A retouched bone shaft from the Late Mousterian at Fumane cave (Italy). Technological, experimental and micro-wear analysis

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Comptes

Rendus

Palevol

www . s c ie n c e d i r e c t . c o m

Human

palaeontology

and

prehistory

A

retouched

bone

shaft

from

the

Late

Mousterian

at

Fumane

cave

(Italy).

Technological,

experimental

and

micro-wear

analysis

Diaphyse

osseuse

retouchée

issue

du

Moustérien

ﬁnal

de

la

grotte

de

Fumane

(Italie).

Analyse

technologique,

expérimentale

et

tracéologique

Matteo

Romandini

a

_,

_Emanuela

_Cristiani

b

_,

_Marco

_Peresani

a,∗

a_Università_di_Ferrara,_Dipartimento_di_Studi_Umanistici,_Sezione_di_Preistoria_e_{Antropologia,}_Corso_Ercole_I_d’Este,_32,

44100Ferrara,Italy

b_McDonald_Institute_for_{Archaeological}_Research,_University_of_Cambridge,_Downing_Street,_CB2_3ER_Cambridge,_UK

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received23June2014

Acceptedafterrevision17August2014 Availableonline26October2014 HandledbyMarcelOtte Keywords: Mousterian Retouch Bonetool Taphonomy Zooarchaeology

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

ThispaperdescribesaretouchedboneshaftfoundinaLateMousterianlayeratFumane Cave,northernItaly.Theinterpretationoftheanthropicnatureoftheretouchisbased ontheidentificationofspecificmorpho-technologicalmarkersthroughexperimentation. Anintegratedtaphonomicandtechnologicalanalysiswasappliedtothearchaeological artifact.Theevidencesuggeststhattheboneshaftmodificationsinvolvedtheuseofdirect percussionthroughatransferoftechnicalknowledgefromflintknapping.However,this doesnotnecessarilyimplythatthistechniquewasusedintheabsenceofamoreeffective one.Similarcasesoftheuseofboneasrawmaterialfortoolmanufacturingaredocumented intheLowerPalaeolithic,andmighthavebeenrelatedtothelackofappropriatelithicraw material,althoughthisisnotthecaseforFumanecave.

Motsclés: Moustérien Retouche Outilenos Taphonomie Zooarchéologie

r

é

s

u

m

é

CetarticleprésenteunoutilenosretouchétrouvédansleniveauMoustérienfinaldela grottedeFumanedansleNorddel’Italie.L’interprétationdelanatureanthropiquedes retouchesestbaséesurl’identificationdemarqueursmorpho-techniquesspécifiquesqui ontétémisenévidencelorsd’expérimentations.Cesanalysestaphonomiqueset tech-nologiquesontétéappliquéesàl’artefactarchéologique.Lesrésultatsindiquentquela modificationdel’outilenosnécessitel’utilisationdelapercussiondirecteparuntransfert deconnaissancestechniquesdudébitagedusilex.Toutefois,celan’impliquepas néces-sairementquecettetechniqueaétéutiliséeenl’absenced’uneautreplusefficace.Bienque descassimilairesdel’utilisationd’oscommematièrepremièrepourlafabricationd’outils documentésdanslePaléolithiqueinférieuraientpuêtrereliésàunmanquedematière premièrelithiqueappropriée,celan’estpaslecaspourlagrottedeFumane.

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:marco.peresani@unife.it(M.Peresani).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2014.08.001

(2)

1. Introduction

Difficultiesinidentifyingretouchtechnologyappliedon bonesinLowerandMiddlePalaeolithicaredueto differ-enttaphonomicagents, which actedonfaunalremains. Ingeneral,thelevel ofbone modificationislow, asare theintentionalbreakagepatternsthatmaypartially over-lapthoseproducedbycarnivores(Brain,1981;Chaseand Nowell,1998;d’ErricoandVilla,1997;d’Erricoetal.,1998; Domínguez-Rodrigoetal.,2009;Galánetal.,2009;Koby, 1943;Villa,1991;Villaandd’Errico,2001).While,there islittle evidencefor theuseof retouchor moreformal techniques(e.g,splitting,scraping,polishing)withrespect totheenormousbulkofrawmaterialavailable,suchas bone,antlerorivory,theuseofunmodifiedboneflakesas hammersforstoneflakeretouchingiswidelydocumented (Jéquier et al., 2012; Mozota Holgueras, 2009; Valensi, 1996).

Anoverviewoftheancientbonetechnologyrevealsthat theearliestdeliberatemodificationof bonesbyretouch datestoMIS9atGranDolina andBolomorCave (Spain) and at Qesem cave (Israel) (Blasco et al., 2013; Rosell et al., 2011). Bifaces, choppers, scrapers and denticu-latesmadeonboneflakesfromlargeherbivores,suchas bovids,horses, deerandproboscideanswerealsofound inseveralLowerAcheuleansitesincentralItaly(Anzidei, 2001; Anzidei et al., 1989; Biddittuand Celletti, 2001; Cassolietal.,1982;Saccà,2012;SegreNaldinietal.,2009; Villa et al., 1999), Germany (Bilzingsleben–Mania and Mania,2005)andHungary(Vertesszöllös–Dobosi,2001). Acheuleanbonetoolsaredimensionallyand morpholog-icallycomparabletolithicimplements,withinvasiveand bifacialdetachments,regularlypositionedontheside. Out-sideEurope,retouchtechnologyisephemeralfortheMSA inAfrica,althoughitisconsideredamongsttherepertoire oftechniquesforbonemodificationassociatedtomodern humanbehaviour(Henshilwood et al.,2001; McBrearty andBrooks,2000).Theearliestexampleisprovidedfrom BlombosCave,SouthAfrica,ca.75–77kaBP,whereafresh bovidlongbonewasmodifiedintoanend-scraperandused (d’ErricoandHenshilwood,2007).

