deb\u00e9nath, A., P. G. Chase, and H. L. Dibble. 2002. \u00c0 propos d\u2019un poin\u00e7on provenant de la grotte des F\u00e9es \u00e0 Ch\u00e2telperron. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise 9: 378\u20139.<\/p>\n

Desbrosse, R. 1976. Le Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur dans le Jura et en Franche-Comt\u00e9. La Pr\u00e9histoire Fran\u00e7aise 2: 1348\u20131357.<\/p>\n

Desbrosse, R. 1982. Sites p\u00e9rigordiens en grottes dans le quart nord-est de la France. In Aurignacien et Gravettien en Europe. Vol. 2, Cracovie-Nitra 1980, pp. 105\u2013122. Etudes et Recherches Arch\u00e9ologiques de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Li\u00e8ge 13.2. Li\u00e8ge: Universit\u00e9 de Li\u00e8ge.<\/p>\n

Desbrosse, R. 1984. P\u00e9rigordien et Aurignacien anciens de la M\u00e8re Clochette \u00e0 Rochefort-sur-Nenon (Jura). In \u00c9l\u00e9ments de pr\u00e9histoire et protohistoire europ\u00e9enne. Hommages \u00e0 Jacques-Pierre Millotte, ed. by Presses universitaires de Franche-Comt\u00e9, pp. 71\u201395. Annales litt\u00e9raires de l\u2019universit\u00e9 de Besan\u00e7on. S\u00e9rie arch\u00e9ologie 32. Paris: Belles Lettres.<\/p>\n

Delporte, H. 1955a. L\u2019industrie de Ch\u00e2telperron et son extension g\u00e9ographiqe. In Congr\u00e8s pr\u00e9historique de France. Extrait du Compte rendu de la XIVe Session. Strasbourg-Metz 1953 (Le Mans), pp. 233\u2013249. Le Mans: Imprimerie Monnoyer.<\/p>\n

Delporte, H. 1955b. De la complexit\u00e9 du fait Pal\u00e9olithique \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de fouilles nouvelles (Ch\u00e2telperron et Germolles). Pallas 3, Facult\u00e9 des Lettres de Toulouse IV (3): 153\u2013162.<\/p>\n

Delporte, H.1955c. Les fouilles des grottes Pal\u00e9olithiques de Chatelperron (Allier). Gallia 13 (1): 79\u201384.<\/p>\n

Delporte, H. 1999. Ch\u00e2telperron, un grand gisement pr\u00e9historique de l\u2019Allier. Archeologie en Auvergne. Entre N\u00e9andertal et Cro-Magnon. Allier: Conseil General de l\u2019Allier\/la direction r\u00e9gionale des affaires culturelles d\u2019Auvergne\/Assocation pour le D\u00e9veloppement de l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie en Auvergne.<\/p>\n

Delporte, H. n.d. \u00c9tude monographique sur la Grotte des F\u00e9es \u00e0 Ch\u00e2telperron. Archives Delporte, Mus\u00e9e des Antiquit\u00e9s Nationales de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.<\/p>\n

Demars, P.-Y., and P. Laurent 1989. Types d\u2018outils lithiques du pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.<\/p>\n

Depraetere, B. 2000. Technologie lithique chatelperronienne. Pr\u00e9sentation et \u00e9tude du mat\u00e9riel lithique de Ch\u00e2telperron (Allier). Master\u2018s Thesis, Universit\u00e9 Paris I.<\/p>\n

Dumont, P. 1921. Assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du 7 Novembre 1921. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9mulation du Bourbonnais: lettres, sciences et arts: 283\u2013296.<\/p>\n

Dutkiewicz, E. 2011. Die Grotte de La Verpilli\u00e8re I \u2013 150 Jahre Forschungsgeschichte. Die Aufarbeitung und Auswertung der Altgrabungen des pal\u00e4olithischen Fundplatzes Germolles (Commune de Mellecey, Sa\u00f4ne-et- Loire, Frankreich). Master\u2019s Thesis, University of T\u00fcbingen.<\/p>\n

