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

Abstract

Endscrapers are specialized tools that are usually recovered in great quantities in every Upper Paleolithic site in Europe. Although they make their first ephemeral appearance in the Middle–late Middle Paleolithic transitional technocomplexes, endscrapers commonly appear in toolkits from initial and early Upper Paleolithic traditions onwards. Nevertheless, endscrapers and, in general, domestic tools have attracted relatively little attention in debates revolving around the significance of technological change, tool function, and tool specialization after the end of the Middle Paleolithic. With the aim to overcome this paucity of information, here, we present the results of a techno-functional study performed on the large endscraper assemblage recovered from the early and late Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy. We analyzed these artifacts using technological, morpho-metrical, typological, and functional approaches. Despite the large morphological variability, use-wear traces reveal functional consistency and high levels of specialization for these tools. Almost all the use-wear traces we recorded developed from hide working with transverse motion. Moreover, we find no evidence that endscrapers were involved in the production of bone and antler tools during the late Protoaurignacian. Macroscopic and microscopic wear on the lateral edges of tools point to a considerable number of hafted endscrapers, which implies systematic time investment and planning depth. Comparison with the few endscrapers from transitional industries that have been analyzed highlights marked differences in the production, morphology, and use of these tools and reinforces our view of the Aurignacian as a complex not directly related with preceding European traditions.

Aurignacian dynamics in Southeastern Europe based on spatial analysis, sediment geochemistry, raw materials, lithic analysis, and use-wear from Românești-Dumbrăvița

“…Among artifacts with use-wear, evidence was primarily generic and disassociated with specific artifact types or retouched edges implying that lithics were unsystematically exploited, perhaps repeatedly for a range of tasks. Domestic tools such as endscrapers, often related to discrete activities, are virtually absent from the site suggesting a functional orientation and focus of planning depth different from other Aurignacian sites 40 , 41 , 75 at a time when domestic versus hunting tools were becoming increasingly differentiated 76 .…”

“… Unknown raw material proveniences have impeded assessments of past regional landscape use and the site’s connection to wider mobility patterns. The functions of eUP lithic forms remain uncertain limiting inferences of early European Homo sapiens subsistence strategies and behavior 38 – 41 . …”

“…The functions of eUP lithic forms remain uncertain limiting inferences of early European Homo sapiens subsistence strategies and behavior 38 – 41 .…”

The contribution of integrated 3D model analysis to Protoaurignacian stone tool design

“…Several retouched blades do in fact belong to the early stages of core reduction, which are less standardized in shape but more robust [ 69 ]. A similar pattern defines the selection of other common tool types, such as endscrapers [ 116 ].…”

Subsistence of early anatomically modern humans in Europe as evidenced in the Protoaurignacian occupations of Fumane Cave, Italy

“…S1, S2), with several features, hearths and a wide presence of lithic and faunal remains. Mousterian artifacts are associated with levels A11, A10, A9, A6, A5 and A4 68,70,71 ; Uluzzian with A3 [72][73][74] ; Protoaurignacian with A2-A1, late Protoaurignacian with D6 and D3 49,75,76 , and D1d with early Gravettian 77 . In the Upper Palaeolithic sequence, numerous lithic and bone artefacts, dwelling structures with hearths and a toss zone were identified (Fig.…”