New insights into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e14

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

New insights into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy

Stefano Grimaldi a,b,*, Fabio Santaniello a

a Laboratorio “Bagolini”, Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, Università degli studi di Trento, Trento, Italyb Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, Anagni, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Late NeandertalsTyrrhenian ItalyRiparo MochiGrotta BreuilLithic technologyRaw material

* Corresponding author. Laboratorio “Bagolini”, Disofia, Università degli studi di Trento, via Tommaso G

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Grim

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.0571040-6182/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Grimaldi,International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.10

a b s t r a c t

Late Mousterian lithic technology remains poorly known in Italy. The traditional typological approachstill permeates the literature, and most technological analyses focus on the “transition” to the UpperPalaeolithic. In this paper, we provide new data about the behavior of the last Neandertals who inhabitedTyrrhenian western Italy. Lithic assemblages from two well-known sites e Riparo Mochi (Grimaldi caves,Balzi Rossi area, Liguria) and Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo, Lazio) e have been technologically andfunctionally analyzed. The results are discussed and compared to other data such as fauna, chronology,and palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. The data reveals a highly dynamic world where behavioralchanges were rapid in time and characterized by strong differences in territorial exploitation.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the last decade, advances have been achieved in research onthe final Mousterian-early Upper Palaeolithic boundary in Italy.New data provides insights into this period; some are particularlyrelevant in terms of chronological framework (Douka et al., 2012;Wood et al., 2012), human remains (Benazzi et al., 2011), behav-ioral change (Boscato et al., 2011; Boscato and Crezzini, 2012;D’Errico et al., 2012), DNA studies (Caramelli et al., 2003), andlithic industries (Kuhn and Bietti, 2000; Caramia and Gambassini,2006; Cauche, 2007; Carmignani, 2010; Dini and Conforti, 2011;Spinapolice, 2012; Grimaldi, 2014). Some authors have suggestednew syntheses in order to correlate these data (see for instance,Bietti, 2006; Bietti and Negrino, 2007; Ronchitelli et al., 2009; Riel-Salvatore, 2010; Moroni et al., 2012). Consequently, it is becomingmore and more difficult to mention the “last Neandertals” e asKuhn (1995, p. xii) put it e “without being drawn into a heateddebate about the biological origins of modern humans and the prosand cons of the dominant positions of the subject”. This is partic-ularly true when final Mousterian lithic industries are analyzed.Most of the recent literature on Italian final Mousterian lithictechnology is mainly addressed to the discussion about the culturalchange between Mousterian and proto-Aurignacian, even throughthe Uluzzian transitional stage (see for instance, Peresani, 2008,2012 but compare Bartolomei et al., 1992 and Broglio et al.,

partimento di Lettere e Filo-ar 14, 38122 Trento, Italy.aldi).

reserved.

S., Santaniello, F., New insight16/j.quaint.2014.03.057

2005). The southern Italy Uluzzian technocomplex is well knownfrom a typological point of view, but it remains “less investigatedregarding rawmaterial procurement, lithic production/use systemsand subsistence strategies” (Moroni et al., 2012). In this paper, wewish to elucidate the technology of lithic assemblages from twofinal Mousterian Italian sites without any concern about the tran-sition to the Upper Palaeolithic. The objective is to illustratechanges in the adaptive strategies of the final Mousterian humangroups who lived in a similar environment, the Tyrrhenian side ofItalian peninsula, sharing almost the same landscape, and possiblybeing in contact. The two sites are Riparo Mochi, a well-knownrockshelter located in the Balzi Rossi area (Liguria); and GrottaBreuil, one of the caves located in the Monte Circeo (Lazio) (Fig. 1).

Our theoretical approach is based on the recognition that areduction sequence should be considered as an adaptive responsegiven by a human group to local environmental conditions.Following Binford (2001), a technological study should consider aprehistoric lithic assemblage as a residual trace of human behavior;a lithic industry has to be analyzed as a totality of technical choicesand economical purposes which satisfy the needs of that humangroup living in that site in a given time. Then, we have to go furthertowards the reconstruction of the core of hominin life: we have tointerpret it from an adaptive perspective. This can be done by theidentification of what we call “technical objectives”, pursued byprehistoric humans. It is clear that the identification of the tech-nical objectives which justify the chaîne opératoire has to be assuredby other kinds of data, such as from use-wear and zooarcheologicalanalyses. Without this identification, any reconstructed reductionsequence remains an empirical description used to better visualize

s into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy, Quaternary

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.057



Fig. 1. Location of the sites cited in the text. 1: Riparo Mochi; 2: Riparo Bombrini; 3: Grotta di Arma delle Manie; 4: Grotta di Fumane; 5: Grotta della Fabbrica; 6: Grotta Breuil; 7:Grotta Guattari; 8: Grotta del Cavallo.

S. Grimaldi, F. Santaniello / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e142

collected data through a simple terminology (i.e. Discoid, Levallois,among others). This working hypothesis is based on the followingassumptions: a) if reduction sequences are a real adaptive toolelaborated by human groups, differences in environmental condi-tions should be reflected in terms of technical variability; b) tech-nical variability, leading to differences in the pursued objectives, isrelated to functional purposes which vary from site to site and intime according to variations in settlement/mobility strategies; c)technical objectives could differ from those items traditionallyidentified as “predetermined” by typological or technological an-alyses: a technical objective could be represented even by one or

Please cite this article in press as: Grimaldi, S., Santaniello, F., New insightInternational (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.057

more techno-functional features characterizing different kinds ofblank, whether technologically predetermined or not (see Boeda,2013).

2. Regional setting and the sites

The Tyrrhenian (western) side of Italy is generally characterizedby hills and mountain ranges which are often in close contact withthe coastline. The coastal plains do not show any significant inter-ruption from the north (FranceeItaly border, western Liguria) tothe south (southern Calabria) but they can be very narrow such as


S. Grimaldi, F. Santaniello / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e14 3

the coastline in Liguria and southern Italy. The widest plains arelocated in Tuscany (river Arno valley), Lazio (river Tevere valley andother minor rivers) and Campania (several river valleys such asthose of the Calore and Sarno rivers). Tyrrhenian Italy is similar notonly in its geographical landscape but also for other environmentalfeatures, such as the presence of caves all along the western andsouthern Italian coast, as well as for climatic conditions, with somedifferences in rainfall and solar irradiance. This region, togetherwith the Apulia peninsula, provides most of the Italian archaeo-logical evidence as far as the final Mousterian is concerned (syn-thesized by Moroni et al., 2012). Differently from the Adriatic side,its geographical setting remained almost intact during prehistorictimes; limited changes only occurred during the glacial times whenthe sea level was on average about 70 or more meters lower thanthat of present day (Antonioli, 2012). During these cold periods, thewhole coastal plain enlarged its area, though with different in-tensity in each region. Thus, during the Upper Pleistocene, thewestern side of Italy provided human groups an uninterrupted,rather similar landscape from north to south.

2.1. Grotta Breuil (Breuil cave)

The Mousterian lithic assemblages from Tyrrhenian central Italyare traditionally labelled as “Pontinian”, a term introduced by Blanc(1937), from Agro Pontino, the name of the plain south of Rome.The Pontinian assemblages are mainly characterized by the use oflocal raw material, small rounded flint pebbles with a high degreeof qualitative variability (from unworkable to excellent), ofmorphological variability (flats, spheroids, cylindricals.), and ofdimensional uniformity (an average of 4e5 cm in thickness and nolonger than 7e10 cm). These pebbles were derived from ancientconglomerate beach deposits, deposited in the plain by the Tevereand other rivers from the Apennines of central Italy. At present,they can be found at about 10 m below sea level (Bietti andGrimaldi, 1995, 1996), but during glacial times (MIS 4 and 2) theywere clearly exposed by erosion and easily exploitable.