Inthe EuropeanMiddlePalaeolithic, retouched bone artefacts were rarely investigated for taphonomic and technologicaltraces(Bordes,1961;CabreraValdes,1984; Vincent, 1993) and, when this was done, a number of specimenscanbeconsideredaspseudo-artefacts(d’Errico andVilla,1997).Morereliableevidenceisrepresentedby abifaciallyretouchedbonefragmentfromVaufreyCave (France)(Vincent,1988),somedenticulateddiaphysesand apointedtoolonaurochmandible(Roselletal.,2012)from AbricRomaní(Spain),andsometrihedralpicksontibiaof rhinocerosfoundatGrutaNovadeColumbeira(Portugal) (Barandiaránetal.,1971)datedto87.1±6.3kaBP(Zilhão etal.,2011).ToindicatethatNeanderthalsduringthe Mid-dlePalaeolithicmadeuseofa setofbone technologies, therearetheraretoolsworkedbyabrasionthataredatedto theﬁrsthalfofMIS3fromSalzgitter-Lebenstedt,Germany (Gaudzinski,1999)andthebonesmoothersrecoveredfrom theMousterianofAcheuleanTraditionatPech-de-l’AzéI andAbriPeyrony,France(Soressietal.,2013).Itfollows thateachsingleelementyieldingadditionaldataaboutthe

speciﬁcNeanderthal techniquesandskills is fundamen-talinordertoevaluatethetechnologicalbehaviourofthis species.

Todate,criteriaforidentifyingtechnologicalretouches onboneshaveneverbeenmadefullyexplicit.The interpre-tationofanthropicretouchedboneshasmainlyfollowed the same criteria used in stone knapping. Diagnosis and identificationofanthropic retouchhasmostlybeen basedontheoccurrenceofinvasiveremovalswith clas-sicattributesofpercussionflaking(Saccà,2012;Villaand Bartram,1996).Therepetitionanduniformityoftheblows (withpercussionbulbscars)aswellastheregularoutlineof theretouchedsideshavealsobeenconsideredasimportant markersoftechnologicalretouch.Inparticular,theregular patternofsymmetricdetachmentsexcludestheactivityof carnivoresand/orbutcherymarksproducedwhile fractur-ingboneforrecoveringmarrow.Whilefewmodifiedbones havebeeninterpretedastoolsonthebasisofexperimental datarelatedtotheuseofpercussiontechniques(Biberson and Aguirre,1965; Vincent, 1988,1993), the resultsare notalwaysconvincingwhenboneassemblageformation processesaretakenintoconsideration(VillaandBartram, 1996).For instance,atProlom (Stephanchuk, 1993)and BoisRochesystematictaphonomicandcontextualanalysis identifycarnivoreactivity(e.g.,hyena)asthemainagentfor pseudo-technologicaltracesonbonesorperforated arte-facts(d’ErricoandVilla,1997contraVincent,1993).

To facilitate therecognition ofdeliberately modified bones, this paper presents the results of an integrated taphonomic,technological,andfunctionalanalysisofone bone scraper recovered from the final Mousterian of FumaneCave, northernItaly, withtheaimof providing newdataaboutearlyretouchtechnology.Webelievethat onmethodologicalgroundsthisdiscussionisrelevantfor manyothercasestudiesworldwidewhereonefindsold prehistoricevidenceofretouchtechnologyonbone.

2. Materialsandmethods

FumaneCave(LessiniMountains,Veneto)recordsthe MP–UPtransitionwithafinelylayeredsedimentary suc-cessionpreservingseveralLateMousterianlevels,covered byUluzzian andProto-Aurignacianlevels(Broglioetal., 2006;Highametal.,2009;Peresani,2012;Peresanietal., 2011a).TheLatestMousterianisrecordedinastratigraphic complexnamedA5–A6composedoflayersA5,A5+A6,and A6.ThebonescraperwasfoundinlayerA5+A6intherear ofthecave(square120c),associatedwithdispersed char-coalfragments,flakedstones,bones,andfewhearths.The chronometricrefinementofthe14_C_data_sets_layers_A5_and A5+A6to42.3–39.8ky14_C_BP._The_bone_scraper_has_been subjectedtotaphonomic,technoanduse-wear analyses, theresultsofwhichhavebeencomparedtothe experimen-taldata.Taxonomicalandanatomicaldeterminationswere madeaftercomparisonwiththefaunalcollectionstored at theUniversityofFerrara (Laboratoryof Archaeozool-ogyandTaphonomy).Taphonomicalterationshavebeen analysedatlowandhighmagnification.Measurementsof thespecimen includedlength,widthand thickness. For theinterpretationofthetraces wehave referredtothe availablescientificliterature(Blascoetal.,2008;Fischer,

(3)

1995; Olsen, 1989; Shipmanand Rose, 1988; Villa and d’Errico,2001).Thefunctionalanalysishasdirectlybeen carried out on the specimen, without the use of resin replicas.Theappearance,development,location,and dis-tributionofmanufacturinganduse-weartraceshavebeen observed witha stereoscopeNikon-SMZ-10 (magnifica-tion 0.75–70×)and ametallographicmicroscope Nikon EclipseME600(magnification10–200×).The interpreta-tionoftechnologicalandfunctionalmodificationshasbeen basedonboth criteriadefinedinthescientificliterature (Christidou,1999;Legrand,2007;Maigrot,1997)aswell asontheexperimentalcomparison.

3. Thecontextoftheretouchedbone

Atotalof3096remainsofmammalspecieswere iden-tified among the 171,257 bone fragments recovered in layerA5+A6.Thenumberofidentifiedbonesislowdue tothehighrateofbonefragmentation(morethan88.8% are smaller than 2cm) and combustion (47.8%). These conditions are due to a set of depositional and post-depositionalprocessesalsonotedinotherfullyanthropic contexts(Morin,2010).Thenumberof bonessmoothed bydifferentnatural mechanisms,liketrampling,rolling, andmicroscrapingisverylow(5.4%).Rootmarksarethe mostcommonalterationsidentifiedonbones(26.8%), fol-lowed by surfacemicrofissures fromweathering and/or weatheringcracks(20.4%),manganesestains(17.6%)and exfoliations(6.4%).Someconcretionaryfragments(17.6%) were concentrated near the external area at the limit ofthedrip-line,whilethefewwithtramplingabrasions (0.5%–totalremains919)intheeastpartofthecaveare associatedwiththehigheststoninessofthelayer.There is highincidence of burned remains thatcould suggest theuseofbutcheringrefuse,richinfats,asfuelforfire. Amongsttheburnedfragments,88.0%weresubjectto mod-erate combustion(200–500◦C, black/brown),while 12% were calcined (>700◦C, grey/white). At a general level, thesepatternsandphenomenaaresimilartoevidencefrom theMousterianunitA9withDiscoidtechnology, andto other anthropogenic deposits in the region (Romandini etal.,2014).

