Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 9, pp 4585–4600 | Cite as

A bunch of refits: 497D blade knapping assemblage of the Early Upper Paleolithic in Cova Gran (Northeast Iberia)

  • Jorge Martínez-MorenoEmail author
  • Rafael Mora Torcal
  • Alfonso Benito-Calvo
  • Miquel Roy Sunyer
  • Javier Sánchez-Martínez
Original Paper


Laminar knapping is a system of methods through which a recurrent series of elongated and morphometrically repetitive blanks are obtained. The appearance of this method is associated with cognitive changes that foster different paleoanthropological discussions. This article assesses the implications of the 497D lithic assemblage of Cova Gran (Northeast Pre-Pyrenees, Iberia), whose technical principles place it within the laminar knapping sphere in which the production of blades, bladelets, and flakes are interspersed. Refitting dynamic approach allows establishing physical connections, reflecting volumetric reduction integrate sequences of sequential blanks organized by the principle of technical predetermination. Techno-typological, contextual, and chronometric attributes enable the integration of 497D within an initial phase of the Upper Paleolithic. This is an important point; although laminar knapping is widely dispersed in space and time, it marks the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens associated with the Aurignacian (sensulato), a tradition marking the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. This concept has been challenged by the proposal that the Châtelperronian laminar technocomplex was made by Homo neanderthalensis. These opposing positions fostered the Middle-Upper Paleolithic “transition” debate. Technical traits identified through refitting facilitate examination of similarities and differences between 497D and the Proto/Early Aurignacian and Châtelperronian. Observations arising from refitting in 497D influence characterization of the knapping method and its possible correlation with one of these Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes. These inferences broaden the goals usually associated with blade knapping, and encourage reconsideration of the classical definition of the laminar system.


497D Blade knapping Refit Morphological blank diversity Early Upper Paleolithic Cova Gran 



Refit photogrammetry and 3D animation was undertaken by Sandra Caballero of CEPAP. Francesca Rogmanoli y Manuel Vaquero, organizers of the workshop The Big Puzzle 30 years after: shared, multidisciplinary, Paleolithic perspective supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation (Ref: Gr CONF-737) that fostered an ideal atmosphere for the exchange of experiences in refitting analysis. Cova Gran de Santa Linya is part of the project Human settlement during the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene in the Southeastern Pyrenees (HAR2016-75124) and the 2017SGR-1357 research group. Fieldwork was funded by Serveí d’Arquelogía- Generalítat de Catalunya. We thank the support given by the Institute for Field Research and the kind permission of the Societat de Munts de Santa Linya to authorize the excavation in Cova Gran. Likewise, the authors thank two anonymous reviewers for contributing to ameliorate the manuscript.

Supplementary material

12520_2018_726_MOESM1_ESM.wmv (4.2 mb)
Supplement 1 3D animation Set 120 (WMV 4.15 mb)
12520_2018_726_MOESM2_ESM.wmv (1.9 mb)
Supplement 2 3D-animation Set 101 (WMV 1.91 mb)
12520_2018_726_MOESM3_ESM.wmv (3.3 mb)
Supplement 3 3D animation Set 102 (WMV 3.31 mb)
12520_2018_726_MOESM4_ESM.wmv (1.8 mb)
Supplement 4 3D animation Set 41 (WMV 1.78 mb)


