Fig 1.
Location of the cave and the excavated area.
a. Map with location of Bacho Kiro Cave, and the mentioned Temnata and Kozarnika caves (T. Tsanova); b. The cave entrance in 1938 (R. Popov and D. Garrod excavation); c. The entrance of Bacho Kiro Cave today (V. Aldeias); d. Site plan and excavation grid showing previous excavations and excavated areas from 2015 to 2021 (V. Aldeias, modified T. Tsanova); e. View to the excavation sectors (Sh. McPherron); f. Niche 1 with location of layers I and J (Sh. McPherron); g. The Main Sector initial stratigraphic section in 2015 with indicated layers and the corresponding layers from 1971–1975 excavations (T. Tsanova).
Fig 2.
Stratigraphy and lithics plot in Niche 1, Bacho Kiro Cave.
Top: Picture of the stratigraphic section (East) (T. Tsanova); Middle: Plot of the lithics per layer (T. Tsanova & Z. Rezek); Down: 2019 excavations in sq. A8, DD7, and DD8 with the distinctive dark-gray sediments of Layer I (3D model N. Zahariev in Sirakov, Tsanova, Hublin 2019).
Table 1.
Quantities and percentages of analyzed lithics that were individually provenienced, total number of individually provenienced lithics in the IUP layers per sector, and layers of excavation in Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
Table 2.
Number and density of plotted lithic (>15 mm) and faunal remains (>20 mm) in the IUP layers (Main Sector and Niche 1 merged) in Bacho Kiro Cave.
Table 3.
Distribution of raw material types, geological provenance and geotopes of the flint used in IUP lithic assemblages from Bacho Kiro Cave, excavations 2015–2021.
Table 4.
Raw material types per sector and excavated layers in Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
Fig 3.
Map of Bulgaria with the location of Bacho Kiro Cave and raw material sources of the silicites found in the IUP layers.
Size of the circle correspond to the proportion found in the IUP layers from BK; In the legend dots correspond to the known formation with silicites (white dots: sources not exploited; black dots: sources exploited) author V. Delvigne.
Table 5.
Raw material types per techno-typological categories in the IUP layers (H, H/I, I, I/J, and J) from both sectors in Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
Fig 4.
Raw material types distribution in the techno-typological groups in the IUP layers in Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
Table 6.
Count of techno-typological categories in the IUP layers H, H/I, I, I/J and J from the Main Sector and Niche 1 in Bacho Kiro Cave.
Table 7.
Count of bipolar techno-typological categories in the IUP layers from the Main Sector and Niche 1 in Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 5.
Cores and products in the IUP layers, from Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
Bipolar cores (1, 3, 5, 8–9, 11) and bipolar products (2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12–14). Note Nr 9 is a bipolar core on previous endscraper on blade. Note for Nr 18 and 19 an arrow indicates the debitage direction of the previous surfaces while the last removals (redébitage or reflaking, reshaping are drawn with ripples), (Pictures T. Tsanova, drawings T. Tsanova and I. Krumov).
Fig 6.
Cores and products in the IUP layers, from Bacho Kiro Cave, excavation 2015–2021.
1 Core on cortical flake Kombewa type; 2–3 Biconvex small flake Kombewa type; 4, 6–8, 10 Flakes of Levallois type; 5, 9 Cores of Levallois concept; 11 Neo-crest corresponding of retouched edge of a tool (typologically is a burin spall); 12 Reflaking the lower face of a retouched tool (typologically corresponding to flat burin); 13 Overshot flake with negatives of reflaking (the blank was likely a heavy blade) 14 Bipolar core for bladelets; 15–17 Bladelets whose nr 15 resulting of bipolar percussion (pictures Ts. Tsanova, drawings 1–4, 6–8, 11–12 I. Krumov, 5 S. Sirakova).
Table 8.
Average dimensions of the blades in the IUP layers from Bacho Kiro Cave.
Table 9.
Dorsal scar pattern comparing retouched blade tools with unretouched blades in the IUP layers from Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 7.
Pointed blades from the IUP layers in Bacho Kiro Cave.