Themacromammalassemblageiscomposedmainlyof reddeerand roedeer,elk,ibex andchamois,and giant deerhavealsobeenrecognized.Fox,wolfandbearsare themostnumerouscarnivores.Avifaunalbonesfrom dif-ferent species also bear traces of human modifications (Peresaniet al.,2011b).Withtheexceptionof thewolf, carnivoreremainsshowskinninganddefleshing butcher-ingmarks.Thisdata,togetherwiththescarcity(No.71)of carnivoregnawingonbonesaswellasaconsistentsample ofanthropicmarks,suggesttheanthropicnatureofbone accumulationinthislayer(Peresanietal.,2011a).Intense intentionalbreakageof undeterminedbonesisalso tes-tifiedbymanypercussioncones(No.1951)andnotches as wellasby impactscars(no _466)._Most _of_the ungu-latesyieldedanthropictraces,especiallyredandroedeer. Whenconsideringthewholeensembleoffaunalremains, butcheringtraceshavebeenidentifiedon1442remains, determinedatthelevelofthespecies(butcheringrateisthe 47%ofthetotalNISP)and1954determinedbones(1.2%of

thetotalundetermined).Tibias,femuraandmetapodials, radiiandhumerifromCervids(reddeer,roedeer,andvery largespecimensofgiantdeerorelk),andatlesserextent fromotherungulatesfragmentedfromextractingmarrow wereusedasretouchers(totalnumberA5+A6layer:48; totalnumberfromtheA5–A6complex:131).Whilesome ofthesurfaceswerescrapedbeforebeingused(probably toremoveresiduesofmeatandtendonortheperiosteum), nofurtherpreliminarypreparationisdocumented(Jéquier etal.,2012).Punctiformandlinearimpressions,striations andpitsusuallycharacterizefunctionalareason retouch-ers.Uptothreedifferentfunctionalzonescanbeidentiﬁed oneachretoucher,althoughthemajorityofthepiecesshow asinglefunctionalzone.Interestingly,28outofthe516 fragmentedshafts>5cmoflengthsampledinthatstudy (Jéquieretal.,2012)wererecycledasretouchers,whereas only one wasturned intothe scraper described in this paper.

Asforthe280deerfragmentsrecoveredinlayerA5+A6 (Fig. 1A),coordinates have beenrecorded forungulates remains,whicharealmosttotallyconcentratedontheeast sideoftheinvestigatedarea,closetotheNEstonewall. Intheremainingpartof theinvestigatedarea, reddeer bonesare present and becomesporadicin theexternal areatotheSE(Fig.1B).InA5+A6,biggerfaunalremains (1823remains≥3cmoflength)areconcentratedwitha frequencyof10–28remainspersquare(Fig.1C).Mostof thecarnivoreremainswithanthropictracesarelocatedat theentrancetothetunnelsBandC.Thespatialdistribution ofboneswithimpacttraces(notches, percussionmarks andcones)showsconcentrationsofintentionallymodiﬁed remainsandpercussionconesontheeasternside,along theinnerpartuntiltunnelC(Fig.1D–E).

4. Experimentalproductionanduseofbone retouchededges

Experimental retouched edgeshave beenshaped on eightflakesproducedforrecoveringofmarrowasa pri-marygoal,usingdirectpercussionon6freshradiiextracted from3reddeercarcassespreviouslydefleshedbyvultures. Theboneswerehandledandplacedonabaseduring per-cussion(Fig.2a1–a6).Thelocationoftheimpactsaffected themorphologyoftheresultingflakes.Namely,spiral frac-tureslongitudinaltothelongaxisofthediaphysiscanbe consideredthebestwaytoopentheboneandextractthe marrow.Thesefractureswereproducedbystrikingonthe medial-lateralpartofthediaphysis,closetothe epiphy-ses.Diversely,transversalfracturescreatedbyimpacting thepostero-dorsalsideofthebonearenotfunctionalfor marrowextraction.Normally,onlyoneblankwas morpho-logicallysuitable forproducing a notchededgethrough marginaldirectpercussion.Inveryfewcases,uptothree orfournotcheshavebeenobtained.

Fat and periosteum were scraped off the bones in order to make technological work easier. This activity producedtypicalstriations,visibleonthenegativeseven afterdirectpercussion.Stonehammersandﬂintblocksof differentsize,weight(1.5–0.5kg)andtexturewereused forretouching(Fig.2a1–a6).Onthethickestportionsof theedge,generallyintheirmedialorlateralsides,retouch

(4)

Fig.1.(Colouronline.)SpatialdistributionofdifferentcategoriesoffaunalremainsandlocationofRF1395scraper.PM=percussionmarks;PC=percussion cones.

Fig.1. (Couleurenligne.)DistributionspatialedesdifférentescatégoriesderestesfauniquesetemplacementduracloirRF1395.PM=marquesde percus-sion;PC=cônesdepercussion.

was carried out easily with an edge close to 60◦. This taskwasfacilitated by holdingthebone against a base (Fig. 2a2–a6). In four cases, while retouching the bone blankthroughalternateretouch,thediaphysisbrokeafter 4–5retoucheswereproduced.

Experimentalscraperswereveryeffectiveondifferent materials(freshanddryhide,freshanddrywood,fresh bonewithmeat),anduse-weartracesstartedtodevelop after5minutes.Theywereheldwithoneorbothhands,and boththedorsalandtheventraledgesofthescraperswere successfullyusedinunidirectional,convergent-divergent, or alternatemovements.Wood and bone scraping pro-ducedintenseroundingmuchquickerthanhideormeat processing(Table1;Figs. 2and4a–b).While diagnostic differencescanbeidentifiedintheinvasivenessandthe developmentof roundingonthe edge accordingto the differentmaterialsprocessedandthespecificmotions per-formedwiththeexperimentaltools(e.g.,scrapinghidevs. scrapingwood),alltheactivitiescarriedouthave devel-oped modifications oriented and distributed according tothemovement performedwiththescraper (Table 1; Fig.3a–f).Differencesintheinvasivenessoftheuse-wear traceshavebeenobservedaccordingtothehighorlow workingangle,whileveryflatroundingdevelopedwhile

working wood. Different use-wear traces have always developedalongtheusededgeandneveronthemedullar ridgesofthebones,asthosewerenotincontactwiththe workedmaterialduringtheactivity.

