Assessing bone and antler exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): implications for the characterization of the Aurignacian in South-western Europe

Lithic techno-complexes in Italy from 50 to 39 thousand years BP: An overview of lithic technological changes across the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic boundary

“…The main features of this techno-complex are cores meant for the recurrent production of blades and bladelets, as well as the use of marginally backed bladelets (Falcucci et al, 2018a(Falcucci et al, , 2018bRiel-Salvatore and Negrino, 2018a). Both the Uluzzian and the Protoaurignacian are characterised by the occurrence of ornaments on marine shells, of bone points and of colouring substances, though there is some regional differention in their distribution across the Peninsula (Stiner, 1999;d'Errico et al, 2012;Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015 and see Arrighi et al, in this special issue).…”

Bone tools, ornaments and other unusual objects during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy

“…The provenance of the soapstone collected at Bombrini is almost certainly from the Apennine chain between Liguria and Emilia (Chella, 2002;Gernone and Maggi, 1998;Negrino et al, 2017: Holt et al, 2018. The nonshell ornaments from Mochi -three beads made on soapstone, resembling craches of red deer, two pendants made on fossil belemnite, an ivory basket-shaped bead and two teeth pendantspreviously ascribed to the Protoaurignacian, have been recently attributed to the Early Aurignacian (Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015). "Artistic" evidence is extremely poor in the Protoaurignacian and limited to Northern Italy.…”

“…The presence of waste products testifies to a local manufacturing of these tools. Also, two antler split-based points had been ascribed to the Protoaurignacian Stiner, 1992, 1998), but a recent reassessment of the stratigraphic provenance of these findings led to their re-attribution to the Aurignacian rather than to the Protoaurignacian (Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015). Contrary to the north, bone implements are rare and scarcely diversified in Southern Italy, where it is the Uluzzian rather than the Protoaurignacian to have returned the majority of these artifacts.…”

“…A fragmented awl has been also recorded in the so-called "Uluzzo-Aurignaziano" of Serra Cicora A (Spennato, 1981;Palma di Cesnola, 1993). Table 3: Protoaurignacian bone tool kits (data from: Spennato, 1981;Benini et al, 1997;Gambassini, 1997;Kuhn and Stiner, 1998;Bertola et al, 2013;Jéquier, 2014;Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015;Borgia et al, 2016) 3 Ornaments and other unusual objects…”

“…Although Protoaurignacian implements are typologically more various (also including points and needles), we cannot identify a genuine hiatus between this techno-complex and the Uluzzian. The occurrence of a real rupture, marked by significant innovations in bone technology and typology, has been postulated by some authors for the Early Aurignacian, when the use of antler was introduced, and bone was also used to produce hunting weapons like the split-based points (Tejero, 2014;Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015). Conversely, bone manufacturing has been interpreted as a subsistence activity closely related to specific domestic occupations both in the Uluzzian and the Protoaurignacian (d' Errico et al, 2012b;Peresani et al, 2016;Bertola et al, 2013).…”