From a traditional typological point of view, the Pontinian ischaracterized by an abundance of sidescrapers, to about 80% inGrotta di S.Agostino (Tozzi, 1970), and by a very low percentage of

Fig. 2. Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo). A) View of the entrance of the cave (black arrow on thSegre’s original documentation). C) Stratigraphy of the archaeological layers: 1) recent depyellowish-brown, soft sandy layer; some concretion lines are present and stones are rare ansoft sandy sediment with limestone fragments of different dimensions; 6) brownish-black, v7) reddish sand, very soft with stones of relevant dimensions; 9) brown-dark silt layer wit


Levallois debitage e the highest, 11%, is seen in layer 2 of GrottaGuattari (Taschini,1979). Following Bordes’s nomenclature (Bordes,1961), the Pontinian assemblages are related to a CharentianMousterian, type Quina (Lai Pannocchia, 1950).

Grotta Breuil is one of the caves in Monte Circeo (Fig. 2a), apromontory about 100 km south of Rome. The cave opens directlyonto the Tyrrhenian Sea at about 3 m a.s.l. and it faces due west.Systematic excavation started in 1986 after test pits made in pre-vious years (Taschini, 1970; Bietti et al., 1988). The site is a large,oval cave, where most of the original deposit was destroyed bymarine transgressions. The residual deposit is located in the innerpart of the cave, where the excavated surface is about 20 squaremeters (Bietti et al., 1990-91). From a stratigraphic perspective, thecave may be subdivided into the following major geological andarchaeological units (Fig. 2b): a) remnants of the stalagmite layerthat sealed the Pleistocene deposit; b) residue of deposits cementedto the cave walls during the stalagmite formation; c) series of layerscontaining the archaeological evidence and cemented by a stalag-mite on top (Fig. 2c); d) sterile brown paleosol; e) large limestoneblocks collapsed contemporarily with a light brown cementedbreccia containing animal bones and flint artifacts which seem tobe the earliest cultural deposit of the site; f) thin ironized crustunderlying the large fallen blocks; g) series of reddish cementedsands subdivided in three layers; the central one could be aremnant Tyrrhenian deposit.

The “Pontinian” archaeological layers from Grotta Breuil arevery rich in lithic artefacts and faunal remains. They have beendivided into two groups (Rossetti and Zanzi, 1990-1991; Bietti andGrimaldi, 1996; Grimaldi and Spinapolice, 2010): the most recentupper layers (3e6) and the older lower ones (7 and 8). Layer 9represents the surface of the unexcavated deposit. The distinctionbetween the upper and lower layers is due to a remarkablearchaeological variability in both lithic and faunal remains, sug-gesting adaptive changes in the Neandertal settlement pattern, asdiscussed further below. A few Neandertal bones have been foundin the cave: two posterior-lower portions of parietals and two thirdmolars belonging to two different individuals, an adult and anapproximately 13 year old juvenile, respectively (Manzi andPasserello, 1995).

e left); B) General stratigraphy of the cave (see ɠ2.1. for description; modified from A.osit of guano produced by a bat population living in the cave; 2) thick stalagmite; 3)d small; 4) black concretion, rich in manganese and limestone fragments; 5) dark andery soft sandy layer with particularly abundant small and altered limestone fragments;h a strong presence of organic residues.


Fig. 3. Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). a) View of the site (black arrow on the right); b) Stratigraphy of the deposit with cultural units and Cardini’s spits discussed in the text (modifiedfrom A. Segre 1949, unpublished).


Several numerical age estimates have been obtained. The firstESR-LU date on enamel tooth of ungulate is 36,600� 2700 a for theupper layers (layers 3e6) of the deposit. An ESR-EU date on anothertooth gave a similar result (Schwarcz et al., 1991a; Bietti andGrimaldi, 1995). Layers 4e7 provided a date of 33,700 � 4300 awith the same method (Alhaique et al., 1998). Recently, charcoalfrom layer 5 has been dated to about 34,600 � 330 BP (AMS un-calibrated date). An attempt to calibrate it by means of IntCal 09gave the following result: 38,600e36,800 cal BP (unpublished). Thesite is to be re-dated in 2014 by the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory.

2.2. Riparo Mochi (Mochi rockshelter)

Riparo Mochi is part of the Grimaldi sites in the Balzi Rossi,one of the most important Palaeolithic site complexes in Europe,

Table 1Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). Radiometric dates from the final Mousterian Cut I 5 (Bietti’s 2000 excavation) and from the early ProtoAurignacian Cut 60 (Cardini’s 1959excavation) (modified from Douka et al., 2012).

Sample Unit Cut OxA 14C Date � Species Calibrated ages (95.4%)from to

Aragonite-calcite %

RM-1 G 60 19569 36350 260 Charcoal 41800 38410 n/aMochi 51 (2003) I 5 20000 36320 270 Trochus sp. 41630 40410 100

with over 15 caves, rockshelters and open-air sites found inproximity. It is a broad dolomitic limestone rockshelter and one ofthe few to have been systematically investigated. Excavationstarted in 1938 by Blanc and Cardini of the Istituto Italiano diPaleontologia Umana (Blanc, 1938). Later, they excavated sys-tematically during three seasons (1941, 1942, 1949). The eastsection of the trench (Fig. 3b) was then recorded by A. Segre(IIPU) and this, along with Cardini’s notes, represent the bestoriginal documentation of the archaeological remains revealed inthose years. The stratigraphic sequence, approximately 10 mdeep, consists of nine chronocultural macro-units, named A to Ifrom top to bottom from the reports of Laplace (1977) and Palmadi Cesnola (1993) after Cardini’s 1949 original notes. Thesemacro-units are related to the Upper Palaeolithic deposit (UnitsAeG), a semi-sterile deposit (Unit H), and the Mousterian deposit(Unit I) which is about 5 m thick. The Mousterian Unit I was


excavated by 5e10 cm thick artificial spits (hereafter “Cuts”) fromCut 30 (top) to Cut 72 (bottom). Unit I is formed by an angularbreccia and sandy clay matrix with many lenses and micro layersstill to be defined from a micromorphological study (Boschian, inpreparation).

Recently, a series of radiometric dates (Douka et al., 2012) pro-vides new information about the chronological framework of thefinal Mousterian of this site as well as of the very early proto-Aurignacian (Table 1). A Bayesian statistical model was built withOxCal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). Based on the available radiocarbondates and the modeling results, the Mousterian ends in unit I be-tween 44 and 41.8 ka cal BP (68.2% prob.). Moreover, based on thecurrent evidence, bottom of layer G of Riparo Mochi, dating toaround 37e36.5 ka BP, is the oldest directly-dated Aurignacianassemblage in Italy.

As far as raw materials are concerned, the Liguro-Provence arc isremarkable for the diversity of its geological formations. One of thebest-known places is the conglomerate of “Ciotti” (Negrino andStarnini, 2006, 2010), located in proximity of the Balzi Rossi area.This conglomerate furnishesflintcobblesandsmallpebbles thathavebeen abundantly exploited during the Palaeolithic, despite a rela-tively low quality for knapping. Flints originate from differentgeological origins and present variable petrographic characters.These deposits have been eroded by local rivers and pebbles orcobbles could have been easily found along the river banks running afewmeters away from the site. Consequently, this rawmaterial maybe considered as “strictly local”. Other rawmaterial, mainly siliceouslimestone pebbles and diverse types of quartzite pebbles, both ofvariable dimensions, may be found in the same way in the regionsurrounding the Balzi Rossi area (Porraz and Negrino, 2008). Thissecond typeof rawmaterial is consideredas “local”as itmaybe found



at less than 10 km distance from the site. Finally, a typical bluish flintis the third commontypeof rawmaterial foundat theRiparoMochi. Itis called “Perinaldo” after the ligurian village located about 30 kmeast of the site where this raw material may be found. It is made ofpebbles and cobbles of variable dimension and of very good qualityfor knapping. It is considered as a “regional” raw material.

3. Results

3.1. Grotta Breuil

3.1.1. Behavioral changes between the upper and lower layers:fauna

Zooarcheological analyses detected relevant changes in huntedspecies, in the way the carcasses had been treated, and in season-ality. Red deer is the most frequent species, especially in layer 7(Alhaique et al., 1998); Capra ibex seems to increase its frequency inthe upper layers (Stiner, 1994). Carnivores are poorly represented,with the exception of the top of layer 3. Moreover, data on ungulatemortality indicates a selective exploitation of the prime adults thatinvolve efficient hunting strategies, in particular in layer 3. In thislayer, taphonomical and experimental data show that entire car-casses of prey were butchered at the site (Alhaique and Lemorini,1996; Lemorini and Alhaique, 1998). Concerning site seasonality,mammal dental growth rates suggest the main occupationoccurred from autumn to spring (Alhaique and Tagliacozzo, 2000),even if some layers e layer 3 in particular e seem to show differentpatterns (Stiner, 1991).

