Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian: ornaments and tools from Trench M, San Teodoro Cave (Acquedolci, Messina)

palevol comptes rendus 2025  24  30 Comptes Rendus Palevol est une revue en flux continu publiée par les Publications scientifiques du Muséum, Paris et l’Académie des sciences, Paris Comptes Rendus Palevol is a fast track journal published by the Museum Science Press, Paris and the Académie des sciences, Paris Les Publications scientifiques du Muséum publient aussi / The Museum Science Press also publish: Adansonia, Geodiversitas, Zoosystema, Anthropozoologica, European Journal of Taxonomy, Naturae, Cryptogamie sous-sections Algologie, Bryologie, Mycologie. L’Académie des sciences publie aussi / The Académie des sciences also publishes: Comptes Rendus Mathématique, Comptes Rendus Physique, Comptes Rendus Mécanique, Comptes Rendus Chimie, Comptes Rendus Géoscience, Comptes Rendus Biologies. Diffusion – Publications scientifiques Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle CP 41 – 57 rue Cuvier F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France) Tél. : 33 (0)1 40 79 48 05 / Fax : 33 (0)1 40 79 38 40 [email protected] / https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr Académie des sciences, Institut de France, 23 quai de Conti, 75006 Paris. © This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ISSN (imprimé / print) : 1631-0683/ ISSN (électronique / electronic) : 1777-571X Directeurs De la publication / Publication directors : Gilles Bloch, Président du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Étienne Ghys, Secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des sciences réDacteurs en chef / editors-in-chief : Michel Laurin (CNRS), Philippe Taquet (Académie des sciences) assistante De réDaction / assistant editor : Adenise Lopes (Académie des sciences ; [email protected]) Mise en page / Page layout : Audrina Neveu (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle ; [email protected]) révisions linguistiques Des textes anglais / english language revisions : Kevin Padian (University of California at Berkeley) réDacteurs associés / associate editors (*, took charge of the editorial process of the article/a pris en charge le suivi éditorial de l’article) : Micropaléontologie/Micropalaeontology Lorenzo Consorti (Institute of Marine Sciences, Italian National Research Council, Trieste) Paléobotanique/Palaeobotany Cyrille Prestianni (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels) Anaïs Boura (Sorbonne Université, Paris) Métazoaires/Metazoa Annalisa Ferretti (Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena) Paléoichthyologie/Palaeoichthyology Philippe Janvier (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Académie des sciences, Paris) Amniotes du Mésozoïque/Mesozoic amniotes Hans-Dieter Sues (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington) Tortues/Turtles Walter Joyce (Universität Freiburg, Switzerland) Lépidosauromorphes/Lepidosauromorphs Hussam Zaher (Universidade de São Paulo) Oiseaux/Birds Jingmai O’Connor (Field Museum, Chicago) Paléomammalogie (mammifères de moyenne et grande taille)/Palaeomammalogy (large and mid-sized mammals) Grégoire Métais (CNRS, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Université, Paris) Paléomammalogie (petits mammifères sauf Euarchontoglires)/Palaeomammalogy (small mammals except for Euarchontoglires) Robert Asher (Cambridge University, Cambridge) Paléomammalogie (Euarchontoglires)/Palaeomammalogy (Euarchontoglires) K. Christopher Beard (University of Kansas, Lawrence) Paléoanthropologie/Palaeoanthropology Aurélien Mounier (CNRS/Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris) Archéologie préhistorique (Paléolithique et Mésolithique)/Prehistoric archaeology (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic) Nicolas Teyssandier* (CNRS/Université de Toulouse, Toulouse) Archéologie préhistorique (Néolithique et âge du bronze)/Prehistoric archaeology (Neolithic and Bronze Age) Marc Vander Linden (Bournemouth University, Bournemouth) référés / reviewers : https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/fr/periodiques/comptes-rendus-palevol/referes-du-journal couverture / cover : Made from the Figures of the article. Comptes Rendus Palevol est indexé dans / Comptes Rendus Palevol is indexed by: – Cambridge Scientific Abstracts – Current Contents® Physical – Chemical, and Earth Sciences® – ISI Alerting Services® – Geoabstracts, Geobase, Georef, Inspec, Pascal – Science Citation Index®, Science Citation Index Expanded® – Scopus®. Les articles ainsi que les nouveautés nomenclaturales publiés dans Comptes Rendus Palevol