5. Archaeologicalresults

On thebasisof theexperimentalresults,we suggest thattheportionofdiaphysisexploitedforthemanufacture of RF1395wasdeliberatelyshapedby directpercussion ontheanteriorandposteriorsurfaces,successively.The breakageplanessuggestthatthebonewasretouchedwhen still fresh. On the dorsal face of the bone, it is possi-ble toobservea sequence ofﬁvedetachmentsobtained using the 60◦ natural angle of the radius,and its cen-tral mesialedge ischaracterised bya slightly narrower angleof55◦ due totheabsenceofthetrabecularframe alongthemedullarchannel.Notchesanddetachmentson theanteriorfaceare thin,moderatelyinvasive,and dis-posed in sequence (Fig. 4A).On theexploitable edge, a “pseudo”percussionconeisstillvisible(Fig.4A/#),whereas onthemedullarface(Fig.4B)fourinvasivenotchesoverlap thepreviousopposedones,removingtheirimpactpoints. In onecase,thenotchesonbothfacesshareacommon

(5)

Fig.2.(Colouronline.)Experimentalproductionanduseofboneretouchededges:(a1–6)retouchingofdeers’radii;(2)bonescraperswithretouch detachmentsmarkedout;(3)theRF1395scraper.(#)impactcones;(4a–e)useofexperimentalscrapersondifferentmaterials(freshanddryhide,fresh anddrywood,freshbonewithmeat).

Fig.2. (Couleurenligne.)Productionexpérimentaleetutilisationd’osretouchéssurlesbords:(a1–6)retouchedesradiusdecerf;(2)racloirsenosavec miseenévidencedesenlèvements;(3)racloirRF1395.(#)cônesdepercussion;(4a–e)Utilisationderacloirsexpérimentauxsurdifférentsmatériaux (peaufraîcheetsèche,boisvertetsec,osfraisavecdelaviande).

impactpoint, which is still visible along thebone edge (Fig.4C).Thesuiteofgesturesrevealstheexploitationofthe twoopposedfaces,hierarchicallyrelatedfromthemedial diaphysisangle.Whileretouchesonboneshaftscanbe pro-ducedbycarnivoreactivity,thelatteraregenerallysmaller andisolatedandalwaysassociatedwithpuncturespitsand score-pits(Blumenshine, 1995;Domínguez-Rodrigo and Piqueras,2003;Fischer,1995).

Athighmagniﬁcation,thesurfacesofthebonescraper RF1395 are characterized by various post-depositional alterations,suchastracesofdissolutioncausedbyroots, tinycarbonate concretions,dehydration cracks,and soil striations. On the ventral surface, detachments can be observed along the right edge and along dehydration cracks.Post-depositionaledgeroundingisalsodeveloped alongthenaturalandretouchededgesofthetoolaswellas

ontheventralsurfaceandalongtheedgesofthemarrow cavity(Fig.3g).Thesepost-depositionalmodificationsalso characterizeunmodifiedbonefragmentscomingfromthe layerA5+A6ofFumaneCave.Ontheexperimentaltools, roundingis alwaysassociated withstriatedareas; their distribution,orientationandcharacteristicsarediagnostic of the different movements performed and materials workedwith thebone scraper during theactivity (e.g., freshanddrywood,freshanddryhide,meatandbone). While,onRF1395,developedroundingisneverassociated withdenselystriatedareasatamacroscopiclevelrounded, striatedspotswithtinydepressionsorientedaccordingto thestriationshavebeenidentifiedathighmagnification (Fig.3m–n).Thesemicrouse-weartracesarecompatible withmodificationsproducedonexperimentaltoolsafter processing dry wood for a short time. On this basis,

(6)

Fig.3.(Colouronline.)Experimental(EXP)use-weartracesandpost-depositional(PD)aswellasusemodificationsonRF1395:(a)EXPmacrotracesfrom drywoodscraping.Notetheshinysurfacesandtheflatprofileoftheroundingandthehighdensityofstriations;(b)close-uponadenselystriatedand roundedareaproducedafterscrapingdrywood;(c)close-uponEXPmicrotraceproducedafterscrapingdrywood.Notetheinvasivenessofroundingand striationsandthesmall,elongatedpitsalongtheedge;(d)EXPmacrotracesfromdryskinscraping.Notetheverydeepstriationsontheedge,theless invasivedistributionoftheroundedareasonthetool’sedgeandthemoresmoothedprofilewithrespecttoFig.4A;(e)close-uponstriationsproduced afterscrapingdryskin;(f)close-uponEXPmicrotracesproducedafterscrapingdryhide.Notethelimitedinvasivenessofthetracesintothenatural depressionoftheboneandthedeepstriationsandtheoverallroundprofileofthewornarea;(g)RF1395.Localisedroundingalongtheedgeofthetool. ThearrowshowsanumberofPDstriationsproducedbyfrictionwithsoilparticles;(h)RF1395.LocalisedseriesofPDstriationsproducedbytrampling andsedimentaryparticles.ThearrowsontherightindicatePDdehydrationcracksofthetissue;(i)RF1395.Edgeroundingandstriationscausedbyfriction withsedimentaryparticles;(l)RF1395.PDedgeroundinglocatedonthecrestsofthemarrowcavityanddetailsofdehydrationcracksofthetissue;(m–n) RF1395.Close-uponmicrouse-weartraces.Bar:1mmina–e,g–l;200␮minf,m–n.

Fig.3. (Couleurenligne.)Tracesd’utilisationexpérimentales(EXP),tracespost-dépositionnelles(PD)etmodificationsd’utilisationsurRF1395:(a) macro-tracesEXPduesauraclagedeboissec.Noterlessurfaceslisses/brillantes,leprofilplatdel’arrondietlafortedensitédestriesquilecaractérise;(b)focus surunezonedensémentstriéeetarrondie,produiteaprèsraclagedeboissec;(c)focussurmicrotracesEXPproduitesaprèsraclagedeboissec.Noterle caractèreinvasifdel’arrondi,lesstriesetlespetitspitsallongéslelongdubord;(d)macrotracesEXP,aprèsraclagedepeausèche.Noterlesstriestrès profondessurlebord,ladistributionmoinsinvasivedeszonesarrondiessurleborddel’outiletleprofilplusémousséparrapportàlaFig.4A;(e)focus surlesstriesproduitesaprèsraclagedepeausèche;(f)focussurmicrotracesEXPproduitesaprèsraclagedepeausèche.Noterl’invasionlimitéedestraces dansladépressionnaturelledel’os,lesstriesprofondesetleprofilarrondisurl’ensembledelazoneusée;(g)RF1395.Arrondilocalisélelongdubordde l’outil.LaflèchemontreunesériedestriesPDproduitesparfrictionavecdesparticulesdesol;(h)RF1395.SérieslocaliséesdestriesPDproduitesparle charriageàsecetlessédiments.LesflèchesàdroiteindiquentlesfissuresdedéshydratationPDdutissu;(i)RF1395.Bordarrondietstriescausésparfriction avecdesparticulessédimentaires;(l)RF1395.ArrondiPDsituésurlescrêtesdelacavitédelamoelleosseuseetdétailsdesfissuresdedéshydratationdes tissus;(m–n)RF1395.Focussurlesmicrotracesd’utilisationetd’usure.Échelle:1mmpoura–eetg–l;200␮mpourf,m–n.