Dutkiewicz, E., and H. Floss. 2015. La grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I \u00e0 Germolles. Site de reference pal\u00e9olithique en Bourgogne meridional. Historique des 150 ans de recherches. La Physiophile 162: 13\u201332.<\/p>\n

Floss, H. 2003. Did they meet or not? Observations on Ch\u00e2telperronian and Aurignacian settlement patterns in eastern France. In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Vol. 6, ed. by J. Zilh\u00e3o and F. d\u2018Errico, pp. 273\u2013287. Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP, University of Li\u00e8ge, 2-8 September 2001. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Lisboa: Instituto Portugu\u00eas de Arqueologia.<\/p>\n

Floss, H. 2005. Das Ende nach dem H\u00f6hepunkt. \u00dcberlegungen zum Verh\u00e4ltnis Neandertaler \u2013 anatomisch moderner Mensch auf Basis neuer Ergebnisse zum Pal\u00e4olithikum in Burgund. In Vom Neandertaler zum modernen Menschen, ed. by N. J. Conard, S. K\u00f6lbl, and W. Sch\u00fcrle, pp. 109\u2013130. Ostfildern: Thorbecke.<\/p>\n

Floss, H., E. Dutkiewicz, J. A. Frick, and C. T. Hoyer. 2013. Le Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur ancien en Bourgogne du sud. In Le Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur ancien de l\u2019Europe du Nord-Ouest: R\u00e9flexions et synth\u00e8ses \u00e0 partir d\u2019un projet collectif de recherche sur le centre et le sud du Bassin parisien, ed. by P. Bodu, L. Chehmana, L. Klaric, L. Mevel, S. Soriano, and N. Teyssandier, pp. 331\u2013350. Actes du colloque de Sens (15-18 avril 2009). Paris: Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Pr\u00e9historique Fran\u00e7aise.<\/p>\n

Floss, H., C. T. Hoyer, and H. W\u00fcrschem. 2016. Le Ch\u00e2telperronien de Germolles (Grotte de La Verpilli\u00e8re I, commune de Mellecey, Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, France). PALEO 27: 149\u2013176.<\/p>\n

Gravina, B., P. Mellars, and C. B. Ramsey. 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Chatelperronian type-site. Nature 483 (3): 51\u201356.<\/p>\n

Higham, T., R. Jacobi, M. Julien, F. David, L. Basell, R. Wood, W. Davies, and C. Bronk Ramsey. 2010. Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Ch\u00e2telperronian. PNAS 107 (47): 20234\u20139.<\/p>\n

Higham, T., F. Brock, C. Bronk Ramsey, W. Davies, R. Wood, and L. Basell. 2011. Chronology of the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France: A response to Zilh\u00e3o et al (this issue). Before Farming 3: article 4.<\/p>\n

Hoyer, C. T., N. Huber, H. Floss, and R. Litzenberg. 2016. Les travaux \u00e0 la Verpilli\u00e8re I en 2015 et la synth\u00e8se de 2013 \u00e0 2015. In Fouilles programmes pluriannuelles aux sites pal\u00e9olithiques des Grottes de la Verpilli\u00e8re I & II \u00e0 Germolles, commune de Mellecey (Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire). Rapport annuel 2015. Rapport pluriannuel 2013 \u00e0 2015, ed. by H. Floss, C. T. Hoyer, J. A. Frick, K. Herkert, and N. Huber, pp. 13\u2013133. Report of the excavations at the Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I and II in Germolles.<\/p>\n

Hublin, J.-J., F. Spoor, M. Braun, F. Zonneveld, and S. Condemi. 1996. A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381: 224\u20136.<\/p>\n

Lacaille, A. D. 1947. Ch\u00e2telperron. A New Survey of its Paleolithic Industry. Archaeologia 92: 95\u2013119.<\/p>\n

