Fig 1.
Location of Cova Foradada and the main sites in Iberia containing transitional or earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages, as referred to in the text. 1-Cueva Morín, 2-Aranbaltza, 3-Labeko Koba, 4-Ekain, 5-Isturitz, 6-Cova Gran, 7-Abric Romaní, 8-Cova del Gegant, 9-Canyars, 10-Teixoneres, 11-L’Arbreda.
Fig 2.
View of the different parts of Cova Foradada.
a) General view of the Lower Entrance of the cave and external terrace prior to its excavation in 2014; b) interior of the cave from the Lower Entrance during the excavation of Layer I in 2006, the excavation hall; c) view of the Upper Entrance of the cave.
Fig 3.
Digital elevation model of the interior part of the karstic development.
a) Upper, b) front, and c) back views of the Cova Foradada morphology from the photogrammetric 3D model of the cave. The external structure of the cave has been removed from the model to show the internal morphology of the karst system. Digital elevation model created in CloudCompare v2.1.0 alpha.
Fig 4.
Plain view of the cave indicating the different sectors mentioned in the text, including the excavation area (square), the travertine slope, and the upper test pit. Various features, such as the location of the main section, the position of the projected profiles, the location of the SW Gallery, and the Travertine Platform 2 (TP-2), are also indicated in the figure.
Fig 5.
Reconstruction of the stratigraphic succession at the site, based on field maps and the distribution of material along line y = 6. Black dashed line between layers II, IIIg, and IIIc indicates the basal part of the erosive discontinuity affecting the top of Unit III.
Fig 6.
Stratigraphic succession at different locations within the site: a) and b) E9-D9 section where Unit III and Unit IV are stratigraphically continuous and are directly in contact. Layer IIIn has been almost completely eroded; c) and d) D6-7 section where TP-2 separates Unit III and Unit IV; e) lithostratigraphic column from the E6-D6 E-W section. Lithology: M = muds; S = sands; C = cobbles and boulders; Ch = chemical deposits. Symbols: 1, mud; 2, sand; 3, pebbles; 4, cobble and boulder slabs; 5, boulder; 6, calcarenite; 7, calcilutite and marls; 8, black impregnations; 9, cryptokarst; 10, root casts; 11, black cryptocrystalline impregnations; 12, massive; 13, archeological sublayers. Columns: A, archaeological layers; B, lithostratigraphic units; C, cultural attribution.
Fig 7.
Plot of the findings recorded per layer.
Above, XY plot of the 3D-registered remains from each layer. Below, stacked percentage bar plot showing the proportions of non-anthropogenic (unmodified or carnivore modified bones) versus the various anthropogenic remains per layer.
Fig 8.
Complete X-Z projection of the archaeological materials.
NS plotting of all the 3D-registered archaeological materials at the site. In grey, non-anthropogenic remains. In blue, green, and black, anthropogenic remains from each archeological layer. Partial overlap derives from the EW slope of the Unit III and IV layers.
Fig 9.
Partial X-Z and Y-Z projections of the archaeological materials.
NS (a-a’, b-b’, c-c’) and EW (d-d’) projections of the 3D-registered archaeological materials. Different symbols are used for anthropogenic (lithics and seashells), non-anthropogenic or undetermined (bones) remains, and 14C dates. Depending on the slope of the layers and the representativeness of the section, wider or narrower sections have been plotted. a-a’ and d-d’ = 75cm; b-b’ and c-c’ = 50cm. The position of each section in the cave is shown in Fig 4.
Table 1.
Absolute occurrence of the recovered materials per layer.
Archeological distribution of the archeological materials from Cova Foradada across the different layers. Lithics, bone tools, seashells, cut-marked bones, and burned bones represent anthropogenic impact on the assemblage formation.
Table 2.
Structural composition of the lithic assemblages.
Lithic remains recovered from the Cova Foradada archaeological layers tabulated according to their category. Unret = unretouched, Ret = retouched.
Fig 10.
Malacological record from layer IIIn.
a-c), Turritella communis. d), Bittium sp. e), Tritia incrassata. f), Tritia reticulata. g), Antalis sp. h), Nucella lapillus. i), Tritia neritea. j-k), Euspira catena. l), Nassarius circumcinctus. m), Homalopoma sanguineum.
Fig 11.
Lithics recovered from layer IIIn.
a), unretouched blade with distal ridge-rectification retouching. b) and c), conjoined and distal fragment of Gravettian points with abrupt backing on one edge and direct invasive retouching on the opposite edge. d), fragmented double-backed bladelet. e), small Gravettian point with bipolar backing retouching and direct retouching shaping the proximal part of the right edge. f), inversely retouched borer. g), proximal fragment of backed bladelet with inverse flat retouching on the non-backed edge.
Fig 12.
Above, distribution of the FTIR results from layers IIIc and IV (control) samples. Left, distribution of the signals indicating thermally altered clay (red) and non-thermally altered clay (blue). Right, distribution of the results on calcite origin: ash (white) or geogenic (gray). Below, examples of two different FTIR spectra indicating anthropic impact (red) and natural sediments (blue).
Fig 13.
Lithics recovered from layer IIIc.
a) and b), bladelets with partial marginal and direct semi-abrupt retouching. c-j), Retouched bladelets (c and h) with marginal inverse semi-abrupt retouching on the right edge; d-g) and i-j) with different distributions of marginal direct and semi-abrupt retouching). k and l), unretouched bladelets. m and n), end-scrapers.
Fig 14.
Antler and bone tools from layer IIIc.
Antler tools from layer IIIc. a-d) fragments of split-based points; a and c photographs of the tools; b and d) untextured views extracted from the 3D models where the fracture surfaces can be much more clearly observed. e), distal fragment of a bone awl. f), antler blank.
Fig 15.
Complete backed points from Unit IV.
Retouched blades from Cova Foradada Unit IV. a and b) show discontinuous retouching along the edge. c), a fully retouched edge. d), a mid-distal modification of the blade.
Fig 16.
Retouched assemblage from Unit IV.
a-d), distal fragments of Châtelperronian points. e), unretouched blade. f), partial néocrête. g), splintered tool. h), end-scraper.
Fig 17.
Unpierced Steromphala varia shell recovered from layer IV (Right).
Table 3.
Faunal assemblage from Cova Foradada.
Zooarchaeological and taphonomic accounts of the different layers of Cova Foradada. The columns show the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and their frequency. *Percentage calculated according to humerus + tibia + femur NISP.
Fig 18.
Breakage patterns on rabbit limb bones.
Examples of human (midshaft bone cylinders) and carnivore bone modifications on rabbit bones from Cova Foradada. The white arrows point to notches, probably produced by human bites, (b) indicate burned bones, (c-m) indicate cut-marked bones, * indicate carnivore tooth marks, (dig) indicate digested bones.
Table 4.
C-14 dates available for the Cova Foradada sequence.
G = Gravettian, EA = Early Aurignacian, CP = Châtelperronian. The subsample column indicates those dates obtained from various fragments of the main sample.
Fig 19.
Modelling of radiocarbon dates from Cova Foradada.
Colored distributions highlights end and start boundaries for the formation of each layer. Calibrated against Intcal’13 in Oxcal v.4.3.2.