Among micromammals, Apodemus sylvaticus is the dominantspecies reaching frequencies of about 60%. A woody landscape isalso confirmed by the presence of arboreal species. A cooler anddrier climate is represented in layer 3 by the presence of Microtusagrestis-arvalis (Bietti et al., 1990e91; Alhaique et al., 1998).

3.1.2. Behavioral changes between the upper and lower layers:lithics

The upper and lower layers of Grotta Breuil are characterized bytwo different reduction sequences (Rossetti and Zanzi, 1990e91;Bietti and Grimaldi, 1993, 1996). The reduction sequence of thelower layers represents a continuous debitage process (but seeKuhn, 1995) that starts from a unidirectional debitage method and,by adding one or more crossed-striking platforms (a so calledproto-centripetal debitage), ends with the centripetal debitage.This reduction sequence may start from an unworked pebble orfrom a half pebble obtained by anvil percussion, and may beinterrupted at any stage. In these layers, centripetal cores/flakes aredominant. The upper layer’s reduction sequence is more related tothe unidirectional method (Fig. 4): centripetal and proto-centripetal cores are only marginal types. Retouched blank fre-quencies are mainly characterized by a striking decrease ofretouched blank percentages in upper layers, confirming a possiblechange in cave utilization. Typological frequencies, on the otherhand, do not vary considerably among different layers: scrapers arelargely dominant, and other common types are notches anddenticulates.

A recent refitting study confirmed the undisturbed nature of thedeposit as well as the distinction between lower and upper layers(Grimaldi and Spinapolice, 2010). Forty-eight items have beenrefitted into a total of 23 refitting constellations. Distances anddepths are perfectly coherent with the stratigraphic sequence. Toour knowledge and at the time of this writing, these are the onlyrefittings known for the “Pontinian” lithic industries.

Anvil percussion provides other evidence of a behavioral changeduring the final Mousterian of Grotta Breuil (Grimaldi andSpinapolice, 2010). This evidence, already observed in Mousterian


sites of Mount Circeo, such as the Guattari and Fossellone caves(Bietti and Grimaldi, 1996), has been recognized only in the lowerlayers of the Grotta Breuil. A series of diagnostic features have beenestablished through an experimental procedure carried out for thispurpose (Bietti et al., 2009e2010). Anvil percussion shows adecreasing incidence from layer 8 to layer 6. The upper layers donot seem to be characterized by the presence of anvil percussion: itis very rare in layers 5 and 4, and it disappears in layer 3.

A wide variety of functional tasks were carried out on manydifferent materials (Grimaldi and Lemorini, 1993, 1995). The func-tional potential of these blanks, retouched or not, comes principallyfrom their edge morphology. Most of these edges are straight inboth profile and cross section. Experiments have shown that thismorphology results in multipurpose cutting edges. In contrast tothe upper layers, the lower layers show some wood working inassociation with hide treatment and a dominance of butcheringactivity (Alhaique and Lemorini, 1996; Lemorini and Alhaique,1998).

3.1.3. Behavioral changes between the upper and lower layers:technical objectives

Raw material in Agro Pontino is represented only by roundedflint pebbles of small dimensions. In contrast, central Italy is veryrich of raw material characterized by a high degree of qualitativevariability (from unworkable to excellent) and morphologicalvariability (nodules, pebbles, blocks.) but with a very low degreeof dimensional uniformity (from a few cm to several tens of cm inlength). All lithic assemblages found in Central Italy have beentraditionally considered as Levallois (synthesized in Grimaldi,1995).

If the Agro Pontino raw material represents an environmentalconstraint limiting the production of Levallois products and if theNeandertals were culturally adapted to this environment, then thelow or very low presence of Levallois products in the Pontinianassemblages should not be considered as being the main technicalgoal of the debitage sequence, useful to define the culturaluniqueness of the Pontinian in Central Italy. Otherwise, if it rep-resents the few successful attempts made by the Neandertals inorder to produce predetermined blanks, the cultural value of theNeandertal adaptation to this environment should be questioned.

We suggest a different explanation. The Pontinian should beconsidered as one of the Levallois lithic assemblages found inCentral Italy. The main difference should be due to the technicalobjectives pursued by the Neandertals that morphologically differfrom what has been typologically conceived as predetermined. Inorder to define the technical objectives, we have assumed e alsohelped by other data sources such as, zooarcheological, usewearanalyses, and experimental activity e that cortex played a veryimportant technical role since the beginning of the reductionsequence. Three “predetermined” (sensu Boeda, 1994) types of ar-tifacts have been identified: in the first one, cortex is playing therole of lateral convexity (Fig. 4: 1e5); in the second, blanks arecharacterized by the absence of cortex and distal convexity (Fig. 4:6e12); the third group, is represented by blanks with lateral anddistal convexities (Fig. 4: 13e16).

The upper layer’s predetermined group (about 35% of theassemblage) shows the highest length/width ratio of the entireassemblage (Bietti and Grimaldi, 1996). This variable has importantconsequences in the functional properties of Pontinian blanks(Grimaldi and Lemorini, 1993, 1995). Moreover, the technical roleplayed by the cortex is demonstrated by a remarkable increase ofpredetermined blank frequencies during the very early stage of thereduction sequence. These data allow us to identify in the length ofcutting edges one of the main technical objectives pursued by thelast Neandertals who inhabited the upper layers of Grotta Breuil.


Fig. 4. Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo). Lithic industry from the upper layers (Flakes: 1e16; Cores: 17e22).


Half-cortical blanks should be considered as predetermined andpredetermining blanks useful for the production of the pursuedtechnical objective: producing cutting edges as long as possible.

In the lower layers, the use of anvil percussion as well as theabundance of the centripetal debitage seems to be linked to aproduction of technical objectives which differ from those of theupper layers. We are tentatively suggesting that the aim of thereduction sequence in the lower layers of Grotta Breuil should beseen in the production of as many blanks as possible, regardless oftheir overall morphology.

3.2. Riparo Mochi

3.2.1. Behavioral changes in the Mousterian sequence: faunaFaunal remains are still under study, but the presence of cold

faunawith mammoth and elk is observed in Cuts 44/46 while more


temperate species are abundant in the recent part of the sequence(Cuts 40 to 30) with the presence of Dama dama in Cut 36 (Arellano,2009; Arellano and Grimaldi, in preparation). Microfauna from IUnit have been analysed (Abbassi, 1999), but the evidence has beentreated as a unique Mousterian sample, regardless of Cardini’s cutsequence. At present, a detailed analysis of microfauna from theentire Riparo Mochi sequence has been completed (Berto andGrimaldi, in preparation).

3.2.2. Behavioral changes in the Mousterian sequence: lithicsFrom a technical standpoint, the Mousterian of this region is

traditionally known to be characterized by the presence of Leval-lois, long blade-like flakes (Tavoso, 1988; Negrino and Tozzi, 2008).A technological change was observed between the lower part andthe upper part of the Mousterian sequence (Kuhn and Stiner, 1992,1998; Negrino, 2002); the deposit related to Cuts 45-55 was


A

B

C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 5. Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). Frequency distribution of the analysed lithicassemblage made from strictly local (black), local (light grey), regional (dark grey), andallochtonous (white) raw material. a) Raw material distribution; b) retouched tooldistribution; c) elongated blank distribution.


interpreted as the threshold between lower and upper sequence. Insummary, a blade-like recurrent Levallois production characterizesthe earliest assemblages, whereas small Discoid cores (see discus-sion in ɠ3.2.4) and centripetal flakes are more abundant in theupper part of the sequence.

We exhaustively analyzed the lithic assemblages from five ofCardini’s cuts. Cut 31 (17 cores and 394 flakes) and Cut 34 (23 coresand 306 flakes) are located at the top of the sequence and representtwo chronologically distinct episodes of the very final Mousterianat the site. Cuts 44 and 46 (4 cores and 99 flakes) represent the coldclimatic phase with elk remains and, due to the paucity of lithics,they have been analyzed together. Finally, lithics from Cut 56 (7cores and 196 flakes) represent the last assemblage before thetechnical change observed in previous studies.

Every assemblage was made from the same raw material types:the strictly local “Ciotti” flint, the local limestone and diverse typesof quartzite, and the regional “Perinaldo” flint. Other rawmaterials,Jasper and Provence flint, are very rare and they reach the highestpercentage (5%) only in the cold episode of Cuts 44/46. The first onecomes fromwestern Liguria where the closest known outcrops arelocated about 150 km from the site, near Genova (Negrino andStarnini, 2010). French flint may come from the Western Pro-vence flint deposits; the closest ones may be tentatively attributedto deposits located near Nice, a few tens of kms from the site(Porraz and Negrino, 2008).

Ciotti is the dominant type of raw material in the wholeanalyzed assemblage (Fig. 5a). Its frequencies are variable, but anincreasing presence from bottom (43% in Cut 56) to top (67% in Cut31) may be observed. An opposite trend may be observed for theother two types.

Retouched blanks (Fig. 5b) are generally not abundant (25% inCut 31, 22% in Cut 34, 31% in Cut 44/46, and 17% in Cut 56). They aremainly represented by Scrapers of different types and Notches/Denticulates; a third group is made of blanks showing marginalretouch of the edge/s. More interestingly, while almost half of theretouched items in Cut 56 are made from regional raw material, inevery other assemblage retouched items are mainly made fromCiotti flint. Blanks made from local raw material are rarelyretouched; blanks made from allochthonous raw material arefrequently and heavily retouched.

Levallois, long blade-like flakes are common at the RiparoMochiand they are produced by a unidirectional, parallel, or convergentdebitage (Fig. 5c). In Cut 56, these blanks are quite abundant (43%)and are mainly made from Perinaldo raw material. In Cuts 34 (24%)and 31 (27%), elongated blanks made from Perinaldo remarkablydecrease in frequency, while the production on local and strictlylocal raw materials, the last much more abundant in Cut 31, isdominant.

3.2.3. Behavioral changes in the Mousterian sequence: a deeperinsight

In order to clarify the meaning of these observations, we tried todefine the nature of the potential technical objectives that the finalNeandertals were aiming for across the millennia. Consequently, asalready suggested by Geneste (1989), we interpret any blank asbeing a product of a hypothetical reduction stage according to itstechnical features. The reduction stages are the following:

A) Primary preparation of the core (Fig. 6: 1e5, 34e37). Thereduction sequence starts with raw material showing itsnatural morphology and dimensions. Products show corticalor almost cortical surfaces, partly revealing the originalshape of raw material.

B) Primary full production (Fig. 6: 7e16, 23e25, 38e47, 60e64).This stage is related to the production of “predetermined”


items (sensu Boeda, 1994), with convexities that shape themorphology of the blank and technical axes identical to themorphological ones. The traditional Discoid “pre-determined” blanks are not considered in this group (seeexplanation below). Cortex is limited or totally absent.

C) Secondary preparation of the core (Fig. 6: 17e20, 27e29, 48e55, 65e68). When the full production stage is over and if thecore is not exhausted, the core surface may be prepared onceagain by striking off the so called “predetermining” flakes(sensu Boeda). This stage reduces the dimension of the core:at the same time the core may or not maintain the formervolumetric structure. In the first case, predetermining flakesbear technical features similar to those observed on the B-type predetermined ones in order to re-create the same kindof convexities useful for the next production. In contrast, ifthe preparation is not maintaining the former volumetricstructure of the core, predetermining flakes present


Fig. 6. Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). Lithic industry vs. raw material.


Please cite this article in press as: Grimaldi, S., Santaniello, F., New insights into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy, QuaternaryInternational (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.057


technical features (i.e. orientation of the scars, thickness,“debordant” side/s.) which change the core morphology.

D) Secondary full production (Fig. 6: 21, 30e33, 69e72). Thisstage is related to the production of a second series of pre-determined blanks. It is assumed that they should havereduced dimensions compared to the previous ones. If theproduction follows the same previous B-type pattern, theirtechnical features remain the same; otherwise, we shouldexpect to observe a new pattern.

The second part of the sequence (C- and D-type) is reproducibleuntil the total exhaustion or abandonment of the core (Fig. 6: 22,56e59, 73e74). Attribution of each item to this or that reductionstage should not be considered as a mechanical procedure: it de-pends not only on the overall morphology of each item, but also onthe quantitative/metrical data, techno-functional characteristics ofthe whole assemblage, and on knapping experiments useful tounderstand the productive consequences of these items on the coresurface.

3.2.3.1. Cut 56 (Fig. 6: 1e22). In Cut 56, the A-type is mainlyobserved for Ciotti and local raw materials. Elongated, cortical, orpartially cortical blanks have been produced, and 43% of them havebeen retouched. When visible, a unidirectional pattern of scars ispresent. Regional raw material is represented by blanks with littlecortex. B-type characterizes almost the totality of the assemblage.The elongated blanks are mainly made from regional and local rawmaterials: a pattern of unidirectional, parallel, or convergent scarsis clearly visible. It produces blades, points, and flakes. The recur-rent production of these blanks (sensu Boeda, 1994) is not wit-nessed by blanks typical of the C-type (for instance, debordantflakes) mainly useful for reshaping the core morphology: elongatedblanks are produced by means of a continuous sequence withoutany re-preparation of convexities, but their negative bulbs are notvisible on the cores; this means that striking platforms of the coresunderwent successive series of preparation in order to strike off anysingle blank. B-type blanks made from Ciotti flint are shorter thanthe other ones; they also show a slightly different technical patternproducing less standardized items on each core surface. Here, wetentatively suggest that the small and irregular natural shape of theraw material does not allow fully standardized production. The C-type is represented by blanks mainly made from Ciotti and Peri-naldo raw materials. These blanks do not seem to be really playingthe role of predetermining flakes in order to change the coremorphology for a new exploitation stage; even if their scars aremuch less standardized, and their technical axis is often no morecoincident with the morphological one, they are characterized bythe same B-type unidirectional pattern of production. They couldbe said to be the last technical objectives produced during B-typeproduction sequence. Finally, the C-type is characterized by few,short flakes only made from Ciotti flint; they are here interpreted asthe last opportunistic attempt to produce functionally useful flakesfrom an already exhausted core.

3.2.3.2. Cut 44/46 (Fig. 6): 23e33. Sedimentological and faunalremain analysis suggest that this level is related with a colderenvironment. Lithics are not abundant. Interestingly, the A-type istotally absent. B-type is only observed for the Ciotti and Perinaldoraw materials. The technical features are very similar to thosedescribed for the assemblage in Cut 56. Differently from the pre-vious assemblage, the C-type is characterized by the presence ofthick, asymmetric, and debordant flakes. From our point of view,the need to exploit the available cores brought human groups toadopt a true re-preparation stage in order to produce more blanks.These flakes may be interpreted as the adaptive solution useful to


change the convexities of the core surface. This is visible when thescars on these flakes are observed: all show unidirectional, parallelscars representing the former B-type core surface. These blanksshow negative bulbs created during the production of the B-typeproducts. The D-type products are made from Ciotti and local rawmaterial. Blanks possibly made from Perinaldo are lacking. Theflakes are characterized by elongated but irregularly shaped flakes.

3.2.3.3. Cut 34 (Fig. 6: 34e59). The A-type is observed in every rawmaterial. Local and regional raw materials are characterized by themore frequent presence of blanks produced by cores made fromlarge and thick flakes. The B-type is observed for every raw mate-rial, and the flakes show the same characteristics described in Cut56. The main difference here is related to the decreasing di-mensions of blanks made from local and regional material. Weargue here that this data fits well with the observed presence ofcores made from flakes. A relevant difference from the previousassemblages is seen in the C-type blanks. They are very similar tothose described in Cut 44/46; these blanks are techno-functionallydifferent from any other blanks found in former assemblages. Theyare small, debordant, flakes with triangular-shaped cutting edges.The scars on their surface show a relevant variability in inclinationand orientation, from a parallel unidirectional pattern to a fullycentripetal one. Moreover, they are the last products of thereduction sequence in this assemblage. Small cores are present:they are fully exploited with production patterns on their surfacesthat fit well with the C-type products.

