The early Upper Palaeolithic marks a technological turning point in Western Eurasia, evidenced by the increased spread of bladelet production. The two main technocomplexes, the Aurignacian and the Ahmarian, have long histories of research and have always formed part of the debate on the Homo sapiens dispersal into Europe, with changing interpretations. A large aspect of the debate surrounding the recognition of different technocomplexes revolves around the question of whether or not bladelet production is independent of blade production. Here we present a first-hand analysis of three early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages in Europe and the Levant, conventionally attributed to different technocomplexes: Al-Ansab 1, Românești-Dumbrăvița I GH3, Grotta di Fumane A1-A2. Results show that the lithic technologies at the three sites display almost identical knapping concepts, geared around bladelet production. These results and other recent reassessments support a revision of the early Upper Palaeolithic technological and taxonomical models.

Blades, bladelets or blade(let)s? Investigating early Upper Palaeolithic technology and taxonomical considerations

Gennai J.
Primo
Conceptualization
;
Peresani M.
Secondo
Writing – Review & Editing
;
2021

Abstract

The early Upper Palaeolithic marks a technological turning point in Western Eurasia, evidenced by the increased spread of bladelet production. The two main technocomplexes, the Aurignacian and the Ahmarian, have long histories of research and have always formed part of the debate on the Homo sapiens dispersal into Europe, with changing interpretations. A large aspect of the debate surrounding the recognition of different technocomplexes revolves around the question of whether or not bladelet production is independent of blade production. Here we present a first-hand analysis of three early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages in Europe and the Levant, conventionally attributed to different technocomplexes: Al-Ansab 1, Românești-Dumbrăvița I GH3, Grotta di Fumane A1-A2. Results show that the lithic technologies at the three sites display almost identical knapping concepts, geared around bladelet production. These results and other recent reassessments support a revision of the early Upper Palaeolithic technological and taxonomical models.
2021
Gennai, J.; Peresani, M.; Richter, J.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Gennai_Aurignacian techno_Quartaer2021.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 6.03 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
6.03 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2505270
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact