A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian.

Armando Falcucci,Marco Peresani,Nicholas J Conard,Michael D Petraglia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189241

Armando Falcucci, Marco Peresani + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189241

Copy DOI

Abstract

In the scenario of the spread of the anatomically modern humans (AMHs) into Europe, the techno-complex known as Protoaurignacian is defined by the production of blades and bladelets within a single and continuous stone knapping sequence from the same core as the result of its progressive reduction. However, the growing re-evaluation of some assemblages is revealing that bladelets are frequently obtained from independent reduction sequences, hence discouraging the direct application of the model developed in southwestern France. High-resolution regional signatures are thus needed to reconstruct a more accurate portrait of the AMH colonization dynamic. Northeastern Italy, with the key site of Fumane Cave, is one among the regions of Mediterranean Europe worthy of consideration for reconstructing this colonization process and its cultural dynamics. Within the framework of a critical discussion of the technological definition of the Protoaurignacian and its relationship with contemporaneous industries on a regional and supra-regional scale, we present the results of a detailed analysis of the lithic technology from units A2-A1 based on reduction sequence and attribute analyses. Results show that bladelets are the first goal of production and they do not originate from reduced blade cores but from a broad range of independent and simultaneous core reduction strategies. One implication is that the most commonly used technological trait that is said to define the Protoaurignacian has been over-emphasized and that the Protoaurignacian is technologically consistent across its geographical extent. Additional data based on carinated core technology imply that this techno-complex shares a common technological background with the Early Aurignacian and that no features are restricted to one of the two facies. Furthermore, the major difference between the Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian appears to be more typological in nature, with retouched bladelets being less common in the Early Aurignacian.

Highlights

The Aurignacian is considered the result of the spread of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) across Europe [1,2,3,4]
The association of the Aurignacian techno-complex with the spread of AMHs requires the design of a large-scale study that incorporates a detailed comparison of Eurasian Early Upper Paleolithic techno-complexes, such as the Baradostian [153,154,155], the Rostamian [155,156,157], and the Early Ahmarian [158]. This extensive investigation of the lithic technology from the Protoaurignacian units A2-A1 at Fumane Cave and careful comparison with other assemblages confirms that the Protoaurignacian is a bladelet-dominated industry
Our study demonstrates that bladelet production is based on a broad range of reduction strategies that are not related to the reduction of larger blade cores, as postulated by Bon, Teyssandier and Bordes [48]

Summary

Introduction

The Aurignacian is considered the result of the spread of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) across Europe [1,2,3,4]. To trace this migration route, the techno-complexes which are said to represent the precursors of the classic Aurignacian, like the Mediterranean Protoaurignacian and the Kozarnikian, have at times been assigned to the Early Ahmarian [5, 6]. Similar claims have been made for the Uluzzian after the assignment of two teeth to Homo sapiens at Cavallo cave [12]. The integrity of the Cavallo stratigraphy has, been questioned [13] and further evidence is needed to assess the makers of the Uluzzian industry [14, 15]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion