A Technological and Functional Analysis of Carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France

Abstract

Core-shaped forms are one of the most distinctive kinds of artefacts identified in Aurignacian assemblages.Classification of such pieces frequently causes difficulties, and the boundaries between certain types seem to be fluid and intuitive. The question whether to categorise those artefacts as tools or as cores is another unresolved issue. This leads to conflicting interpretations of morphologically and technologically identical lithics. The present paper investigates these topics, using the assemblage of core-shaped forms from the group of sites in Spadzista Street in Kraków as an example. The authors propose a standardised examination method, without dividing the artefacts into typological categories, tools or cores. Such an approach, combined with microwear analysis of the materials, confirms the hypothesis that the forms may have been used both as tools and as cores, and that their use was not always the same, but depended on the specific needs of their users/makers.

Scraping hide in the early Upper Paleolithic: Insights into the life and function of the Protoaurignacian endscrapers at Fumane Cave

“…We identified several carinated endscrapers in the macro-units A and D. In the latter, their frequency slightly increases (Falcucci et al 2020). In a previous technological study, proposed the classification of carinated endscrapers at Fumane as bladelet cores, confirming data produced at several other sites (e.g., Dinnis 2008;Domingo et al 2012;Hays and Lucas 2000; Le Brun-Ricalens 2005, Schulte im Walde 1987). A lithic refit supports this interpretation.…”

“…Carinated endscrapers from the Aurignacian levels of the Le Flageolet rock shelter were secondarily used to work bone and antler when exhausted as cores. (Hays and Lucas 2000).…”

“…A technological and functional examination of stone tools is therefore necessary to comprehend the role played by stone artifacts in the changes associated with the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. Previous functional studies performed on early Upper Paleolithic (hereafter EUP) assemblages highlighted the importance of rethinking the traditional concept of tooltype (Hardy et al 2008;Hays and Lucas 2000). The relationship between stone artifact form and function is variable and often context-dependent (Tomáŝková 2005) in relation to behaviors such as use duration, resharpening, and reshaping.…”

Major Fallacies Surrounding Stone Artifacts and Assemblages

“…3c)? Are Aurignacian carinate endscrapers and burins functional objects in themselves or are they to be interpreted as bladelet cores (Hays and Lucas 2000, Olszewski 2007a, Olszewski et al 2011; for other such examples see ? Beyond considerations of tool types that do not reflect the uses they are purported to have, there is the case of tool types that are the result of natural processes, either mass movement of sediments as mentioned above, or trampling, that create damage that can mimic retouch (Behrensmeyer et al 1986;McBrearty et al 1998;McPherron et al 2014;Douglass and Wandsnider 2012;Pargeter 2011;Rots and Plisson 2014).…”

Technological perspectives on the upper paleolithic

“…A series of technological analyses of bladelet production at Aurignacian sites in France has demolished this view. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] With the exception of blades with Aurginacian retouch, all of the typologically diagnostic tools of the Aurignacian are now understood to be the interrelated elements of an exquisite system of bladelet production (Box 2). The carinated scra-…”