3.2.3.4. Cut 31 (Fig. 6: 60e74). The lithic assemblage coming fromthis level reflects the lifestyle of the very last Neandertals whoinhabited the Riparo Mochi before the appearance of the Proto-aurignacian technocomplex. The A-type is only observed for blanksmade from Ciotti flint. The B-type, in contrast, characterizes everyraw material. The goal of the human group is to produce elongatedblanks, but the flakes are shorter than the ones found in the pre-vious levels; their scars are no more standardized even whenregional raw material is used. The C-type is observed on Ciotti andPerinaldo rawmaterials, while it is lacking on local ones. The C- andD-type products here are technically and morphologically similar:C- and D-type are quite coincident in order to produce small,irregularly-shaped, centripetal flakes. These are the most commonproducts in this level, and show techno-functional features whichare different from Cut 34.

3.2.4. Behavioral changes in the Mousterian sequence: technicalobjectives

The above data allows us to make some generalizations aboutthe last Neandertal behavior at Riparo Mochi.

A regular main pattern occurs in the use of the three types ofrawmaterial. The core is firstly used to produce elongated productsby means of a unidirectional sequence; later, it is exploited toproduce shorter products. This secondary production stage impliesdifferent technical choices, such as the production of centripetalflakes (Cut 31), debordant flakes (Cut 34), and irregular elongatedflakes (Cut 56).

The blade-like, elongated flakes show differences in the Length/Width ratio (Fig. 7). Elongated flakes made from Ciotti flint showthe lowest and the most standardized ratio in any assemblage; thiscould be easily explained when the reduced dimensions and theirregular morphology of the raw material are considered. Thisexplanation does not fit when local and regional raw material L/Wratios are considered. Even though these raw materials are char-acterized by pebbles and cobbles of medium-large dimensions,products made on regional material show a dramatic decreasingtrend from Cut 56, where they have the highest L/W ratio of the


Fig. 7. Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). Length/width ratio of the unbroken lithics made from strictly local (black), local (light grey), and regional (dark grey) raw material; statisticallyanalyzed with concentration ellipses of 70% based on a bivariate normal distribution.


assemblage, to Cut 31, where their L/W ratio is superimposed on theCiotti flint’s one. Elongated flakes made from local raw materialmaintain their average ratio from the bottom to the top of thesequence, becoming the only blade-like products in Cut 31. Abalanced L/W ratio between local and regional raw material isfound in Cut 34.

We have functionally analyzed a sample of the lithics. The studyis still in progress, but the first observations may be summarized asfollows: most of the B-type, non-retouched products show macro-and micro traces mainly related to the cutting of soft materials(meat, fresh hide,.) (Fig. 8: f) while other types of products (A-, C-,and D- types) show a multipurpose pattern of macro and microtraces (Fig. 8: aee). While the first ones are more or less strictlyrelated to cutting activity, the others are not functionally special-ized products, as they are used for many tasks on differentmaterials.

Our generalization here is that the main technical objectivepursued by the Neandertals throughout the analyzed sequencemay be found in straight, long edges (B-type products) or inirregular edges (C- and D-types) useful for cutting soft materials.These objectives are primarily achieved by means of local andregional raw materials and, as a second choice, Ciotti flint. Theseremarks need to be confirmed by future research.

As far as the distinction between Levallois-like and Discoid-likeblanks is concerned, our point of view is that the Italian traditionaltypological approach (sensu Bordes, 1961) is still continuing topermeate the way that technological analyses are carried out. The“Boeda technological method” represents a useful tool to under-stand prehistoric human behavior since its limited diffusion(Boeda, 1986). The original, complex theoretical and methodolog-ical framework changed into a well-known and rather simplified


model (i.e., Boeda,1995, Fig. 4.33, p.64) because of the need tomakeit easily comprehensible to the scientific community. This is clearlyvisible when the easy-to-read schemes showing the technical dif-ference between Levallois and Discoid concepts of debitage werepublished (Boeda, 1993, 1995). Since then, the language in theliterature became more and more oriented toward a new “tech-nological” (replacing the old “morphological”) typology. This ten-dency leads to the generalization of Boeda’s criteria used toreconstruct a reduction sequence. It is more efficient or easier torecognize Levallois-like or Discoid-like features in a lithic industryespecially when these features may be found in the literature asfixed, unchangeable technical rules in association with a simpleterminology which is well understood by the scientific community.Unfortunately, this tendency can lead, similarly to the typologicalapproach, to the discarding all the contextual peculiarities of a lithicindustry. Our approach to the Riparo Mochi lithic assemblages,overcoming the morphological distinction between Levallois-likeand Discoid-like flakes, shows how these techno-functional pecu-liarities may provide better support to our understanding of theprehistoric behavior.

4. Discussion and conclusion

When the two sites are compared, a true behavioral change maybe seen at Grotta Breuil, while a compression of the exploited ter-ritory, at least as far as the lithic rawmaterial procurement strategyis concerned, may be seen at Riparo Mochi.

The lithic assemblage from Grotta Breuil: (a) is made from thesame local rawmaterial; (b) a technological variability is seen alongthe sequence from the bottom to the top, and (c) this variability is inassociation with other behavioral changes such as hunting


Fig. 8. Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi). Examples of macro- and micro wear. a) Transversal action on medium material, probably fresh wood (100�, Fig. 6: 21); b) cutting action onmedium material, probably wood (100�, Fig. 6: 2); c) transversal action on medium material, probably dry hide (200�, Fig. 6: 47); d) perforating activity on soft-medium material,probably hide (100�, Fig. 6: 38; e) transversal action on medium material, probably wood (200�, Fig. 6: 50); f) longitudinal action on soft material, probably meat/fresh hide (200�,Fig. 6: 15).


strategies, seasonality, and the use of the cave. While the lowerlayers are connected with a residential, intensively used site andwith lowmobility during the year, the upper layers, especially layer3, are connected with a more “opportunistic” and sporadic use ofthe site all around the year. In summary, the Grotta Breuil sequenceshows a change in adaptive strategies while the same natural re-sources are being exploited.

The lithic assemblages from Riparo Mochi (a) are made fromdifferent raw materials, (b) exploited more or less by the sametechnical procedure, and (c) variability is mainly connected withchanges in the intensity of the use of each raw material, especiallywhen the decreasing presence of regional raw material from thebottom to the top of the sequence is observed. In other words, theanalysed assemblages share a similar adaptive strategy, but naturalresources were used differently. The territory exploited to collectraw material seems to become more and more restricted from thebottom to the top of the sequence. At the top (Cut 34 and evenmorein Cut 31), the better raw material e the regional one e useful toproduce cutting edges is almost absent, and the local raw materialbecomes the preferred one in order to produce elongated cuttingblanks. At the same time, strictly local flint does not show relevantchanges in technical production. Another possible clue for a re-striction of the exploited territory may also be seen in theincreasing number of retouched tools at the top of the sequence.This could be tentatively interpreted as the evidence of a need toresharpen, rather than abandon, the tools (in the sense of Binford,1979; Dibble, 1991; Kuhn, 1995; among others).

Any behavioral approach to lithic industries should take intoaccount many important variables such as territory, seasonality,demography, environmental reconstructions, and others. In Fig. 9,


an attempt to correlate the chronology and stratigraphy of theanalysed sites with other coeval Italian sites is shown.