(7)

Table1

Materialsworkedwithexperimentalbonescrapersandresults(R-rounding;S-striations).

Tableau1

Matériauxtravaillésaveclesracloirsenosexpérimentauxetrésultats(R-arrondissements;S-stries).

Code Workedmaterial Prehension Movement Time Effectiveness Use-weartracesdescription 2.2 Dryconifer wood+resin Twohanded (dorsal) Unidirectional towardsthe experimenter

3 Excellent R:veryshiny,verydevelopedwithﬂatproﬁleand invasivedistributionintothenaturaldepressionsof thebonetopography

S:verynumerous,long,wideanddeep.Their invasivenessvariesaccordingwiththeworkingangle 3.1 Freshconifer

wood+resin

Onehanded (dorsal)

Bidirectional 3 _Excellent _R:_Shiny,_very_developed_with_ﬂat_proﬁle_and_invasive distributionintothenaturaldepressionsofthebone topography

S:verynumerous,long,wideanddeep.Their invasivenessvariesaccordingwiththetool’sworking angle

5.1 Freshbone+dry meat Onehanded (dorsal) Unidirectional towardsthe experi-menter+bidirectional

2 _Excellent _R:_Not_very_shiny,_developed,_not_invasive_distribution intothenaturaldepressionsofthebonetopography S:notnumerous,long,wideanddeep.Variable invasivenessaccordingwiththetool’sworkingangle 5.2 Freshconifer wood+resin Onehanded (dorsal) Unidirectional towardsthe experi-menter+bidirectional

3 _Excellent _R:_very_shiny,_very_developed_with_ﬂat_proﬁle_and invasivedistributionintothenaturaldepressionsof thebonetopography

S:verynumerous,long,wideanddeep Variableinvasivenessaccordingwiththetool’s workingangle

5.3 Freshskin Onehanded (dorsal)and medullary

Unidirectional towardsthe experimentedand farfromthe experimenter

5 _Good _R:_Shiny,_developed,_round_proﬁle,_invasive distributionintothenaturaldepressionsofthebone topography

S:verynumerous,short,wideanddeep.Their invasivenessvariesaccordingwiththeworkingangle. 6.1 Dryconifer wood+resin Onehanded (dorsal) Unidirectional towardsthe experimentedand farfromthe experimenter

3 Excellent R:Veryshiny,developedwithﬂatproﬁleandinvasive distributionintothenaturaldepressionsofthebone topography

S:verynumerous,long,wideanddeep

Theirinvasivenessvariesaccordingwiththeworking angle

6.2 Freshbone+dry andfreshmeat

Onehanded (dorsal)

4 _Excellent _R:_Not_very_shiny,_developed,_ﬂat_proﬁle,_not_invasive S:numerous,long,wideanddeep

6.4 Dryskin Single-handed

dorsalandone medullary

5 _Excellent _R:_Shiny,_developed,_round_proﬁle,_not_invasive S:verynumerous,short,wideanddeep

Theirinvasivenessvariesaccordingwiththeworking angle

we cannot excludethat post-depositional modiﬁcations affectingthesurfacesof RF1395mighthave alteredthe eventualandmoredevelopedtracesproducedafterusing thebonescraperonwood.

6. Discussionandconclusions

FumanerepresentsaNeanderthalreferentialsite dur-ingMIS3,duetothebulkofevidencelikelithicandbone remainsrelatedtomultipleoccupationalevents.Atthesite, theuseofbonesplintersforretouchinglithicartefactsis wellknown,andbonesfromhuntedanimalsrepresented analternativerawmaterial,whichNeanderthals expedi-entlyexploited.

Our experimental activity as well as the results of thetechnologicalandtaphonomicanalyses,supportsthe interpretationoftheretouchedboneRF1395fromFumane asascraper.Inparticular,thetechnologicalanalysishas pointed out that the medial portion of the radius was selected and retouched through an array of gestures

carriedoutonthetwooppositefacesofthebone.Thispart ofthediaphysiswaspreferredforitsthicknessandforthe narrowexteriorcurvatureofthebone.Theinterpretation of the deliberated modified edge has been based on morphologicalandtechnologicalindicators,suchasshape andlocationoftheretouches,theiruniformdistribution, thepresence of percussionbulbs, and theregularity of theedge profile.The appearanceof thebifacial, planar, continuous, and overlapping retouches along the edge of RF1395 differs from mosttypical taphonomic traces (e.g,carnivoregnawing, rodentsactivity,trampling,and sedimentpressure)andfromtheanthropicmodifications producedaftergreenbonebreakageformarrowrecovery (Backwell and d’Errico, 2001; Blascoet al., 2008;Brain, 1981; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2009; Fischer, 1995; Galánetal.,2009;Olsen,1989;ShipmanandRose,1988; Villaandd’Errico,2001).Rather,modificationsonRF1395 canbecomparedwiththecontinuousunifacialorbifacial retouchesmadeonthindihedraledgesofthemidshafts fromGranDolina (Roselletal.,2011),withtheinvasive

(8)

Fig.4.(Colouronline.)Bonescraperandschemeofthetoolmanufacture:(e)radius-ulnaofCervuselaphus;inredtheportionrepresentedbyRF1395;(e1) sectionoftheradiusandangledetailexploited.

