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

Abstract

The arrival of Modern Humans (MHs) in Europe between 50 ka and 36 ka coincides with significant changes in human behaviour, regarding the production of tools, the exploitation of resources and the systematic use of ornaments and colouring substances. The emergence of the socalled modern behaviours is usually associated with MHs, although in these last decades findings relating to symbolic thinking of pre-Sapiens groups have been claimed. In this paper we present a synthesis of the Italian evidence concerning bone manufacturing and the use of ornaments and pigments in the time span encompassing the demise of Neandertals and their replacement by MHs. Current data show that Mousterian bone tools are mostly obtained from bone fragments used "as is". Conversely an organized production of "fine shaped" bone tools is characteristic of the Uluzzian and the Protoaurignacian, when the complexity inherent in the manufacturing processes suggests that bone artefacts are not to be considered as expedient resources. Some traces of symbolic activities are associated to Neandertals in Northern Italy. Ornaments (mostly tusk shells) and pigments used for decorative purposes are well recorded during the Uluzzian. Their features and distribution witness to an intriguing cultural homogeneity within this technocomplex. The Protoaurignacian is characterized by a wider archaeological evidence, consisting of personal ornaments (mostly pierced gastropods), pigments and artistic items.

Exploring late Paleolithic and Mesolithic diet in the Eastern Alpine region of Italy through multiple proxies

“…Reconstructing prehistoric human diet has always been a key goal of the research into past human behavior. Different proxies and methods have been integrated to obtain a comprehensive overview of prehistoric human dietary strategies and for understanding cultural responses to climate and environmental constraints: isotopic analysis (e.g., Drucker & Bocherens, 2004; Lugli et al, 2019, Wißing et al, 2019); lithic and osseous technology (e.g., Arrighi et al, 2019; Caricola et al, 2018; Collina et al, 2020; Marciani et al, 2019; Semenov, 1964; Stout, 2011); faunal remains (i.e., quantification of faunal remains and analysis of bone surface modifications; Gaudzinski‐Windheuser & Kindler, 2012); and dental remains (i.e., formal assessment of paramasticatory and masticatory activities; Arnaud et al, 2016; Been et al, 2017; Fiorenza et al, 2015; Fiorenza, Benazzi, & Kullmer, 2011; Margherita et al, 2016; Margherita et al, 2017; Oxilia et al, 2015; Oxilia et al, 2017; Riga et al, 2018). In particular, dental wear, dental pathologies and, when preserved, prehistoric dental calculus have shown to be pivotal in obtaining data on diet, cultural habits, and health status (Cristiani et al, 2018; El Zaatari & Hublin, 2014; Fiorenza, 2015; Fiorenza, Benazzi, Oxilia, & Kullmer, 2018; Fiorenza & Kullmer, 2013, 2015; Grippo, Simring, & Schreiner, 2004; Henry, Hudson, & Piperno, 2009; Lussi, 2006; Metcalf, Ursell, & Knight, 2014; Molnar & Molnar, 1990; Oxilia et al, 2018; Radini, Buckley, Nikita, Copeland, & Hardy, 2017; Sameera, Singh, & Nitya, 2017; Sorrentino et al, 2018; Warinner et al, 2014; Weyrich et al, 2017).…”

“…Reconstructing prehistoric human diet has always been a key goal of the research into past human behavior. Different proxies and methods have been integrated to obtain a comprehensive overview of prehistoric human dietary strategies and for understanding cultural responses to climate and environmental constraints: isotopic analysis (e.g., Drucker & Bocherens, 2004;Lugli et al, 2019, Wißing et al, 2019; lithic and osseous technology (e.g., Arrighi et al, 2019;Caricola et al, 2018;Collina et al, 2020;Marciani et al, 2019;Semenov, 1964;Stout, 2011); faunal remains (i.e., quantification of faunal remains and analysis of bone surface modifications;…”

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

“…From 45 ka, formal bone tools and personal ornaments make a lasting reappearance in the archaeological record, this time in multiple regions of the Old World. Evidence from Europe (d 'Errico et al, 2003;Zilhão et al, 2010;Caron et al, 2011;d'Errico et al, 2012c;Soressi et al, 2013;Julien et al, 2019;Sano et al, 2019;Arrighi et al, 2020;Velliky et al, 2021), the Levant (Kuhn et al, 2001;Tejero et al, 2016;Tejero et al, 2018;Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2020;Tejero et al, 2020), East and South Africa (d'Errico et al, 2012b;d'Errico et al, 2020), South and Central Asia (Golovanova et al, 2010;Perera et al, 2016;Krivoshapkin et al, 2018;Shalagina et al, 2018;Belousova et al, 2020;Langley et al, 2020;Shunkov et al, 2020) as well as the Asian Pacific Island and Australia (O'Connor et al, 2014;Langley et al, 2016b;Langley et al, 2016a;Langley et al, 2019;Langley et al, 2021) attests to the penecontemporaneous development of a variety of formal bone tool types, the diversification of the manufacturing processes and techniques, the convergent innovation in the production of hunting armatures and the noticeable expansion in the variety of symbolic material culture items.…”

The role of foxes in the Palaeolithic economies of the Swabian Jura (Germany)

“…Unlike in the Swabian Jura, perforated fox teeth occur in the Magdalenian layers of Gönnersdorf. While the fox ornaments of Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels and Hohlenstein-Stadel were mainly limited to canines, both canines and other perforated teeth (n = 45), most frequently premolars, were found in the Gönnersdorf assemblage (Álvarez-Fernández 2000;Álvarez-Fernández 1999;Street and Turner 2013).…”