The Uluzzian and Châtelperronian: No Technological Affinity in a Shared Chronological Framework

Abstract

The Châtelperronian and Uluzzian techno-complexes are identified in western Europe in the same stratigraphic position, between the late Middle Palaeolithic and other Upper Palaeolithic assemblages. Both industries include retouched artefacts with abrupt retouch and arched backs, and radiometric dating indicates that these two technocomplexes belong to the same window of time. Here, we provide a detailed, qualitative technological comparison of two Châtelperronian and two Uluzzian lithic assemblages based on a collaborative, first-hand examination of these collections. This study results from a one-week workshop designed to bring relevant researchers together to conduct an in-person investigation of these lithic industries. Our analysis highlights significant technological divergences between these industries. In short, the Châtelperronian is a blade industry with a minor bladelet component produced by freehand direct percussion, whereas the Uluzzian is a flake-bladelet industry with massive use of bipolar percussion and a minor component produced by freehand, direct percussion. Our results suggest that there are no, or very little, technological affinities between the Châtelperronian and the Uluzzian - despite occupying the same window of time. As an extension, this suggests that there was little to no relationship/contact between the groups producing these industries during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. The distinctiveness of the Châtelperronian and Uluzzian highlights that technological behaviours in western Europe during the 45-40 ka can be very diverse and that general labels such as 'transitional industries' are unsatisfactory in describing this diversity.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41982-024-00202-1.

Keywords: Châtelperronian; Lithic technology; MP-UP transition; Transitional industries; Uluzzian.

Fig. 1

Excerpt from Palma di Cesnola’s excavation field notes, Grotta del Cavallo dated 10 July 1963, documenting the discovery of the first lunate. The exact words are: ‘salta fuori una Chatelperron!’ (‘a Chatelperron jumps out!’)

Fig. 2

Map illustrating the distribution of Uluzzian and Châtelperronian sites, with those used in this paper highlighted in white. Châtelperronian sites are compiled from Pelegrin and Soressi (2007) and Soressi and Roussel (2014) modified. Uluzzian sites are compiled after Marciani et al. (2020) and Douka et al. (2014) modified. The map background is GNU Free Documentation License

Fig. 3

Kernel density estimation models summarising the chronological data for the Châtelperronian and Uluzzian based on high-quality modernly produced and calibrated radiocarbon ages. The scripts used for this analysis and a summary of all individual dates are available in SI 1 and SI 2

Fig. 4

Anvils used for the bipolar technique on anvil from Castelcivita. (1, 3, 4, 5) Modified anvils, their lower portion was shaped through flaking. (2) Bi-flat anvil. Note the close-up of the principal utilised area showing sub-rectangular hollows and linear impacts (modified from Arrighi et al., 2020a)

Fig. 5

Cores from the Châtelperronian of Quinçay (En). (1) Asymmetrically-reduced blade core showing production of blades from wide and narrow flaking surfaces. Note the postero-lateral crest installed on the left edge of the core. (2) Blade core reduced from opposed and separated striking platforms. (3) Bladelet core reduced on wide and narrow flaking surfaces, with the last series of removals originating from an opposed platform. (4) Small blade core

Fig. 6

Cores from the Châtelperronian of Les Cottés (US6). (1) Asymmetrically-reduced unidirectional bladelet core showing production of bladelets from wide and narrow flaking surfaces. Note the postero-lateral crest installed on the left edge of the core. (2) Unidirectional bladelet core produced on the edge of a core tablet (débitage sur tranche). (3) Unidirectional blade core reduced on wide and narrow flaking surfaces, note the postero-lateral crest installed on the back of the core. (4) ‘Rectangular’ blade core reduced on three distinct surfaces (two narrow, one wide). (5) Bidirectional ‘Rectangular’ blade core with a natural (cortical) back

Fig. 7

Cores from the Uluzzian layer rsa’’ of Castelcivita. (1) Core exploited by orthogonal planes. (2, 7) single-face cores with parallel detachments. (3) Semi-tournant core. (4) Refitting set of a core with two adjacent faces with parallel detachments (modified from Higham et al., 2024). (4a) blade-like. (4b) Core. (5, 6) Cores with three adjacent faces with parallel detachments. (7, 8) Core with two opposing faces with parallel detachments

Fig. 8

Blade debitage from the Châtelperronian of Les Cottés (US6) and Quinçay (En). (1, 6) Large debordant blade. (2) Cortical blade from initialisation of core. (3) Crested blade. (4, 8, 9, 10, 13) Blades and retouched blade with unidirectional dorsal scar negatives. (5, 7, 11, 12) Blades and retouched blade with bidirectional dorsal scar negatives. (14) Neo-crested blade highlighting direct soft stone percussion features: ‘esquillement du bulbe’ (i.e. Pelegrin, 2000)

Fig. 9

Bladelet debitage from the Châtelperronian of Les Cottés (US6) and Quinçay (En). Bladelets of various sizes showing range of variation. Some exhibit parallel lateral edges, while some show a more convergent outline morphology. Dorsal scar negatives are unidirectional

Fig. 10

Blank production by bipolar technique from the Uluzzian layer rsa’’ of Castelcivita. Note the wide range of products that the bipolar can produce. (1, 2, 3) Flakelets. (5, 9, 10) Flakes of different morphologies and size. Note the close-up (5a) detail of a sheared bulb of percussion. (11, 12) Thick blade-like product. (6) Bladelet-spall. (7, 8) Bladelets. Note the close-up (8a) detail of distal splintering

Fig. 11

Blank production of unidirectional debitage produced by direct percussion with an internal gesture from the Uluzzian layer rsa’’ of Castelcivita. (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Flakes with diverse morphologies. (2) Elongated flake. Note the close-up (2a, 4a) thick platforms with very developed bulb of percussion and a parasitical scar

Fig. 12

Retouched tools from the Châtelperronian of Les Cottés (US6) and Quinçay (En). (1, 2, 11, 12) Wide-fronted end-scrapers produced on ‘laminar rejuvenation flakes’ and wide blades. (3–9, 14, 15) Châtelperronian backed points. (10) Neo-crested blade. (13) Convergent side-scraper. Note the variation in size of the pieces

Fig. 13

Retouched tools from the Uluzzian layer rsa’’ of Castelcivita. (1) Endscraper on flake. (2) Sidescraper with an adjustment of the distal end. (3) Sidescrapers realised on the ventral side of a big flake. (4) Pointed tool realised by adjusting the distal end of an already pointed fragment

Fig. 14

Uluzzian lunates. (1–5) Lunates from the layer rpi of Castelcivita (modified from Rossini et al., 2022). (6–14) Lunates from Grotta del Cavallo

Fig. 15

Technological comparisons between the Uluzzian and Châtelperronian main and minor production modes. (1, 2) Châtelperronian blade cores. (3) Châtelperronian bladelet core. (4, 5) Uluzzian parallel plan cores reduced by bipolar technique. (6) Uluzzian semi-tournant core reduce by direct percussion

Fig. 16

Visualisation of the technological similarities and differences between the Uluzzian and Châtelperronian debitage products and tool kit (all artefacts to scale)