Fig.4. (Couleurenligne.)Racloiretschémadelafabricationdel’outilsuros:(e)radius-ulnadeCervuselaphus;enrouge,lapartiereprésentéeparRF1395; (e1)sectionduradiusetdétaildel’angleexploité.

andbifacialdetachmentsregularlypositionedontheside of some Acheulean bone artefacts (Biddittu and Segre, 1982;SegreNaldinietal.,2009)andclusteredinadistinct pattern(Anzideietal.,1989),onthebonefragmentfrom VaufreyCave(Vincent,1988),butalsowiththecontinuous scaledremovalsobservedonthebonefromBlombosCave (d’ErricoandHenshilwood,2007).Nevertheless,Fumane scaperisdifferentfromthedenticulatedartefactsandthe pointedtoolfromAbric Romaní(Carbonelletal.,1996), as well as and the trihedral pick made on rhinoceros tibiafromGrutaNovadeColumbeira(Barandiaránetal., 1971), which marks out a variability in theway these

ﬂakesweremodiﬁed.Ourexperimentalresultshavealso demonstrated that the angle and lengthof the edge of thebonescraperwaspotentiallyfunctionalforcuttingor scrapingvariousmaterials(e.g.,hideandwood).Although post-depositionalagents partially affectedtheway use-weartracespreservedonthetool,abriefutilizationofthe scraperforwoodworkingcannotbeexcludedonthebasis ofthemicroscopicanalysisandexperimentalcomparison. Inordertobettercharacterizethetechnologicalaspects related to theproduction of thebone scraper, the pos-sibility thatthe retouchrepresented anoutcome ofthe productionofboneretouchershasalsobeenconsidered,

(9)

asthiswasdocumentedatthesiteAxlor,levelD(Spain) (MozotaHolgueras,2009).Whilethetechnological anal-ysisof130boneretoucherscarriedoutatthissiteshow thatinsixcasestoolblankswerepreparedbypercussion onthelateralsidesand/orontheproximalparts,noneof the48boneretoucherscomingfromlevelsA5andA5+A6 and83fromlevelA6ofFumanewereextractedby percus-sion(Jéquieretal.,2012).Additionally,thedetachments alongthesidesaswellasontheproximalextremityofbone retoucherblanksarealwaysmoreisolatedthantheones characterizingtheretouchesonRF1395.

Asaboneretouchedtool,RF1395isuniqueinthe A5-A6stratigraphiccomplexaswellasacrossthewholeLate MousteriansequenceatFumane.Thetechnological charac-teristicsofthistoolclearlyindicatethatduringtheMiddle Palaeolithicat Fumane,theexploitation of boneas raw materialinvolvedtheuseofdirectpercussionthrougha transferoftechnicalknowledgefromflintknapping.While gestures are comparable to the operational sequences involvedinflintknapping,thisdoesnotnecessarilyimply thatthistechniquewasusedintheabsenceofamore effec-tiveone.Also,whileside-scrapersarethemostabundant categoryofretouchedlithictools,nomorpho-typessimilar tothebonescraperaredocumentedinthelithic indus-tryatthesite.InvariousLowerPalaeolithiccontextsthe useofbone asraw materialfor toolmanufacturinghas beenrelated tothelackof appropriatelithicraw mate-rialinthesurroundingarea(Anzidei,2001;Dobosi,2001; Gaudzinskietal.,2005).Yet,archaeologicalevidencefor bonemodificationbyretouchisabsentduringthewhole MiddlePalaeolithicatFumane.Consequently,wecannot excludethattheuseofbonescrapersmighthave repre-sented theresult ofsporadiceventsalthough thedirect percussionrepresentstheprimarytechniqueusedinthe manufactureofstoneartefactsatthissite.Inconclusion, ourresultssupporttheidea that thetechnological per-formancesofNeanderthalsinvolvingtheuseofboneasraw materialwerevariablebutstillatnascentlevel.

References

Anzidei,A.P.,2001.ToolsfromelephantbonesatLaPolledraradi Cecanib-bioandRebibbia–Casalde’Pazzi.In:Cavarretta,G.,Gioia,P.,Mussi,M., Palombo,M.R.(Eds.),TheWorldofElephants.ProceedingsoftheFirst InternationalCongress.ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicerche,Roma,pp. 415–418.

Anzidei,A.P.,Angelelli,A.,Arnoldus-Huyzendveld,A.,Caloi,L.,Palombo, M.R.,Segre,A.G.,1989.LegisementPléistocènedelaPolledraradi Cecanibbio(Rome,Italie).L’Anthropologie93,749–782.

Backwell, L.R., d’Errico, F., 2001. Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkransearlyhominids.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.98,1358–1363.

Barandiarán,VeigaFerreira,I.,Da,O.,1971.Huesoslabradosenel Pale-oliticoantíguoymédiodePortugal.ArqueologiaeHistória9(3),7–30.

Biberson,P.,Aguirre,E.,1965.Expériencesdetailled’outilspréhistoriques dansdesosd’éléphant.Quaternaria7,165–183.

Biddittu,I.,Celletti,P., 2001.Plio-PleistoceneproboscideaandLower PalaeolithicboneindustryofsouthernLatium(Italy).In:Cavarretta, G.,Gioia,P.,Mussi,M.,Palombo,M.R.(Eds.),TheWorldofElephants. ProceedingsoftheFirstInternationalCongress.ConsiglioNazionale delleRicerche,Roma,pp.91–96.

Biddittu,I.,Segre,A.G.,1982.Utilizzazionedell’ossonelPaleolitico inferi-oreitaliano.In:AttiXXIRiunioneScientiﬁcaIst.It.Preist.eProtost., pp.90–105.

Blasco,R.,Rosell,J.,Fernández,P.J.,Cáceres,I.,MaríaVergès,J.,2008.A newelementoftrampling:anexperimentalapplicationontheLevel XIIfaunalrecordofBolomorCave(Valencia,Spain).J.Archaeol.Sci. 35,1605–1618.

Blasco,R.,Rosell,J.,Cuartero,F.,Fernández,P.J.,Gopher,A.,Barkai,R.,2013.

UsingBonestoShapeStones:MIS9BoneRetouchersatBothEdgesof theMediterraneanSea.PlosOne8,10.

Blumenshine,R.J.,1995.Percussionmarks,toothmarks,andexperimental determinationsofthetimingofhominidandcarnivoreacetolong bonesatFLKZinjanthropus,OlduvaiGorge,Tanzania.J.HumanEvol. 27,197–213.

Bordes,F.,1961.TypologieduPaléolithiqueancienetmoyen.Cahiersdu Quaternaire1,112.

Brain,C.K.,1981.TheHuntersortheHunted?AnIntroductiontoAfrican CaveTaphonomy.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Broglio,A.,Tagliacozzo,A.,DeStefani,M.,Gurioli,F.,Facciolo,A.,2006.