Lamotte, A., G. Huguenin, M. Campy, J.-L. Deherripont, J. Detrey, D. Morin, and H. Corbeaux. 2014. Frettes (Haute-Sa\u00f4ne, France): un gisement de plein-air du pal\u00e9olithique moyen, premiers r\u00e9sultats. L\u2019anthropologie 118: 449\u2013475.<\/p>\n

Lucas, G., J.-P. Rigaud, J. F. Simek, and M. Soressi. 2003. The Ch\u00e2telperronian of Grotte XVI, C\u00e9nac-et-Saint-Julien (Dordogne, France). In The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Vol. 6, ed. by J. Zilh\u00e3o and F. d\u2018Errico, pp. 289\u2013298. Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP, University of Li\u00e8ge, 2-8 September 2001. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Lisboa: Instituto Portugu\u00eas de Arqueologia.<\/p>\n

Mellars, P., B. Gravina, and C. B. Ramsey. 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal\/modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. PNAS 104 (9): 3657\u201362.<\/p>\n

Mellars, P., and B. Gravina. 2008. Ch\u00e2telperron: Theoretical Agendas, Archaeological Facts, and Diversionary Smoke-Screens. PaleoAnthropology: 43\u201364.<\/p>\n

Mellars, P. 2010. Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: The bursting of a bubble? PNAS 107 (47): 20147\u20138.<\/p>\n

Mercier, N., H. Valladas, J. L. Joron, J. L. Reyss, F. L\u00e9v\u00eaque, and B. Vandermeersch. 1991. Thermoluminescence dating of the late Neanderthal remains from Saint-C\u00e9saire. Nature 351: 737\u20139.<\/p>\n

Pelegrin, J. 1995. Technologie Lithique. Le Ch\u00e2telperronien de Roc-De-Combe (Lot) et de La C\u00f4te (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire 20. Paris: CNRS \u00c9ditions.<\/p>\n

Pelegrin, J., and M. Soressi. 2007. Le Ch\u00e2telperronien et ses Rapports avec le Moust\u00e9rien. In Les n\u00e9andertaliens. Biologie et cultures, ed by B. Vandermeersch and B. Maureille, pp. 283\u2013296. Documents pr\u00e9historiques 23. Paris: Comit\u00e9 des travaux historiques et scientifiques.<\/p>\n

Rios-Garaizar, J., I. Libano Silvente, and D. Garate Maidagan. 2012. El yacimiento chatelperroniense al aire libre de Aranbaltza (Barrika, Euskadi). Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 63: 81\u201392.<\/p>\n

Roussel, M. 2011. Normes et variations de la production lithique durant le Ch\u00e2telperronien: la s\u00e9quence de la Grande-Roche-de-la-Pl\u00e9matrie \u00e0 Quin\u00e7ay (Vienne). Dissertation, Universit\u00e9 Paris Ouest-Nanterre.<\/p>\n

Roussel, M. 2014. Des Lamelles retouch\u00e9es au Ch\u00e2telperronien: Diffusion d\u2019id\u00e9es entre derniers N\u00e9andertaliens et premiers Hommes modernes migrants. In Modes de contacts et de d\u00e9placements au Pal\u00e9olithique eurasiatique, ed. by M. Otte and F. Le Brun-Ricalens, pp. 491\u2013510. Actes du Colloque international de la commission 8 (Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur) de l\u2019UISPP (Li\u00e8ge, 28-31 mai 2012). Luxemburg: Universit\u00e9 de Li\u00e8ge.<\/p>\n

Roussel, M., M. Soressi, and. J.-J. Hublin. 2016. The Ch\u00e2telperronian conundrum: Blade and bladelet lithic technologies from Quin\u00e7ay, France. Journal of Human Evolution 95: 13\u201332.<\/p>\n

Roux, C., and F. P\u00e9ro. 1911. Histoire des Sciences naturelles et m\u00e9dicales en Bourbonnains (D\u00e9partement de l\u2019Allier). Prodrome Bio-Bibliographique. In Annales de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Linn\u00e9enne de Lyon, 1910, Lyon, ed. by H. Georg and J.-B. Bailli\u00e8re, pp. 117\u201392. Paris: Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 linn\u00e9enne de Lyon.<\/p>\n

