Application of a new typological approach to classifying denticulate and notched tools: the study of two Mousterian lithic assemblages Andrea Picin a, * , Marco Peresani b , Manuel Vaquero a a Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Àrea de Prehistòria, IPHES (Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social), Avinguda Catalunya, 35, ES43002 Tarragona, Spain b Universitá di Ferrara, Dipartimento di Biologia ed Evoluzione, Sezione di Paleobiologia, Corso Ercole d’ Este, 32, IT44100 Ferrara, Italy article info Article history: Received 26 March 2010 Received in revised form 27 October 2010 Accepted 28 October 2010 Keywords: Middle Paleolithic Lithic typology Denticulate Notched tool Tool resharpening abstract Identifying tools by means of morphological attributes are widely used in lithic studies to categorize retouched artifacts from different archaeological periods. This procedure has facilitated the exchange of information between separate researchers and has improved the comparison of different assemblages. In these classifications, denticulates and notched tools have been regularly interpreted as analogues and chronologically unvaried in different and vast territories. Based on the definitions developed by Bordes, the denticulate category has become a catchall for any kind of tool bearing concavities. In this paper a new quantitative approach to the classification of denticulates and notched tools is proposed. The new methodology is based on measuring the length of notches and their distribution on the perimeter of the blank. Analyzing the lithic series of the Abric Romaní rock-shelter (Spain) and Grotta Maggiore di San Bernardino (Italy) led to the identification of 11 redundant forms: eight denticulates and three notched tools. Moreover, the application of Kuhn’s Geometric Index of Unifacial Reduction brought local manufacturing trends to light, calling into question the presumed geographical uniformity of these categories of artifacts. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Among the scrapers, denticulates and notched tools are the most common artifacts in the Paleolithic archaeological record. These tools accompanied hominins in their evolution over millions of years, from Lower Pleistocene assemblages (Chavaillon et al., 2004) to the denticulate-dominated industries of the early Meso- lithic. Although denticulates were recognized as a category within the Mousterian typological variability (Bordes, 1961), their impor- tance as tools has not been particularly emphasized in prehistoric studies, and very little research has treated their manufacture in much detail (Dibble, 1988; Holdaway et al., 1996; Vaquero, 1999; Bourguignon and Turq, 2003; Thiébaut, 2007a; 2007b; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2007; Theodoropoulou, 2008). Since their earliest discoveries, denticulate-rich assemblages have been characterized by a scarcity of scrapers (Bordes, 1953) and are defined as Mous- térien de carence (Bourgon, 1957) due to the paucity of finely retouched artifacts. The focus on other qualitatively more accurate implements, such as scrapers and handaxes, has contributed to keeping denticulates out of the spotlight. Denticulate and notched tools vary widely in terms of blanks and retouch dimensions (Borzatti von Löwenstern, 1963), but they have always been interpreted as a homogeneous category. Denticulates have been classified according to the location of retouch and their presumed function in the major typological lists (Bordes, 1961; Heinzelin de Braucourt, 1962; Laplace, 1964; Gladilin, 1976; Bisson, 2000) but the denticulate category includes any kind of tool bearing concavities. This broad classification might have furthered the idea of denticulates and notched tools as homogeneous tools, concealing their possible variability. In fact, the Bordes (1961) definitions have been widely used in the classification of denticulates for the whole Paleolithic (Sonneville-Bordes, 1960; Laplace, 1964; Gladilin, 1976; Chavaillon et al., 2004). The assumption that artifacts with denticulate edges are analogous in different chronological periods and over vast geographical areas is indeed an oversimplified approach to the understanding of the Paleolithic toolkit. If the knapping skills of hominins evolved gradually throughout the Pleistocene (Ambrose, 2001), the technical approach should have changed in some way from the earliest manifestations of stone knapping. Although technological innovations were not always accompanied by biological evolution, some divergences in modes of retouch between tools produced with different cognitive skills should be expected. Thus the idea of an artifact unchanged for * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 977 559 734; fax: þ34 977 559 597. E-mail address: picinandrea@gmail.com (A. Picin). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas 0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.025 Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 711e722