  1. Agisoft-Photoshop (2015) Accessed 01/05/2018
  2. Ambrose S (2001) Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291:1748–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson L, Bon F, Bordes JG et al (2015) Relier des espaces, construire de nouveaux réseaux: aux origines du Protoaurignacien et des débuts du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe occidentale. In: Binder Q (ed) Naudinot, Meignen. Les systèmes de mobilité de la Préhistoire au Moyen âge, Antibes, pp 93–109Google Scholar
  4. Bachellerie F (2011) Quelle unité pour le Châtelperronien? Apport de l’analyse taphonomique et techno-économique des industries lithiques de trois gisements aquitains de plein air: le Basté, Bidart (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) et Canaule II (Dordogne). PhD Univ Bordeaux IGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamforth D, Finlay N (2008) Archaeological approaches to lithic production skill and craft learning. J Archaeol Method Theory 15:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks W, D’Errico F, Zilhão J (2013) Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. J Hum Evol 64:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar-Yosef O (2006) Neanderthals and modern humans: a different interpretation. In: Conard (ed) When Neanderthals and modern humans met. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp 467–482Google Scholar
  8. Bar-Yosef O, Bordes JG (2010) Who were the makers of the Châtelperronian culture? J Hum Evol 59:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bar-Yosef O, Kuhn S (1999) The big deal about blades: laminar technologies and human evolution. Am Anthropol 101:322–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bataille G, Tafelmaier Y, Weniger G (2018) Living on the edge. A comparative approach for studying the beginning of the Aurignacian. Quat Int 474:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benazzi S, Slon V, Talamo S, Negrino F, Peresani M, Bailey SE, Sawyer S, Panetta D, Vicino G, Starnini E, Mannino MA, Salvadori PA, Meyer M, Pääbo S, Hublin JJ (2015) The makers of the Protoaurignacian and implications for Neandertal extinction. Science 348:793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benito-Calvo A, Martínez-Moreno J, Jordá Pardo J, de la Torre I, Mora Torcal R (2009) Sedimentological and archaeological fabrics in Palaeolithic levels of the South-Eastern Pyrenees: Cova Gran and Roca dels Bous Sites (Lleida, Spain). J Archaeol Sci 36: 2566–2577Google Scholar
  13. Bertouille H (1989) Théories physiques et mathématiques de la taille des outils préhistoriques. Cahiers du quaternaire 15. CNRSGoogle Scholar
  14. Blender (2017) Accessed 01/05/2017
  15. Bodu P, Salomon H, Lacarrière J, Baillet M, Ballinger M, Naton HG, Théry-Parisot I (2017) Un gisement châtelperronien de plein air dans le Bassin parisien : les Bossats à Ormesson (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire 57:3–64Google Scholar
  16. Boëda E (1994) Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. Editions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
  17. Boëda E (2013) Techno-logique & technologie. Une paléo-histoire des objets lithiques tranchants. @rchéo-éditions.comGoogle Scholar
  18. Bon F (2002) L’Aurignacien entre mer et ocean. Reflexion sur l’unite des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans le sud de la France. In: Societe Prehistorique Francaise. Memoire XXIX, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Bon F (2006) A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef and Zilhão (ed) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian, Lisbone, pp133–144Google Scholar
  20. Bordes F (1953) Essai de classification des industries moustériennes. Bulletin Société Préhistorique de France 50:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Breuil H (1912) Les subdivisions du Paleolithique Supetieur et leur signification. XIV Congres International d’Anthropologie et d'Archeologie Prehistoriques I: 165–238Google Scholar
  22. Caron F, d’Errico F, Del Moral P, Santos F, Zilhão J (2011) The reality of Neandertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS One 6(6):e21545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cziesla E, Eïckhoff S, Arts N, Winter D (ed) (1990) The big puzzle: international symposium on refitting stone artefacts, Monrepos 1987, BonnGoogle Scholar
  24. Delagnes A (2000) Blade production during the Middle Paleolithic in Northwestern Europe. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 19:181–188Google Scholar
  25. Delagnes A, Jaubert J, Meignen L (2007) Les technocomplexes du Paléolithique moyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre diachronique et géographique. In: Vandermeersch and Maureille (ed): Les Néandertaliens. Biologie et cultures. Editions du CTHS, Paris, pp 213–229Google Scholar
