Like two peas in a pod: lithic technology points to high similarity in the early Upper Palaeolithic

During the last twenty years, lithic technology has acquired a prominent role in defining techno-complexes in the early Upper Palaeolithic (eUP). Four techno-complexes, with entangled, and still debated connections, are linked to the eUP: the Southern Early Ahmarian, the Northern Early Ahmarian, the Protoaurignacian, and the Early Aurignacian. Their different approach to bladelets-making, disassociated or continuous with blades-making, coupled with a typological variability, is the main argument for splitting them into different technological traditions [1,2]. The techno-typological definitions have been embraced to understand the origin and the different routes of dispersal during the eUP [3,4]. Bladelets production and typological variability have become the gold standard for understanding eUP traditions [5]. Therefore, the research is an attempt at reconstructing the design of bladelets-making in the eUP. It is a direct first-hand technological comparison between three assemblages: Al-Ansab 1, Românești-Dumbrăvița I layer GH3 and Grotta di Fumane units A1-A2. They are dated to the eUP span, ca. 43-38 ka cal BP, and encompass at least two defined techno-complexes, Southern Early Ahmarian and Protoaurignacian. Assemblages have been sampled for cores, complete, and semi-complete blanks, analysed through chaîne opératoire approach and morpho-technological attributes. Chaîne opératoire is used for defining the different knapping stages, while the attributes are a further characterisation for identifying management and primary blanks recognised in the diacritical diagrams. Bladelets are identified as <12 mm wide laminar blanks. Despite the arbitrary cut-off, metrical data are showing a natural prevalence of blanks under the established threshold. Cores’ different morphologies, often cited as decisive in differentiating between technocomplexes, underlie the same focus on producing unipolar bladelets from narrow portions of the flaking surface. Bladelets are consistently identified as blanks exploiting convexities, while blades are more related to the shaping of the core convexities. Asymmetrical, twisted-in-profile blades are the most frequent blanks in management ones and are compatible with isolating narrow portions of the flaking surface. An integrated production of blade and bladelets might occur in the first stages, but bladelet production is dominant. No fundamental difference in bladelets-making strategies is detected among the three assemblages, therefore questioning former definitions of techno-complexes and their variability.