Fig 1.
Map showing the localization of Fumane Cave and other Aurignacian sites cited throughout the paper.
1 = La Viña (Spain), 2 = Morin (Spain), 3 = Labeko Koba (Spain), 4 = Isturitz (France), 5 = Champ-Parel (France), 6 = Barbas III (France), 7 = Hui (France), 8 = Les Cottés (France), 9 = Piage (France); 10 = Tuto-de-Camalhot (France), 11 = Arbreda (Spain), 12 = Esquicho-Grapaou (France), 13 = Louza (France), 14 = Arcy (France), 15 = Mandrin (France), 16 = Trou de la Mère Clochette (France), 17 = Observatoire (France), 18 = Mochi (Italy), 19 = Bombrini (Italy), 20 = Geißenklösterle (Germany), 21 = La Fabbrica (Italy), 22 = Fumane (Italy), 23 = Castelcivita (Italy), 24 = Willendorf II (Austria), 25 = Peskő (Hungary), 26 = Tincova (Romania), 27 = Româneşti (Romania), 28 = Kozarnika (Bulgaria), 29 = Siuren I (Crimea). Map downloaded from the NASA Earth Observatory (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/) and processed by K. Di Modica (Scladina Cave Archaeological Center).
Table 1.
Quantification of the knapped assemblage (> 1.5 cm).
Table 2.
Distribution of blank types (> 1.5 cm) according to the whole assemblage and the minimal number of flaked products (MNFP).
Table 3.
Distribution of core categories.
Fig 2.
Semi-circumferential blade core (1), wide-faced flat blade core with scars of a technical orthogonal flake on the proximal side (2), transverse carinated cores (3, 6), narrow-sided cores (4, 12), multi-platform core, and its schematic drawing (arrows indicate direction of the removals and numbers indicate the order of the removals), exploited for blade (phase 1) and bladelet productions (phases 3 and 5) (5), wide-faced flat core with evidence of a simultaneous production of small blades and big bladelets (7), semi-circumferential bladelet core with a refitted plunging blade (8), multi-platform bladelet core exploited on the narrow face and successively on the wide face in two distinct phases (9), semi-circumferential bladelet cores (10), and parallel flake core (11) (photo and drawing: A. Falcucci).
Fig 3.
Refitted semi-circumferential blade core (photo: A. Falcucci).
Fig 4.
Box-plots of length (left) and width (right) values (in millimeters) of the last complete negatives measured on platform cores divided per reduction strategy.
For colors see the legend.
Fig 5.
A sample of blades (1, 13–21) and bladelets (2–12) of different sizes with unidirectional scar patterns.
Artifacts are oriented with the butt at the bottom of the photo (photo: A. Falcucci).
Table 4.
Morphological and technological attributes of blades, bladelets, and flakes.
Table 5.
Summary of metric attributes of blades, bladelets, and blades and bladelets considered as a whole.
Fig 6.
Distribution of blade and bladelet widths (in millimeters) considered as a whole.
The red dashed line represents the arbitrary metric limit (12.0 mm) between blades and bladelets.
Fig 7.
Comparison between the distribution of complete blade lengths (in millimeters; blue) and complete bladelet lengths (in millimeters; green).
Fig 8.
Blanks belonging to the decortication and initialization of platform cores.
Fully cortical flakes (1, 12), semi-cortical blade with multiple bladelet scars (2), crested blades (3, 9, 11, 13–14, 17), fully cortical bladelet (4), crested bladelets displaying remains of the ventral face of the core blank (5, 6), fully cortical blade (7), crested flake (8), crested bladelet (10), naturally backed blade with the rest of a two-sided crest in the distal side (15), two-sided crested blade (16). Arrows indicate the direction of removals. Artifacts are oriented with the butt at the bottom of the photo (photo: A. Falcucci).
Fig 9.
Maintenance products from blade production.
Naturally backed blades (1, 6), neo-crested blades (2–5), and technical blades with multiple blade scars (7–9). Arrows indicate the direction of removals. Artifacts are oriented with the butt at the bottom of the photo (photo and drawings: A. Falcucci).
Fig 10.
Maintenance products from bladelet and simultaneous blade-bladelet productions.
Technical blades with multiple bladelet scars (1–5, 9), lateral comma-like blades with multiple bladelet scars (6–8, 10, 11). Arrows indicate the direction of removals. Artifacts are oriented with the butt at the bottom of the photo (photo and drawings: A. Falcucci).
Table 6.
List of relevant attributes recorded on core tablets.
Fig 11.
Blade core tablets (6–8) and bladelet core tablets (1–5, 9). Arrows indicate the direction of the blow and of removals (photo: A. Falcucci).
Fig 12.
Technical flakes removed from bladelet cores (1, 5–8), blade cores (2, 3), and blade-bladelet cores (4). Note that 2 is a spall removed from a technical flake. Arrows indicate the direction of the blow and of removals (photo and drawings: A. Falcucci).
Table 7.
General overview of the main tool categories.
Fig 13.
Retouched bladelets with convergent (1–3, 6, 10–13) and lateral (4–5, 7–9) retouch (typological definition after Falcucci et al. [103]).
Retouching is direct on 1–3, 6, 10, and 12; alternate on 4–5, 11, and 13; inverse on 7–9 (photo: A. Falcucci).
Fig 14.
Pie charts representing the proportion of tools made on blades (left) and flakes (right), grouped according to the main technological categories.
Initialization group includes fully cortical and crested elements; maintenance group includes crested secondary, naturally backed, neo-crested, lateral comma-like, and technical blanks. For colors see the legend.
Fig 15.
Burins on blade (1–6), end-scrapers on crested blades (7, 21), end-scrapers on flake (8, 13), thick end-scrapers on cortical flakes (9, 14), blades with lateral retouch (10–11, 17–19, 24), end-scraper on a technical flake with blade scars (12), thick blades with Aurignacian retouch (15, 16), end-scraper on a technical blade with bladelet scars (20), end-scraper on blade (22) belonging to the first reduction phase of core number 5 in Fig 2, end-scrapers with lateral scalar retouch on blades (23, 25). Arrows indicate the direction of the blow (photo: A. Falcucci).
Table 8.
Metrical comparison of the mean values (in millimeters) ± standard deviations between tools and blanks according to the main blank types, and results of the multiple Mann–Whitney U-tests (p values) that were conducted.
Table 9.
List of the attributes used to identify the knapping technique.