  26. Delpiano D, Peresani M, Pastoors A (2017) The contribution of 3D visual technology to the study of Palaeolithic knapped stones based on refitting. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 4:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Demars PY, Laurent P (1992) Types d’outils lithiques du Paleolithique superieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14. CNRS, BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  28. Eren M, Greenspan A, Sampson G (2008) Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. J Hum Evol 55:952–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Faivre J (2012) A material anecdote but technical reality. Lithic Technol 37:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falcucci A, Conard NJ, Peresani M (2017) A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian. PLoS One 12(12):e0189241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Falcucci A, Peresani M, Roussel M, Normand C, Soressi M (2018) What’s the point? Retouched bladelet variability in the ProtoAurignacian. Results from Fumane, Isturitz, and Les Cottés. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 10:539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foley R, Lahr M (1997) Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Camb Archaeol J 7:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gamble C (1994) Timewalkers: the prehistory of global colonization. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Grigoletto F, Ortega I, Rios J, Bourguignon L (2008) Le Châtelperronien des Vieux Coutets (Creysse, Dordogne). Premiers éléments de réflexion. In: Jaubert, J, Bordes J.-G, Ortega I (eds.): Les Societés du Paléolithique dans un Grand Sud-Ouest de la France: Noveaux gisements, noveaux résultats, nouvelles méthodes: 245-259. Société Préhistorique Française. ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Higham T, Douka K, Wood R, Ramsey CB, Brock F, Basell L, Camps M, Arrizabalaga A, Baena J, Barroso-Ruíz C, Bergman C, Boitard C, Boscato P, Caparrós M, Conard NJ, Draily C, Froment A, Galván B, Gambassini P, Garcia-Moreno A, Grimaldi S, Haesaerts P, Holt B, Iriarte-Chiapusso MJ, Jelinek A, Jordá Pardo JF, Maíllo-Fernández JM, Marom A, Maroto J, Menéndez M, Metz L, Morin E, Moroni A, Negrino F, Panagopoulou E, Peresani M, Pirson S, de la Rasilla M, Riel-Salvatore J, Ronchitelli A, Santamaria D, Semal P, Slimak L, Soler J, Soler N, Villaluenga A, Pinhasi R, Jacobi R (2014) The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance. Nature 512:306–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffman J, Enloe J (ed) (1992) Piecing together the past: applications of refitting studies in archaeology. BAR International Series 578Google Scholar
  37. Hoggard C (2017) Assessing the role of artefact design within the middle Palaeolithic repertoire: determining the behavioural potential of blade production strategies. Dissertation, University of SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  38. Hublin JJ (2015) The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quat Sci Rev 118:194–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonhson C, Mcbrearty S (2010) 500,000 year old blades from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya. J Hum Evol 58:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karlin C (1992a) Connaissances et savoir faire: comment analyser un processus technique en prehistoire. Treballs d’Arqueologia 1:99–124 Google Scholar
  41. Karlin C (1992b) Analyse d’un processus technique: le débitage laminaire des magdaleniens de Pincevent (Seine et Marne). Treballs d’Arqueologia 1:125–161 Google Scholar
  42. de la Torre I, Martínez-Moreno J, Mora R (2013) Change and stasis in the Iberian Middle Paleolithic: considerations on the significance of mousterian technological variability. Curr Anthropol 54-S8:S320–S336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Brun-Ricalens F (2005) Chronique d’une reconnaissance attendue. Outils “carénés”, outils “nucléiformes”: nucléus à lamelles. Bilan après un siècle de recherches typologiques, technologiques et tracéologiques. In: Le Brun-Ricalens F, Bordes JG, Bon F (ed): Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles, ArchéoLogiques 1, Luxembourg, pp 23–72Google Scholar