Sonneville-Bordes, D., and J. Perrot. 1956. Lexique typologique du Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique de France 53 (9): 547\u2013559.<\/p>\n

Soressi, M., and M. Roussel. 2014. European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. by C. Smith, pp. 2679-93. New York: Springer Vandermeersch, B. 1984. A propos de la d\u00e9couverte du squelette n\u00e9andertalien. Bulletins et M\u00e9moires de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019anthropologie de Paris 14 (1): 191\u20136.<\/p>\n

Welker, F., M. Hajdinjak, S. Talamo, K. Jaouen, M. Dannemann, F. David, M. Juliene, M. Meyer, J. Kelso, I. Barnes, S. Brace, P. Kamminga, R. Fischer, B. M. Kessler, J. R. Stewart, S. P\u00e4\u00e4bo, M. J. Collins, and J.-J. Hublin. 2017. Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Ch\u00e2telperronian at the Grotte du Renne. PNAS 113 (40): 11162\u20137.<\/p>\n

W\u00fcrschem, H. 2015. Das Ch\u00e2telperronien der Grotte de La Verpilli\u00e8re I (Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, Frankreich). Bachelor\u2019s Thesis, University of T\u00fcbingen.<\/p>\n

W\u00fcrschem, H. 2017. Das Ch\u00e2telperronien von Ch\u00e2telperron (Allier, Frankreich). Master\u2019s Thesis, University of T\u00fcbingen.<\/p>\n

W\u00fcrschem, H., R. Angevin, K. Herkert, M. Lejay, and H. Floss. 2022. New Insights on the Eastern Ch\u00e2telperronian. Poster for the 63rd Conference of the Hugo Obermaier-Society (Berlin, 19-23 April 2022).<\/p>\n

W\u00fcrschem, H. in prep. Die Arch\u00e4ologie des \u00f6stlichen Ch\u00e2telperronien. Technologie, Chronologie und Implikationen zur Akkulturationshypothese am \u00dcbergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpal\u00e4olithikum in Europa. PhD Thesis, University of T\u00fcbingen.<\/p>\n

W\u00fcrschem, H., Floss, H. 2022. The Chatelperronian assemblage of the Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I in Germolles (Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, France). In: Hommes, terroir et territoire – le Pal\u00e9olithique en Bourgogne m\u00e9ridionale. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden\/Westfalen, 379-415.<\/p>\n

Zilh\u00e3o, J., F. d\u2019Errico, J.-G. Bordes, A. Lenoble, J.-P. Texier, and J.-Ph. Rigaud. 2006. Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the Ch\u00e2telperronian-type site and implications for the behavioral modernity of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 12643\u201312648.<\/p>\n

Zilh\u00e3o, J., F. d\u2019Errico, J.-G. Bordes, A. Lenoble, J. P. Texier, and J. P. Rigaud. 2008. Grotte des F\u00e9es (Ch\u00e2telperron). History of Research, Stratigraphy, Dating and Archaeology of the Ch\u00e2telperronian Type-Site. PaleoAnthropology: 1\u201342.<\/p>\n

Zilh\u00e3o, J., F. d\u2019Errico, M. Julien, and F. David. 2011. Chronology of the site of Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France: Implications for radiocarbon dating. Before Farming 3: article 3.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\nIn this paper we discuss two Ch\u00e2telperronian sites in eastern France: Grotte de la Verpilli\u00e8re I, the easternmost known Ch\u00e2telperronian site as of today, and the eponymous site of Grotte des F\u00e9es in Ch\u00e2telperron.\n<\/div>\n
Continue reading “The Ch\u00e2telperronian Lithic Industries of Eastern France: Germolles and Ch\u00e2telperron”<\/span>…<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[297,304,397],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english","category-open-access-articles","category-rhine-during-middle-paleolithic","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2732","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2732"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2732\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3439,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2732\/revisions\/3439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}