Solving the puzzle of neanderthal occupations: a reassessment of temporal indicators of occupation duration

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2025) 17:61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02163-0 RESEARCH Solving the puzzle of neanderthal occupations: a reassessment of temporal indicators of occupation duration Valentina Lubrano1 · Anna Rufà1,2 · Ruth Blasco3,4 · Florent Rivals3,4,5 · Jordi Rosell3,4 Received: 4 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 January 2025 / Published online: 15 February 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract The identification of the duration of Neanderthal occupations is a tricky topic by the palimpsest nature of archaeological assemblages. This study explores the challenges associated with distinguishing between long and short-term occupations, using qualitative and quantitative data from relevant archaeological sites in the Late Middle Palaeolithic in Spain and southeastern France. We highlight the proposed occupation models and their specific characteristics, considering the heterogeneity of archaeological evidence and the limitations of current methodologies. The article offers a reassessment of the topic, critically analysing the current indicators used to determine the duration of Neanderthal occupations. Furthermore, we discuss the complexity in defining the concepts of short and long-term occupation, emphasising the need for a multidisciplinary approach to fully understand the complexity of the practices of the Late Neanderthals. Keywords Neanderthals · Human behaviour · Late Middle Palaeolithic · Temporal resolution Introduction The study of Neanderthal behaviour is one of the main subjects of interest in Palaeolithic archaeological research. The topic continues to gain relevance, playing an important role in the discussion about cultural transformations that characterise the Late Neanderthals and the transition This article is part of the Topical Collection on Characterizing technology, subsistence and settlement dynamics of the Middle Stone Age and Middle Paleolithic * Valentina Lubrano 1 Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour (ICArEHB), FCHS – Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005‑139 Faro, Portugal 2 Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, MCC, PACEA, UMR 5199, 33600 Pessac, France 3 Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES-CERCA), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Zona Educacional 4, Campus Sescelades (Edifici W3), 43007 Tarragona, Spain 4 Departament d’Història i Història de l’Art, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain 5 ICREA, Pg. Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. To sustain and further enhance this interest, the wealth of data generated in recent decades significantly contributes to driving exploration and understanding. Moreover, much literature has been published on the Late Neanderthal period (70 − 40 ka) and serves to diminish the distinctions initially stressed between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The cultural capabilities of Neanderthals represent the starting point for addressing the broader question about Neanderthal behaviour. The examination of human behaviour is a critical aspect of comprehending the diversity of Middle Palaeolithic archaeological sites. Studying Neanderthal behaviour provides insights into occupational patterns and site functionality. In addition, the analysis of occupational patterns and site functions provides data that help identify mobility patterns, social interactions, and the size of the groups that occupied caves and shelters during the Middle Palaeolithic. The concept of mobility depends on various variables such as the use made of a territory, the availability of resources, the distance covered during each movement, the number of displacements, and the type of occupation (Binford 1980; Cascalheira and Picin 2020; Fernández-Laso et al. 2011; Gómez De Soler et al. 2020; Kelly 1983, 1995; Kuhn et al. 2016; Marín et al. 2019; Mayor et al. 2022; Moncel et al. 2019; Picin 2022; Picin and Carbonell 2016; Spagnolo et al. 2019). Vol.:(0123456789) 61 Page 2 of 27 Duration of occupation is intricately linked to both its function and the type of occupation it serves. When identifying site typology, the primary distinction lies in whether the site serves a residential or logistic function. Binford (1980:9) defines a residential site as ‘the locus where most processing, manufacturing, and maintenance activities take place’. A residential site constitutes the place where the group resides, and where resources are introduced, processed, and shared. Some authors (e.g., O'Connell, 1987; Rolland 2004) describe the presence of hearths as a characteristic element of residential sites. Indeed, hearths represent the place where domestic activities took place and are essential for keeping predators away. They also provide illumination and offer heat when it is cold (Rosell and Blasco 2019; Vallverdú et al. 2010). Fireplaces also have a crucial social function, as they represent the place where socialisation occurs and knowledge is transmitted. As the hub of social life and resource sharing, hearths give sense to the concept of 'hearth-related areas' in literature (Stevenson 1991; Vaquero and Pastó 2001; Vaquero et al. 2004; Vaquero 2012). Hearth-related areas are the results of a social structure and correspond to the performance of activities around the fire. Hearth-related accumulations are a common characteristic of Middle Palaeolithic sites; in addition, they are also important to understand the accumulation patterns and the cultural processes involved in the assemblage formation. The activities developed in these areas include processing and food consumption, as well as the production and resharpening tools, among others. Hearths are areas that might have been used to sleep, converse or play. In 1983, Binford provided a model associated with hearth-related assemblages and identified two areas according to the depositional patterns of remains and their dimensions. According to him, remains found near the hearths were probably produced during the development of activities in situ, and constitute the ‘drop area’. A second zone, known as the ‘toss area’, was located away from the hearth, where humans accumulated the remains intentionally removed from the activity area. Both areas could be distinguished by the size of the remains: while in the drop area the remains tend to be small, large remains tend to accumulate in the toss zone. Moreover, Binford (1983) describes another type of cleaning activity, referred to as "preventive maintenance." This process involves the accumulation of large refuse in areas specifically designated as trash zones. This practice corresponds to what Schiffer (Bökonyi 1972) called the "primary refuse area," which differs from the "de facto refuse area," that is, the actual location where an activity took place. When the primary (or de facto) refuse is moved away from the activity area, it creates what is called the "secondar (...truncated)