  44. Le Brun-Ricalens F, Bordes JG, Bon F (ed) (2005) Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. ArchéoLogiques 1, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  45. Leroi-Gourhan A, Brézillon M (1966) L’habitation Magdalénienne no. 1 de Pincevent près Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire 9:263–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leroi-Gourhan A, Leroi-Gourhan A (1964) Chronologie des grottes d’Arcy-sur-Cure. (Yonne). Gallia préhistoire 7:1–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leroi-Gourhan A, Bailloud G, Chavillon J, Laming-Emperaire A (1966) La Préhistoire. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  48. Lévêque F, Vandermeersch B (1980) Découverte de restes humains dans un niveau castelperronien à Saint-Césaire (Charente-Maritime). Comptes-Rendus Academie Sciences Paris 291:187–189Google Scholar
  49. Magnani M, Douglass M, Porter S (2016) Closing the seams: resolving frequently encountered issues in photogrammetric modelling. Antiquity 90:1654–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maroto J, Ortega D, Sacchi D (2002) Le Moustérien tardif des Pyrénées Méditerranéennes. Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 10-11:39–52Google Scholar
  51. Martínez-Moreno J, Mora R, de la Torre I (2010) The Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Cova Gran (Catalunya, Spain) and the extinction of Neanderthals in the Iberian Peninsula. J Hum Evol 58:211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martínez-Moreno J, Mora R, de la Torre I (2012) The role of flakes in the Early Upper Palaeolithic 497D assemblage of Cova Gran de Santa Linya (Southeastern Prepyrenees, Spain). In: Pastoors, Peressani, Weniger (ed) Flakes not blades: role of flake production at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 5, Metman, pp 85–104Google Scholar
  53. Mellars P (1991) Cognitive changes and the emergence of modern humans in Europe. Camb Archaeol J 1:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mellars P (2004) Neandertals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mellars P (2005) The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evol Anthropol 14:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mora R, Benito-Calvo A, Martínez-Moreno J, González-Marcén P, de la Torre I (2011) Chrono-stratigraphy of the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sequence in Cova Gran (south-eastern Pre-Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula). J Quat Sci 26:635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mora R, Benito-Calvo A, Martínez-Moreno J, de la Torre I, Vega S, Roy M, Roda X, Samper-Carro S (2014) A key sequence in the Western Mediterranean prehistory: Cova Gran de Santa Linya (Pre-Pyrenees in Lleida). In: Sala (ed) Pleistocene and Holocene hunter-gatherers in Iberia and Gibraltar strait: the current archaeological record. Fundacion Atapuerca, Burgos, pp 162–166Google Scholar
  58. Mora R, Martínez-Moreno J, Roy M, Benito-Calvo A, Polo-Díaz A, Samper-Carro S (2018) Contextual, technological and chronometric data from Cova Gran: their contribution to discussion of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in northeastern Iberia. Quat Int 474:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mora R, Roy M, Martínez-Moreno J, Benito-Calvo A, Carro-Samper S. (in press) Inside the palimpsest: identifying short occupations in the 497D level of Cova Gran (Iberia)Google Scholar
  60. Morales J, Tejero JM, Cebrià A, Pedro M, et al (2016) Expanding the geography of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition: Foradada Cave (Calafell, Spain), a new site in the Iberian Mediterranean coastline. Antiquity Project Gallery 90 (351):
  61. Muller A, Clarkson C (2016) Identifying major transitions in the evolution of lithic cutting edge production rates. PLoS ONE 11(12):e0167244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Muller A, Clarkson C, Shipton C (2017) Measuring behavioural and cognitive complexity in lithic technology throughout human evolution. J Anthropol Archaeol 48:166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pelegrin J (1990) Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9:116–125Google Scholar
  64. Pelegrin J (1995) Technologie lithique: le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Cote (Dordogne). CNRS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  65. Pelegrin, J., Soressi, M. (2007). Le Châtelperronien et ses rapports avec le Mousterien. In: Vandermeersch and Maureille (ed.) Les Neandertaliens. Biologie et cultures: 297–309. Paris: CTHSGoogle Scholar
  66. Pigeot N (1991) Réflexions sur l’histoire technique de l’Homme: de l’évolution cognitive à l’évolution culturelle. Paléo 3:167–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polo-Díaz A, Benito-Calvo A, Martínez-Moreno J, Mora R (2016) Formation processes and stratigraphical integrity at the contact of Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic in Cova Gran de Santa Linya. Quat Int 417:16–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter S, Roussel M, Soressi M (2017) A comparative analysis of Châtelperronian and Proto Aurignacian blade core technology using data derived from 3D models. CAA International Conference. Atlanta.