After the preceding MIS 4 cold and dry environmental condi-tions, a warmer and moister climate characterized the TyrrhenianItaly from the end of the MIS 4 to MIS 3 (Miskovsky, 1974; DelLucchese et al., 1985; Renault-Miskovsky, 1987; Dansgaard et al.,1993; Cremaschi, 2000; Burroughs, 2005). Several other Italiansites are known from this period. Very close to the Riparo Mochi, afinal Mousterian-Protoaurignacian deposit was found at RiparoBombrini (Bietti and Negrino, 2007; Negrino and Tozzi, 2008). Itsattribution toMIS 3 is confirmed by radiocarbon dates ranging from43,087 � 629 cal BP (late Mousterian, layer IV) to 37,939 � 755 calBP (Protoaurignacian, layer III); technological analyses of lithic as-semblages seem to show tight similarities with the general featuresobserved at Riparo Mochi.

In Liguria, other Neandertal evidence is found in Grotta di Armadelle Manie, about 100 km east of the Balzi Rossi area. Here, sevenMousterian layers have been found. The oldest layer was dated atabout 60,000 � 9000 (ESR on deer teeth, Mehidi, 2005). A colderand drier event characterizes layers VIeIII (Valensi and Psathi,2004). Lithic assemblage from these layers (Cauche, 2002) showfeatures similar to those observed in Cuts 44/46 of Riparo Mochiwhile, lithics from the upper I and II layers, associated with MIS 3,are characterized by decreasing dimensions of the blanks (Cauche,2007). In general, the lithic assemblage from Arma delle Manie ismade from local raw material, a mixture of Levallois and Discoidblanks is observed, and it is typologically characterized by anabundant presence of scrapers and notches.

Moving southward, one of the best examples of the finalMousterian in Tuscany is Grotta della Fabbrica (Dini, 2011). A final


Fig. 9. Chronological framework for the final Mousterian sites cited in the text (modified from Valensi and Psathi, 2004; Burroughs, 2005; Mehidi, 2005; Negrino and Tozzi, 2008;Arobba and Caramiello, 2009; Douka et al., 2012; Higham et al., 2009; Dini and Tozzi, 2012; Moroni et al., 2012).


Mousterian-Uluzzian-Protoaurignacian sequence was described.Unfortunately, radiometric dates are still lacking, while authorstentatively attempted to date the Uluzzian layer to about 43e41,000 BP (Dini and Tozzi, 2012). The lithic assemblage was madefrom local raw material. While a few blade-like elongated flakeshave been attributed to a Levallois unidirectional reductionsequence, smaller flakes have been described as the products of aDiscoid “opportunistic” strategy. In southern Lazio, the regionwhere Grotta Breuil is located, mammoth remains have been founddating to MIS 4 at the “Canale delle acque alte” site, as well as at thetop of the Grotta Guattari sequence (layer 1, Caloi and Palombo,1995; Braun and Palombo, 2012). This layer was dated to about57,000 � 6000 (Schwarcz et al., 1991b). According to Taschini(1979), the lithic assemblage is a typical local Mousterian withsmall, centripetal flakes, low Levallois index, and abundantscrapers. One of the most well-known sequences in southern Italyis given by the Grotta del Cavallo. Here a Mousterian (layers M�F)to Uluzzian (layers E-D) successionwas found. The final Mousterian(layer F-III-e) provided blade-like, elongated flakes made by theunidirectional method (Carmignani, 2010). The earliest availabledate come from charcoals of the Uluzzian layer: 43,380e42,080 calBP (layer E-II-I), 41,570e40,390 cal BP (layer D-I-b) (Benazzi et al.,2011; Moroni et al., 2012).

The above data provide a scenario that can be summarised asfollows: during late MIS 4, a cold and dry environment character-ized the Tyrrhenian side of Italy. Mammoth is found in Liguria (Cuts44/46 at Riparo Mochi, in association with elk) and at the MonteCirceo (layer 1 at Grotta Guattari). Lithic industries seem to sharemany technical features in many sites from north to south. Theseassemblages are mainly made from local raw materials, the unidi-rectional Levallois method is used to produce elongated flakes, andsometimes an association with smaller, Discoid-like flakes isobserved.

During early MIS 3, several changes occurred in the Italianpeninsula. In Liguria, the production of small flakes characterizesRiparo Mochi, Riparo Bombrini and Arma delle Manie; in Tuscany


(Grotta della Fabbrica) and Apulia (Grotta del Cavallo) the Uluzzianis found as well in northeast Italy (Grotta di Fumane, Peresani,2008); in Lazio (Grotta Breuil) a shift to a laminar production hasbeen observed. The final scenario reveals a highly dynamic worldwhere behavioral changes are rapid in time and characterized bystrong differences in territory exploitation.

In conclusion, what we have described in this paper gives usmany more questions than answers. We agree with Kuhn (1995) inassuming that the last Neandertals behaved over the long term inan economically rational manner, adjusting patterns of toolmanufacture and use to fit the problems inherent in differing pat-terns of land use. Understanding the way they did this needsdeeper insights into their behavior, and the consideration of FinalMousterian behavior in itself, rather than with reference to thesubsequent Upper Palaeolithic.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Dipartimento di Lettere eFilosofia, Università degli studi di Trento (Italia). Permission for thestudy was granted by the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologicidella Liguria, in particular we thank dr. Angiolo Del Lucchese anddr. Elisabetta Starnini. A special thanks to dr. Ignacio ClementeConte (CSIC-Barcelone) for his comments. We are grateful to themany people and friends who helped us during the fieldwork,especially to Andrea Spinosi (città di Ventimiglia), Maria Anto-nietta Segré and the staff of the Museo Preistorico dei Balzi Rossi,dr. Almudena Arellano and dr. Pierre Elie Moulle (Musee de Pre-histoire Regionale of Menton), prof. Giorgio Manzi (Università LaSapienza di Roma) e dr. Fabio Parenti (Istituto Italiano di Paleon-tologia Umana). We are in debt to prof. Aldo Segre who generouslygave us direct information and original field documentation aboutthe Riparo Mochi excavation. We are also grateful to the threeanonymous reviewers for their comments as well as to HuwGroucutt and Eleanor Scerri for having allowed our participation inthis volume.



References

Abbassi, M., 1999. Les rongeurs du Sud-Est de la France et de la Ligurie: implicationssystématiques, biostratigraphiques et paléoenvironnementales (PhD thesis).Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Alhaique, F., Lemorini, C., 1996. Butchering with stone tools: an experimentalapproach to use wear analysis and taphonomic studies of the archeologicalmaterial from Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo). Quaternaria Nova VI, 393e412.

Alhaique, F., Tagliacozzo, A., 2000. L’interpretazione dei dati faunistici nella ric-ostruzione delle strategie di sussistenza nel Paleolitico medio: l’esempio delLazio. In: Atti del II Congresso Nazionale di Archeozoologia (Asti, Italia 1997),ABACO, pp. 111e124.

Alhaique, F., Bietti, A., Capasso Barbato, L., Kotsakis, T., Khun, S., Lemorini, C.,Manzi, G., Recchi, A., Schwarcz, H.P., Stiner, M., 1998. Settlement patterns andsubsistence in the late Mousterian of Grotta Breuil (Mt.Circeo, Italy). In: Atti delXIII Congresso U.I.S.P.P., workshop n.5 (Forlì, Italia 1996), pp. 221e228.

Antonioli, F., 2012. Sea level change in Western-Central Mediterranean since 300kyr: comparing global sea level curves with observed data. Alpine and Medi-terranean Quaternary 25, 15e23.

Arellano, A., 2009. Les grands mammifères des niveaux moustériens de l’Abri Mochi(Grotte de Grimaldi, Ventimille, Italie). Fouilles de 1949. Bulletin du Muséed’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco 49, 29e39.

Arobba, D., Caramiello, R., 2009. Analisi paleobotanica sui sedimenti del RiparoBombrini (Balzi Rossi, Ventimiglia). Bulletin Musee Anthropologie et préhistoirede Monaco 49, 41e48.

Bartolomei, G., Broglio, A., Cassoli, P., Castelletti, L., Cremaschi, M., Giacobini, G.,Malerba, G., Maspero, A., Peresani, M., Sartorelli, A., Tagliacozzo, A., 1992. LaGrotte-Abri de Fumane. Un site Aurignacien au Aud des Alps. Preistoria Alpina28, 131e179.

Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I.,Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K.,Weber, K.W., 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implica-tions for Neandertal behaviour. Nature 479, 525e528.

Bietti, A., 2006. Alcune considerazioni sulle differenze tra le strategie di appro-vvigionamento di materie prime litiche nel Musteriano e nel Paleolitico supe-riore italiano: qualche esempio. In: Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica I.I.P.U.(Firenze, Italia 2005), pp. 267e282.

Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S., 1993. Mousterian assemblages in central Italy: cultural faciesor behavioral adaptation? Quaternaria Nova III, 21e38.

Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S., 1995. Levallois debitage in central Italy: technical achieve-ments and raw material procurement. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), TheDefinition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Monographs in WorldArchaeology, vol. 23, pp. 125e142.

Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S., 1996. Small flint pebbles and Mousterian reduction chaines:the case of Southern Latium (Italy). Quaternaria Nova VI, 237e260.

Bietti, A., Negrino, F., 2007. “Transitional” industries from Neandertals to anatom-ically modern humans in continental Italy: present state of knowledge. In: Riel-Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A. (Eds.), “Transitional” Upper Paleolithic Industries: NewQuestions, New Methods, International Series 1620. British ArchaeologicalResearch, Oxford, pp. 41e60.

Bietti, A., Manzi, G., Passarello, P., Segre, A.G., Stiner, M.C., 1988. The 1986 excavationof Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo, Latina). Archeologia Laziale IX, 372e388.

Bietti, A., Khun, S., Segre, A.G., Stiner, M.C., 1990-1991. Grotta Breuil: a generalintroduction and stratigraphy. Quaternaria Nova I, 305e323.

Bietti, A., Cancellieri, E., Corinaldesi, C., Grimaldi, S., Spinapolice, E., 2009-2010. Lapercussion sur enclume en Italie centrale Tyrrhénienne. Paléo, numero special,143e180.

Binford, L., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated tech-nology. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255e273.

Binford, L.R., 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Blanc, A.C., 1937. Nuovi giacimenti paleolitici dei Lazio e della Toscana. Studi Etru-schi 11, 273e304.

Blanc, A.C., 1938. L’uomo fossile del Monte Circeo: un cranio neandertaliano nellaGrotta Guattari a S. Felice Circeo. Rivista di Antropologia 32, 1e18.

Boeda, E., 1986. Approche technologique du concept Levallois et évaluation de sonchamp d’application. Thèse de Doctorat. Paris X.

Boeda, E., 1993. Le débitage discoïde et le débitage Levallois récurrent centripète.Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 90, 392e404.

Boeda, E., 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. CNRS, Paris.Boeda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:

Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology, Monographs in World Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 41e65.

Boeda, E., 2013. Techno-logique & Technologie. Une paleo-histoire des objets lith-iques tranchants. @rcheo-editions.com, ISBN 978-2-36461-003-3.

Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux.Boscato, P., Gambassini, P., Ranaldo, F., Ronchitelli, A., 2011. Management of pale-

oenvironmental resources and raw materials exploitation at the MiddlePaleolithic site of Oscurusciuto (Ginosa, Southern Italy): units 1 and 4. In:Conard, N.J., Richter, J. (Eds.), Neandertal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology,One Hundred Fifty Years of Neandertal Study. Springer, pp. 87e98.

Boscato, P., Crezzini, J., 2012. Il deposito musteriano del Riparo l’Oscurusciuto(Ginosa e TA): la fauna a grandi mammiferi delle UUSS 1O9. In: De GrossiMazzorin, J., Saccà, D., Tozzi, C. (Eds.), Final Proceedings, 6� Convegno Nazionale


di Archeozoologia (Orecchiella, San Romano in Garfagnana, Lucca, Italy),pp. 25e32.

Braun, I.M., Palombo, M.R., 2012. Mammuthus primigenius in the cave and portableart: an overview with a short account on the elephant fossil record inSouthern Europe during the last glacial. Quaternary International 276e277,61e76.

Broglio, A., Bertola, S., De Stefani, M., Marini, D., Lemorini, C., Rossetti, P., 2005. Laproduction lamellaire et les armatures lamellaires de l’aurignacien ancien de lagrotte de fumane (monts lessini, vénétie). ArchéoLogiques 1, 415e436.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51,337e360.

Burroughs, W.J., 2005. Climate Change in Prehistory: the End of the Reign of Chaos.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Caloi, L., Palombo, M.R., 1995. Le principali faune a grandi mammiferi del Pleisto-cene superiore dell’Italia centrale. Studi Geologici Camerti (volume spaeciale1994), 515e524.

Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Vernesi, C., Lari, M., Casoli, A., Mallegni, F., Chiarelli, B.,Dupanloup, I., Bertranpetit, J., Barbujani, G., Bertorelle, G., 2003. Evidence for agenetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomicallymodern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100,6593e6597.

Caramia, F., Gambassini, P., 2006. Il Musteriano evoluto del Riparo del Poggio (strati9 e 10) a Marina di Camerota e Salerno. Rassegna di Archeologia 22, 67e95.

Carmignani, L., 2010. L’industria litica del livello FIIIe di Grotta del Cavallo (Nardò,Lecce)Osservazioni su una produzione lamino e lamellare in un contesto delMusteriano finale. Origini vol. XXXII, 7e26.

Cauche, D., 2002. Les cultures moustériennes en Ligurie italienne: étude des in-dustries lithiques des grottes de la Madonna dell’Arma,d’Arma delle Manie etde Santa Lucia Superiore. Thèse de Doctorat. Universite de la Méditerranée,Marseille.

Cauche, D., 2007. Les cultures moustériennes en Ligurie italienne: analyse dumatériel lithique de trois sites en grotte. L’Anthropologie 111, 254e289.

Cremaschi, M., 2000. Manuale di Geoarcheologia. Ed. Laterza.D’Errico, F., Borgia, V., Ronchitelli, A., 2012. Uluzzian bone technology and its im-

plications for the origin of behavioural modernity. Quaternary International259, 59e71.

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dahl-Jensen, D., 1993. Evidence forgeneral instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record. Nature 364,218e220.

Del Lucchese, A., Giacobini, G., Vicino, G., 1985. L’uomo di Neandertal in Liguria.Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica della Liguria 2, 111.

Dibble, H., 1991. Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and MiddlePalaeolithic assemblage variability. In: Dibble, H., Montet-White, A. (Eds.),University Museum Monograph 54, Philadelphia, pp. 181e198.

Dini, M., 2011. L’industria Musteriana di Grotta La Fabbrica (Grosseto). Origini 33,7e19.

Dini, M., Conforti, J., 2011. Lo sfruttamento del quarzo nel Musteriano, Uluzziano eAurignaziano di Grotta la Fabbrica (Grosseto, Italia). Rivista di Scienze Pre-istoriche 61, 21e38.

Dini, M., Tozzi, C., 2012. La transizione Paleolitico Medio-Superiore nella Grotta LaFabbrica (Grosseto e Toscana). Atti Società Toscana Scienze Naturali 117e119,17e25.

Douka, K., Grimaldi, S., Boschian, G., Del Lucchese, A., Higham, T., 2012. A newchronostratigraphic framework for the Upper Palaeolithic of Riparo Mochi(Italy). Journal of Human Evolution 62, 286e299.

Geneste, J.M., 1989. Les industries de la Grotte Vaufray: technologie du débitage,economie, et circulation de la matière première lithique. In: Rigaud, J.P. (Ed.), LaGrotte Vaufray, Memoires Societe Prehistorique Française, vol. 19, pp. 441e517.

Grimaldi, S., 1995. Variabilità comportamentale e concetto Levallois. Ipotesi dimodelli comportamentali neandertaliani in Italia centrale attraverso lo studiotecnologico di alcune industrie litiche (PhD thesis). Università “La Sapienza”,Roma, Italia.

Grimaldi, S., Lemorini, C., 1993. Retouche spécialisée et/ou chaine de ravivage? Les“racloirs” moustériens de Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo, Italie). In: Anderson, P.C.,Beyries, S., Otte, M., Plisson, H., (Eds.), Les Gestes Retrouvés: Traces et Fonction(Liege, Belgium), Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liègevol. 50, 67e78.