1–2 Heavy gauge blades retouched in the distal part with number 2 could be classified as side-scraper, the proximal end is shaped out by inverse retouch; 3 Small pointed blade. Note that numbers 2 and 3 are of similar morphology slightly truncated on the left distal edge while the right edge is of straight delineation; 4–5 Pointed unretouched and slightly retouched blades with shape predetermined in the debitage method, number 5 is only slightly retouched on the right edge forming a notch below the apex; 6 Pointed elongated triangular flake; 7 Pointed blade from bidirectional reduction and with missing proximal part; 8 Long distal fragment of pointed retouched blade with a step terminating a bending fracture on the apical ventral surface (negative of the fracture precedes the burnt alteration), (Drawings I. Krumov and T. Tsanova).
Fig 8.
Laminar products, IUP layers, Bacho Kiro Cave.
1 Laminar retouched flake with distal cortex; 2 Blade with convergent edges from bidirectional debitage; 3 Pointed blade (predetermined shape) long distal-medial fragment; 4 Blade long medial fragment; 5, 8, 9 Blade proximal long fragments (whose nr 5 with lateral cortex and nr 8 with bidirectional negatives); 6 Blade fragment with convergent scar pattern, 7 Overshot blade with retouch and bidirectional scar pattern, resulting from volumetric debitage (Pictures Ts. Tsanova, drawings I. Krumov).
Table 10.
Types of blades and flakes platforms (counts for unretouched and retouched blades and flakes, complete items and all proximal fragments) in the IUP layers from Bacho Kiro Cave.
Percentage of each platform type is calculated from the total value of the blades and flakes categories.
Fig 9.
Plot of the exterior platform angles (EPA) of blades, flakes, freehand and bipolar cores, IUP layers, Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 10.
Box & whisker plot of the blades and flakes platforms dimensions (width and thickness), IUP layers, Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 11.
Examples of curation- redébitage modalities from the IUP layers in Bacho Kiro Cave.
1 On a edge of a retouched flake (ex-sidescraper?) reworked on burin core on anvil, the right edge is reflaked like burin. Theoretically 2, 3, 4 could be products or byproduct of nr 1; 2 Typological “Retouch” flake; 3 Typological “burin” spall (edge of retouched tool); 4 Splintered flake; 5 On a upper face of a blade fragment, Kostienki type- bladelets are extracted from the central arise; 6, 7 straight triangular bladelets likely produced by Kostienki technique; 8 Bipolar core on retouched flake, with clear negative of removed triangular flake from his upper face; 9 Typological “Retouch” flake; 10 Resharpened flake edge, 11–12 Typological “burin” spalls theoretically corresponding to nr 10 (Pictures Ts. Tsanova, drawings I. Krumov).
Fig 12.
Plot of blades dimensions: Length, width and thickness comparing complete retouched (tools) and complete unretouched blades, IUP layers, Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 13.
Plot of length, width and thickness of complete and fragmented blades tools and unretouched blades, IUP layers, Bacho Kiro Cave.
Fig 14.
Fragmentation and curations of retouched tools and blades in the IUP layers from Bacho Kiro Cave.
1–3 Short distal tips of retouched points; 4–6 Distal fragments of retouched points (Nr 6 could be convergent sidescraper, Nr 6 is with missing tip, likely in stage of tip resharpening), 7–12 Blade medial fragments of which 7–8, 11 are with bulb on the break attesting deliberate fragmentation; Blanks and tools with clean breaks: bulbs (4, 7–11), upper languette (6), lower languettes (13, 16–17), “parasitical” flake (12) or indicative marks of deliberate fragmentation. Typology of breaks according to [71]. Note for Nr 18 and 19 an arrow indicates the debitage direction of the previous surfaces while the last removals (redébitage or reflaking, reshaping) are drawn with ripples (Pictures T. Tsanova, Drawings 1–3, 7, 16–19 T. Tsanova, 6 I. Krumov).
Table 11.
Tool typology in terms of their blanks in the IUP layers I and J from Bacho Kiro Cave.