  69. Révillion S, Tuffreau A (eds) (1994) Les industries laminaires au Paleolithique Moyen. Editions du CNRS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Rios-Garaizar J, Libano Silvente I, Garate Maidagan D (2012) El yacimiento chatelperroniense al aire libre de Aranbaltza (Barrika, Euskadi). Munibe 63:81–92Google Scholar
  71. Rogmanoli F, Vaquero M (2018) The big puzzle 30 years after: a shared, multi disciplinary, Palaeolithic perspective. International workshop, Tarragona (Spain), May 9–11, 2017. Anthropologie 56:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roussel M (2013) Méthodes et rythmes du débitage laminaire au Châtelperronien: comparaison avec le Protoaurignacien C.R. Palevol 12:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roussel M (2014) Des lamelles retouchées au Châtelperronien : diffusion d’idées entre derniers Néandertaliens et premiers Hommes modernes migrants. In: Otte and Lebrun-Ricalens (ed) Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique. ArchéoLogiques 5:491–510Google Scholar
  74. Roussel M, Bourgignon L, Soressi M (2009) Identification par l’expérimentation de la percussion au percuteur de calcaire au Paléolithique moyen: le cas du façonnage des racloirs bifaciaux Quina de Chez Pinaud (Jonzac, Charente-Maritime). Bulletin de la Société Préhistoirque française 106:219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Roussel M, Soressi M, Hublin JJ (2016) The Châtelperronian conundrum: blade and bladelet lithic technologies from Quinçay. J Hum Evol 95:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roy M (2016) Materias primas líticas y su explotación durante la Prehistoria en el Prepirineo oriental (NE de Iberia). Dissertation, Universitat Autonoma Barcelona.
  77. Roy M, Tarriño A, Benito-Calvo A, Mora R, Martínez-Moreno J (2013) Aprovisionamiento de sílex en el Prepirineo Oriental: el nivel arqueologico 497C de Cova Gran (Santa Linya, Lleida). Trab Prehist 70:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ruebens K, McPherron S, Hublin JJ (2015) On the local Mousterian origin of the Châtelperronian: integrating typo-technological, chronostratigraphic and contextual data. J Hum Evol 86:55–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shimelmitz R, Barkai R, Gopher A (2011) Systematic blade production at late Lower Palaeolithic Qesem Cave, Israel. J Hum Evol 61:458–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Soler Subils J, Soler Masferrer N, Maroto J (2008) Arbreda’s archaic Aurignacian dates clarified. Eurasian Prehistory 5:45–55Google Scholar
  81. Soressi M (2002). Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faciès à partir de l’étude comparée de quatre sites: Pech de l’Azé I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. PhD Univ Bordeaux IGoogle Scholar
  82. Soressi M, Roussel M (2014) European Middle to Upper Paleolithic transitional industries: Châtelperronian. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology 2679–2693. Springer New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Soressi M, Rendu W, Texier PJ, Claud E, D'Errico F, Laroulandie V, Maureille B, Niclot M, Schwortz S, Tillier AM. 2008. Pech-de-l’Azé I (Dordogne, France): nouveau regard sur un gisement moustérien de tradition acheuléenne connu depuis le XIXe siècle. In : Jaubert, Bordes, Ortega (ed) Les sociétés Paléolithiques d’un grand Sud-Ouest : nouveaux gisements, nouvelles méthodes, nouveaux résultats: 95–132. Mémoire XLVII de la Société Préhistorique FrançaiseGoogle Scholar
  84. Tixier J (1984) Lames. In: Economie du débitage laminaire : technologie et expérimentation. CREP, MeudonGoogle Scholar
  85. Tixier J, Inizan ML, Roche H (1980) Prehistoire de la pierre taille 1: Terminologie et technologie. CREP, MeudonGoogle Scholar
  86. Tostevin G (2011) Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire methods of lithic analysis. PaleoAnthropology 2011:351–375. Google Scholar
  87. Villa P (1982) Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. Am Antiq 47:276–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zilhão J (2006a) Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evol Anthropol 15:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zilhão J (2006b) Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37:7–84Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Estudis del Patrimoni Arqueològic de la Prehistoria (CEPAP)Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Centro Nacional de la Evolucion Humana (CENIEH)BurgosSpain

Personalised recommendations