Tools on shell at Moscerini Cave (central Italy) and MIS 5 sea level highstands: a critical insight into the modern behavior of a non-sapiens human species

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2025) 17:86 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02200-y RESEARCH Tools on shell at Moscerini Cave (central Italy) and MIS 5 sea level highstands: a critical insight into the modern behavior of a nonsapiens human species Fabrizio Marra1 · Fabio Santaniello2,3 · Stefano Grimaldi2,3 Received: 25 October 2024 / Accepted: 3 March 2025 / Published online: 21 March 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract This work analyzes the evidence of Neanderthal frequentation at Moscerini cave (central Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy) based on the quantity and on the typology of tools produced on marine shells of Callista chione in comparison with the varying environmental and climatic context linked with the glacial/deglacial phases and the associated sea level oscillations during MIS 5. Thanks to the reconstruction of the paleo-coastline position in the interval 125—100 kya achieved by the recent chronostratigraphic study of Guattari, Capre and Moscerini caves and of the marine terraces along the coast between Cape Circeo and Anzio, we show the direct correspondence of the production of tools on shell with the timespans in which the cave entrance opened on the beach, directly. Finally, we highlight that production of tools on shell ended abruptly, during the regressive phase leading to MIS 5b lowstand, when the sea level dropped several tens of meters below the cave entrance. This case study provides critical reflections on the alleged modern behavior of Neanderthals. Keywords Modern behavior · Neanderthal · MIS5 sea level · Shell tool · Central Italy · Moscerini cave Introduction In this paper, a case study of Neanderthal behaviour associated with the use of marine shells as tools will be discussed to provide critical reflections on a broader topic that is widely debated in the literature: the alleged “modern” behaviour that several authors (see references below and, among others, Zilhao 2007; Peresani et al. 2011; Hoffman et al. 2018; Romagnoli et al. 2022) attribute to this human species on the basis of certain archaeological evidence they consider significant in this regard, including the use of shells as an alternative raw material for the production of artefacts. Generally speaking, modern behaviour is archaeologically identified in the presence of a single or a set of archaeological evidence (e.g. ornaments, art, burials, composite * Stefano Grimaldi 1 Istituto Nazionale Di Geologia E Vulcanologia, Roma, Italia 2 Laboratorio Bagolini: Archeologia, Archeometria e Fotografia; Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, Università Di Trento, Trento, Italia 3 Istituto Italiano Di Paleontologia Umana, Anagni, Italia tools, hafting, selection of different raw materials, …) or even through the recognition of complex social patterns (goods exchanges, settlement space use strategies, ethnic and/or linguistic differentiations based on typologicaldecorative styles, and more). Since modern behaviour must necessarily be correlated with evolutionary developments of cognitive properties (e.g., “the out-of-brain storage of symbolism”, Wadley 2001:201), a broad consensus holds that such modernity—although not necessarily fully acquired at the time of our biological emergence (for instance Wadley 2001; Marean 2010; Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2020), and not showing a worldwide uniformity (see for instance, Bar-Yosef 2005; Szabo et al. 2007; Zhou et al. 2023)—is a feature of the intellectual capacities of our species, Homo sapiens. Over the last decades, some authors – by assuming that peculiar archaeological evidence found at sites frequented by the non-sapiens human species should be considered as the result of an innovative, a modern-like cultural adaptation— claim for the behavioural modernity of the Neanderthal (for instance, among others, Shipman 2008; Cortés-Sanchez et al. 2011), while others backdate it to the more archaic species (Joordens et al. 2015). An epistemological discussion about a definition of modern behaviour in sapiens or pre-sapiens human species is Vol.:(0123456789) 86 Page 2 of 15 beyond the scope of this paper. Here, our perspective considers fundamental in any research on this topic the distinction among cultural/modern behaviour and adaptive patterns: while the former implies cognitive complexity (i.e., art, ornaments, and so on), social structures (such as language, ethnicity, and so on), and knowledge transmission (for instance, technological evolution and resilience of the acquired techniques), the latter evolves according to changes in the ecosystems where the prehistoric human groups live. We follow Boas (1911) who clearly stated “many phenomena of material culture and social relations are common to man and animals (…). If we were to define culture by observing behaviour alone there is little in the fundamental elements of human behaviour that has not some kind of parallel in the animal world” (Boas 1911:160–163). The distinction between culture and adaptation should be done well before the assumption of arbitrary categories of archaeological materials as proxy data to be used in favour of modern behaviour. For example, the recognition of different adaptive pattern trends, observed among different geographical regions inhabited by anatomically modern humans, are clear evidence of the difficult to recognize “modernity” starting from an archaeological set of data, such as ornaments, lithic technology, and so on (examples in Bar-Yosef 2005; Szabo et al. 2007; Zhou et al. 2023). More, when prehistoric “simple” behaviours of anatomically modern humans are found in archaeological contexts, they are usually and tightly related to “complex” cultural environments (for instance Velliky et al. 2018). Nevertheless, several attempts have been made to assign a H. sapiens-like, symbolic attitude to the Neanderthals: for instance, the use of pigments (among others, Zilhao 2012; Carciumaru et al. 2015; Hoffman et al. 2018; Jaubert et al. 2022) despite of the processing of ochre can also have multiple functions related to mere subsistence activities, such as medicinal properties (Velo 1984), tanning of hides (Rifkin et al. 2011) or glues for hafting (Schmidt et al. 2024), not allowing direct links to a presumed symbolic sphere. Similarly, the identification of marks due to lithic artefacts found on bones of birds of prey does not allow an a priori assumption of a symbolic Neanderthal activity by conjecturing the use of bird feathers as personal ornaments (among others, Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019 and references therein). Consequently, we would like to present here a case study to better illustrate our perspective as well as the difficulty to consider arbitrarily selected categories of artefacts as significant for the identification of modern behaviour in Neanderthal groups. On the contrary, such evidence acquires a very different meaning when interpreted in terms of temporary adaptation to changes of the local ecosystem. The case study we are dealin (...truncated)