Aurignacian dwellingstructures huntingstrategies and seasona-lity in the FumaneCave (Lessini Mountains). In: Vasil’ev, V.V., Popov,V.V.,Anikovich,M.V.,Praslov,N.D.,Sinitsyn,A.A.,Hoffecker, J.F.(Eds.),TheearlyUpperPalaeolithicofEurasia:generaltrends, localdevelopments.StateArchaeologicalMuseum-reserve,Kostenki, pp.263–268.

CabreraValdes,V.,1984.ElyacimientodelaCuevadeElCastillo. Biblio-thecaPraehistoricaHispana,Madrid.

Carbonell,E.,Cebrià,A.,Allué,E.,Cáceres,I.,Castro,Z.,Díaz,R.,Esteban, M.,_Ollé´,A.,_Pastó´,I.,Rodríguez,X.P.,Rosell,J.,Sala,R.,Vallverdú,J., Vaquero,M.,Vergés,J.M.,1996.Behaviouralandorganizational com-plexityintheMiddlePalaeolithicfromAbricRomaní.In:Carbonell,E., Vaquero,M.(Eds.),ThelastNeanderthals,theﬁrstAnatomically Mod-ernHumans:ataleaboutthehumandiversity.UniversitatRovirai Virgili,Tarragona,pp.385–434.

Cassoli,P.F.,DeGiuli,C.,Radmilli,A.M.,Segre,A.G.,1982.Giacimentodel paleoliticoinferioreaMalagrotta(Roma).In:AttiXXIIIRiunione Sci-entiﬁcaI.I.P.P,pp.531–549.

Chase,P.G.,Nowell,A.,1998.TaphonomyofasuggestedMiddle Palae-olithicboneﬂutefromSlovenia.Curr.Anthropol.39,549–553.

Christidou, R., (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) 1999. Outils en os néolithiquesduNorddelaGrèce:étudetechnologique.University ofParisX,France.

d’Errico,F.,Henshilwood,C.S.,2007.Additionalevidenceforbone tech-nologyinthesouthernAfricanMiddleStoneAge.J.HumanEvol.52, 142–163.

d’Errico, F.,Villa, P., 1997. Holes and grooves: The contribution of microscopyandtaphonomytotheproblemofartorigins.J.Human Evol.33,1–31.

d’Errico,E.,Villa,P.,PintoLlona,A.C.,RuizIdarraga,R.,1998.AMiddle PalaeolithicoriginofMusic?Usingcave-bearaccumulationstoassess theDivjebabeIboneﬂute.Antiquity72,39–41.

Dobosi,V.T.,2001.ExProboscideis-Proboscideanremainsasrawmaterial atfourPalaeolithicsites,Hungary.In:Cavarretta,G.,Gioia,P.,Mussi, M.,Palombo,M.R.(Eds.),TheWorldofElephants.Proceedingsofthe FirstInternationalCongress.ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicerche,Roma, pp.429–431.

Domínguez-Rodrigo,M.,Piqueras,A.,2003.Theuseoftoothpitstoidentify carnivoretaxaintooth-markedarcheofaunasandtheirrelevanceto reconstructhominidcarcassprocessingbehaviors.J.Archaeol.Sci.30, 1385–1391.

Domínguez-Rodrigo,M.,deJuana,S.,Galán,A.B.,Rodríguez,M.,2009.

Anewprotocoltodifferentiatetramplingmarksfrombutcherycut marks.J.Archaeol.Sci.36,2643–2654.

Fischer,J.W., 1995. Bonesurface modiﬁcationsin zooarchaeology.J. Archaeol.MethodTheory2,7–68.

Galán,A.B.,Rodríguez,M.,deJuana,S.,Domínguez-Rodrigo,M.,2009.A newexperimentalstudyonpercussionmarksandnotchesandtheir bearingontheinterpretationofhammerstone-brokenfaunal assem-blages.J.Archaeol.Sci.36,776–784.

Gaudzinski,S.,1999.Middle PalaeolithicBoneToolsfromthe Open-Air Site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 125–141.

Gaudzinski,S.,Turner,E.,Anzidei,A.P.,Álvarez-Fernández,E., Arroyo-Cabrales,J.,Cinq-Mars,J.,Dobosi,V.T.,Hannus,A.,Johnson,E.,Münzel, S.C.,Scheer,A.,Villa,P.,2005.TheuseofProboscideanremainsin every-dayPalaeolithiclife.Quatern.Internat.126–128,179–194.

Henshilwood,C.S.,d’Errico,F.,Marean,C.W.,Milo,R.G.,Yates,R.,2001.An earlybonetoolindustryfromtheMiddleStoneAgeatBlombosCave, SouthAfrica:implicationsfortheoriginsofmodernhumanbehaviour, symbolismandlanguage.J.HumanEvol.41,631–678.

Higham,T.F.G.,Brock,F.,Peresani,M.,Broglio,A.,Wood,R.,Douka,K.,2009.

ProblemswithradiocarbondatingtheMiddleandUpperPalaeolithic transitioninItaly.QuaternarySci.Rev.28,1257–1267.

Jéquier,C.A., Romandini, M., Peresani, M.,2012. Les retouchoirsen matièresduresanimales:unecomparaisonentreMoustérienﬁnalet Uluzzien.C.R.Palevol.11(4),283–292.

(10)

Koby,F.E.,1943. Lessoi-disant instrumentsosseux duPaléolithique alpin et le charriage à sec des os d’ours des cavernes. Ver-handlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel 54, 59–95.

Legrand,A.,2007.Fabricationetutilisationdel’outillageenmatières osseusesdu Néolithique deChypre:Khirokitiaet Cap Andreas-Kastros,BARInternationalSeries,Oxford,1678p.

Maigrot,Y.,1997.TracéologiedesoutilstranchantsenosdesVeetIVe millenairesav.J.-C.enBassinparisien.Essaiméthodologiqueet appli-cation.Bull.Soc.Prehist.Fr.94(2),198–216.

Mania,D.,Mania,U.,2005.Thenaturalandsocioculturalenvironmentof HomoerectusatBilsleben,Germany.In:Gamble,C.,Porr,M.(Eds.), TheHomininIndividualinContext:Archaeologicalinvestigationsof LowerandMiddlePalaeolithicLandscapes,localesandartifacts. Rout-ledge,London,pp.98–114.

