Set in Stone? Discussing the Early Upper Palaeolithic Taxonomy Using European and Levantine Assemblages

The early Upper Palaeolithic marks the introduction at a continental scale of a fully-fledged laminar industry, and it is associated with the presence of Homo sapiens in the Near East and in Europe. For this period there are three commonly recognised early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes : the Early Aurignacian and the Protoaurignacian, in Europe, and the Early Ahmarian, in the Levant. They have been used to illustrate different dispersal routes and behavioural adaptations to climate change, different regional settings or to infer different land-use and mobility strategies. Still, there is no consensus on the criteria for assigning one lithic assemblage to a particular early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplex. The early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from Banat are among those showing ambiguous results when observed through the current taxonomical lens. This paper evaluates the taxonomical stances comparing technological raw data from extensively published early Upper Palaeolithic sites in Europe and the Levant. The comparison of assemblages attributed to different technocomplexes reveals a much more homogenous picture than expected. Various behaviours that are ascribed to a particular technocomplex are widespread in others too, but they are overlooked because of unclear and non-standardised terminology. The present paper shows that trying to fit the archaeological record in abstract, short definitions leads to misunderstandings, with clear implications on the further conclusions made on human past behaviours. It further advocates for creating new shared criteria for analysing lithic assemblages and thus overcoming the taxonomical impasse