Grimaldi, S., Lemorini, C., 1995. Technology and microwear: the predeterminedflakes of the mousterian site of Grotta Breuil (Monte Circeo, Italy). In:Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology, Monographs in World Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 143e156.

Grimaldi, S., Spinapolice, E., 2010. The late Mousterian of Grotta Breuil (MonteCirceo, Lazio, Italy): interpreting new and ancient data. In: Burdukiewicz, J.M.(Ed.), Middle Palaeolithic Human Activity and Paleoecology: New Discoveriesand Ideas (Wroclaw, Poland). Studia Archeologiczne vol. 41, 411e421.

Grimaldi, S., 2014. The Proto-Aurignacian “knifes” of the Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi,Italy). In: Marreiros, J., Gibaja, J., Bicho, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Interna-tional Conference on Use-Wear analysis, Use-Wear 2012 (Faro, Portugal).Cambridge Publishing Scholars (in press).

Higham, T., Brock, F., Peresani, M., Broglio, A., Wood, R., Douka, K., 2009. Problemswith radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy.Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 1257e1267.

Kuhn, S., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology, an Ecological Perspective. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00201-8/sref1















































































































































































































Kuhn, S., Bietti, A., 2000. The Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in Italy. In:Bar-Yosef, O., Pilbean, O. (Eds.), The Geography of Neandertal and ModernHumans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody Museum Bulletinvol. 8, 49e76.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., 1992. New research an Riparo Mochi, Balzi Rossi (Liguria):preliminary results. Quaternaria Nova II, 77e90.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., 1998. The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy).Current Anthropology 39, 175e189.

Lai Pannocchia, F., 1950. L’industria Pontiniana della Grotta Di S. Agostino. Rivista diScienza Preistoriche V, 67e86.

Laplace, G., 1977. Il Riparo Mochi ai Balzi Rossi di Grimaldi (Scavi 1939e1949). Lesindustries leptolithiques. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche XXXII, 3e131.

Lemorini, C., Alhaique, F., 1998. L’analyse fonctionelle rencontre l’analyse zooarch-eologique: l’exemple de Grotta Breuil (Mont Circe, Italie). In: Atti del XIIICongresso U.I.S.S.P (Forlì, Italia), 6, pp. 1143e1149.

Manzi, G., Passerello, P., 1995. At the archaic/modern boundary of the genus Homo:the Neandertals from Grotta Breuil. Current Anthropology 36, 355e366.

Mehidi, N., 2005. Datation de sites moustériens de Ligurie par les méthodes U/Th etRPE: Abri Mochi et Arma delle Manie. Thèse de Doctorat. Muséum Nationald’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Miskovsky, J.C., 1974. Le Quaternaire du midi méditerranéen. In: Études quatern-aires, vol. 3. Université de Provence, Éditions du Laboratoire de PaléontologieHumaine et de Préhistoire, Marseille, p. 332.

Moroni, A., Boscato, P., Ronchitelli, A., 2012. What roots for the Uluzzian? Modernbehaviour in Central-Southern Italy and hypotheses on AMH dispersal routes.Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.10.051.

Negrino, F., 2002. Modificazioni tecno-tipologiche ed utilizzo delle materieprime nell’Appennino tosco-emiliano e nell’arco ligure tra il Paleoliticomedio recente e Paleolitico superiore antico (PhD thesis). Università diGenova.

Negrino, F., Starnini, E., 2006. Modelli di sfruttamento e circolazione delle materieprime per l’industria litica scheggiata tra Paleolitico inferiore ed Età del Rame inLiguria. In: Atti della XXXIX Riunione dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Pro-tostoria, Firenze, pp. 283e298.

Negrino, F., Starnini, E., 2010. Dinamiche di sfruttamento e circolazione dellematerie prime silicee per l’industria litica scheggiata in Liguria tra Paleoliticoinferiore ed Età del Rame. In: Odetti, G. (Ed.), L’uomo e la terra ligure (Genova,Italia), pp. 21e34.

Negrino, F., Tozzi, C., 2008. Il Paleolitico in Liguria. In: Binder, D., Delestre, X.,Pergola, P. (Eds.), Archéologies transfrontalières: Alpes du Sud, Côte d’Azur,Piémont et Ligurie: bilan et perspectives de recherché. Actes du colloque (Nice,France), Frantiq, Cepam, pp. 21e28.

Palma di Cesnola, A., 1993. Il Paleolitico Superiore in Italia. Garlatti e Razzai Editori,Firenze.

Peresani, M., 2008. A new cultural frontier for the last Neandertals: the Uluzzian inNorthern Italy. Current Anthropology 49, 725e731.


Peresani, M., 2012. Fifty thousand years of flint knapping and tool shaping acrossthe Mousterian and Uluzzian sequence of Fumane cave. Quaternary Interna-tional 247, 125e150.

Porraz, G., Negrino, F., 2008. Espaces économiques et approvisionnement minéralau Paléolithique moyen dans l’aire liguro-provençale. In: Binder, D., Delestre, X.,Pergola, P. (Eds.), Archéologies transfrontalières (Alpes du Sud, Côte d’Azur,Piémont et Ligurie): bilan et perspectives de recherché. Actes du colloque,Musée d’anthropologie de Monaco, pp. 29e40.

Renault-Miskovsky, J., 1987. L’ambiente nella preistoria. Jaca Book, Torino.Riel-Salvatore, J., 2010. A Niche construction perspective on the Middle-Upper

Paleolithic transition in Italy. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory17, 323e355.

Ronchitelli, A., Boscato, P., Gambassini, P., 2009. Gli ultimi Neandertaliani in Italia:aspetti culturali. In: Facchini, F., Belcastro, G. (Eds.), La lunga storia di Nean-dertal. Biologia e comportamento. Jaka Book, Bologna, Italy, pp. 257e288.

Rossetti, P., Zanzi, G., 1990e1991. Technological approach to reduction sequences ofthe lithic industry from Grotta Breuil. Quaternaria Nova I, 351e365.

Schwarcz, H.P., Buhay, W.M., Grün, R., Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., Miller, G.H., 1991a.Absolute dating in coastal Lazio. Quaternaria Nova I, 51e67.

Schwarcz, H.P., Bietti, A., Buhay, W.M., Stiner, M.C., Grun, R., Segre, A., 1991b. On there-examination of Grotta Guattari: uranium-series and electron-spin-resonancedates. Current Anthropology 32, 313e316.

Spinapolice, E., 2012. Raw material economy in Salento (Apulia, Italy): new per-spectives on Neandertal mobility patterns. Journal of Archaeological Science 39,680e689.

Stiner, M.C., 1991. Ungulate exploitation of Italy: the case of Grotta Breuil. Qua-ternaria Nova I, 333e350.

Stiner, M.C., 1994. Honor Among Thieves: a Zooarchaeology Study of NeandertalEcology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Taschini, M., 1970. La Grotta Breuil al Monte Circeo. Per un’imposizione dello studiodel Pontiniano. Origini 4, 45e78.

Taschini, M., 1979. L’industrie lithique de grotta Guattari au Mont Circé (Latium):définition culturelle typologique et chronologique di Pontinien. Quaternaria 21,179e247.

Tavoso, A., 1988. L’outillage du gisement de San Francesco à San Remo (Ligurie,Italie): nouvel examen. In: Kozloswski, J.K. (Ed.), L’homme de Néandertal, ed. 8,“La Mutation”, Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, vol.35, pp. 193e210.

Tozzi, C., 1970. La Grotta di S.Agostino (Gaeta). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 25,30e87.

Valensi, P., Psathi, E., 2004. Faunal exploitation during the Middle Palaeolithic inSouth-eastern France and North-western Italy. International Journal of Osteo-archaeology 14, 256e272.

Wood, R.E., Douka, K., Boscato, P., Haesaerts, P., Sinitsyn, A., Higham, T., 2012.Testing the ABOx-SC method: dating known-age charcoals associated with theCampanian Ignimbrite. Quaternary Geochronology 9, 16e26.
























































































































New insights into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy

Documents

Transcript of New insights into Final Mousterian lithic production in western Italy