McBrearty,S.,Brooks,A.S.,2000.Therevolutionthatwasn’t:anew inter-pretationoftheoriginofmodernhumanbehavior.J.HumanEvol.39, 453–563.

Morin,E.,2010.Taphonomicimplicationsoftheuseofboneasfuel.In: Théry-Parisot,I.,Chabal,L.,Costamagno,S.(Eds.),Thetaphonomyof burnedorganicresiduesandcombustionfeaturesinarchaeological contexts,2.Palethnologie,pp.215–223.

MozotaHolgueras,M.,2009.ElutillajeóseomusteriensedelnivelDde Axlor(Dima,Vizcaya):análisisdelacadenaoperativa.Trabajosde Prehistoria66,27–46.

Olsen,S.L.,1989.Ondistinguishingnaturalfromculturaldamageon archaeologicalantler.J.Archaeol.Sci.16(2),125–135.

Peresani,M.,2012.Fiftythousandyearsofﬂintknappingandtool shap-ingacrosstheMousterianandUluzziansequenceofFumanecave. Quatern.Internat.247,125–150.

Peresani,M.,Chravzez,J.,Danti, A.,De March,M.,Duches,R., Guri-oli,F.,Muratori,S.,Romandini, M.,Tagliacozzo,A.,Trombino, L., 2011a.Fire-placesfrequentationsandtheenvironmentalsettingof theﬁnalMousterianatGrottadiFumane:areportfromthe2006–2008 research.Quartär58,131–151.

Peresani,M.,Fiore,I.,Gala,M.,Romandini,M.,Tagliacozzo,A.,2011b.Late Neandertalsandtheintentionalremovaloffeathersasevidencedfrom birdbonetaphonomyatFumaneCave44kyB.P.Italy.Proc.Natl.Acad. Sci.108,3888–3893.

Romandini, M.,Nannini, N.,Tagliacozzo,A., Peresani, M., 2014. The ungulateassemblagefromlayerA9atGrottadiFumane,Italy:a zooarchaeologicalcontributiontothereconstructionofNeanderthal ecology.Quatern.Internat.l.

Rosell,J.,Blasco,R.,Campeny,G.,CarlosDíez,J.,AlonsoAlcalde,R., Menén-dez,L.,Arsuaga,J.L.,BermúdezdeCastro,J.M.,Carbonell,E.,2011.

BoneasatechnologicalrawmaterialattheGranDolinasite(Sierra deAtapuerca,Burgos,Spain).J.HumanEvol.61,125–131.

Rosell,J.,Blasco,R.,Huguet,R.,Cáceres,I.,Saladié,P.,Rivals,F.,deLluc Bennàsar, M.,Bravo,P.,Campeny, G.,Esteban-Nadal,M.,Cristina Fernández-Laso, C.,Gabucio,J.,Ibá ˜nez,N., Martín,P., Mu ˜noz,L., AntonioRodríguez-Hidalgo,A.,2012.OccupationalPatternsand Sub-sistenceStrategiesinLevelJofAbricRomaní.In:CarbonellyRoura,E. (Ed.),HighResolutionArchaeologyandNeanderthalBehavior:Time andSpaceinLevelJofAbricRomaní(Capellades,Spain).Vertebrate PaleobiologyandPaleoanthropology,SpringerScience,pp.313–372.

Saccà,D.,2012.TaphonomyofPalaeloxodonantiquusatCasteldiGuido (Rome,Italy):ProboscideancarcassexploitationintheLower Palae-olithic.Quatern.Internat.276-277,27–41.

SegreNaldini,E.,Muttoni,M.,Parenti,F.,Scardia,G.,Segre,A.G.,2009.

NouvellesrecherchesdanslebassinPlio-Pléistocèned’Anagni(Latium méridional,Italie).L’Anthropologie113,66–77.

Shipman,P.,Rose,J.,1988.Bonetools:anexperimentalapproach.In: Olsen,S.L.(Ed.),ScanningElectronMicroscopyinArchaeology.BAR InternationalSeries452,Oxford,pp.303–335.

Soressi,M.,McPherron,S.P.,Lenoir,M.,Dogandˇzi ´c,T.,Goldberg,P.,Jacobs, Z.,Maigrot,Y.,Martisius,N.L.,Miller,C.E.,Rendu,W.,Richards,M., Skinner,M.M.,Steele,T.E.,Talamo,S.,Texier,J.P.,2013. Neander-talsmadetheﬁrstspecializedbonetoolsinEurope.PNAS110(35), 14186–14190.

Stephanchuk,V.N.,1993.ProlomII,aMiddlePalaeolithiccavesiteinthe easternCrimeawithnon-utilitarianboneartefacts.Proc.Prehist.Soc. 59,17–37.

Valensi,P.,1996.Taphonomiedesgrandsmammifèresetpalethnologieà laGrotteduLazaret(Nice,France).Anthropozoologica23,13–28.

Villa,P.,1991.MiddlePleistoceneprehistoryinsouthwesternEurope:the stateofourknowledgeandignorance.J.Anthropol.Res.47,193–217.

Villa,P.,Bartram,L.,1996.FlakedbonefromaHyenaden.Paleontology8, 143–159.

Villa,P.,d’Errico,F.,2001.BoneandivorypointsintheLowerandMiddle PaleolithicofEurope.J.HumanEvol.41,69–112.

Villa,P.,Anzidei,A.P.,Cerilli,E.,1999.Bonesandbonemodiﬁcations at La Polledrara, a Middle Pleistocene site in Italy. Therole of earlyhumansintheaccumulationofEuropeanLowerandMiddle Palaeolithicboneassemblages,42.Römisch–Germanisches Zentral-museum,Monograph,pp.197–206.

Vincent,A.,1988.L’oscommeartefactauPaléolithiquemoyen:principes d’étude et premiers résultats. In: Binford, L., Rigaud, J.P. (Eds.), L’HommedeNeandertal.LaTechnique.ERAUL31,pp.185–196.

Vincent,A.,(PhDDissertation)1993.L’outillageosseuxauPaléolithique moyen:unenouvelleapproche.UniversityParisX,2p.

Zilhão,J.,Cardoso,J.L.,Pike,A.W.G., Weninger,B.,2011.GrutaNova daColumbeira(Bombarral,Portugal):sitestratigraphy,ageofthe Mousteriansequence,andimplicationsforthetimingofNeanderthal extinctioninIberia.Quartär58,93–112.