sont référencés par / Articles and nomenclatural novelties published in Comptes Rendus Palevol are registered on: – ZooBank® (http://zoobank.org) 621 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) © Publications scientifiques du Muséum et/and Académie des sciences, Paris. www.cr-palevol.fr Gerlando VITA Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e del Mare (DISTEM), Università di Palermo, Via Archirafi, 22, 90123 Palermo (Italy) [email protected] (corresponding author) Nunziatina CALABRESE Via Dei Laghi 4, 98070 Acquedolci, Messina (Italy) Massimiliana PINTO VRACA Via Montello 16, 98070 Castell’Umberto, Messina (Italy) Arianna ROMANO Dipartimento Culture e Società, Viale delle Scienze, ed.15, Università di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, ed.15, 90128 Palermo (Italy) Mirko Andrea VIZZINI Geolab srl, Via de Spuches, 2, 90044 Carini (Italy) Ursula THUN HOHENSTEIN Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Corso Ercole I d’Este 32, 44121 Ferrara (Italy) Luca SINEO Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche, Chimiche e Farmaceutiche (STEBICEF), Università di Palermo, Via Archirafi, 18, 90123, Palermo (Italy) Submitted on 22 February 2025 | Accepted on 20 September 2025 | Published on 19 December 2025 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian: ornaments and tools from Trench M, San Teodoro Cave (Acquedolci, Messina) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A9D8326E-4E3C-434E-80D2-072BE77703C1 Vita G., Calabrese N., Pinto Vraca M., Romano A., Vizzini M. A., Thun Hohenstein U. & Sineo L. 2025. — Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian: ornaments and tools from Trench M, San Teodoro Cave (Acquedolci, Messina). Comptes Rendus Palevol 24 (30): 621-646. https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2025v24a30 622 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. INTRODUCTION The Grotta di San Teodoro, located in northern Sicily, in the province of Messina, is of considerable palaeontological and palaeoanthropological importance (Fig. 1). Extensive excavations have been carried out at the site since the 19th and 20th centuries (Anca 1860; Vaufrey 1928; Tricomi 1938; Maviglia 1941; Graziosi 1943, 1947; Graziosi & Maviglia 1947; Vigliardi 1968; Bonfiglio etal. 2001, 2003, 2008). New excavation campaigns began in 2018 during Vita’s doctoral research and continued between 2021 and 2024, focusing on the Graziosi pit (Fig. 1C) and in other newly identified areas (Garilli etal. 2020a, b; Vita 2021; Forgia etal. 2025). Although numerous studies have explored the culture of Upper Palaeolithic European populations, including peninsular Italy, the scarcity of sites and materials in Sicily has hindered our understanding of the lifeways and cultural practices of the Epigravettian populations on the island (Leighton 1999). During the 2022 excavation campaign, an unexpected discovery was made in a lateral niche on the right wall near the ABSTRACT Renewed excavations at the significant Upper Pleistocene site of Grotta di San Teodoro in Acquedolci, Sicily, focused on a newly opened excavation area named Trench M. This is a sub-vertical cavity, which is approximately 1.80 metres deep and averages less than 80 cm in width, which revealed layers rich in Epigravettian artefacts, charcoal, faunal, and food remains. Three distinct deposits were identified during the excavation: a superficial layer (USM1) compromised/contamined, a middle layer (USM2) containing faunal remains and rare Bronze Age ceramics, and a deeper layer (USM3) resembling the Epigravettian layers already recovered in other areas of the cave. Discoveries from USM3 include distinctive artefacts such as perforated marine shells (several of which bear red pigment traces), a polished stone pendant, and other tools indicative of symbolic and hand-crafted/manufacturing activities. These remains highlight the sophisticated resource management and symbolic practices of the Epigravettian hunter-gatherer groups that occupied the site. This study provides valuable insights into the cultural dynamics and material culture of these ancient Sicilian Epigravettian communities. RÉSUMÉ Culture matérielle de l’Épigravettien sicilien : ornements et outils provenant de la tranchée M, grotte de San Teodoro (Acquedolci, Messine). Les fouilles renouvelées sur le site important du Pléistocène supérieur de la Grotta di San Teodoro à Acquedolci, en Sicile, se sont concentrées sur une zone de fouilles nouvellement ouverte, appelée Trench M. Il s’agit d’une cavité subverticale, d’environ 1,80 mètre de profondeur et d’une largeur moyenne inférieure à 80 cm, qui a révélé des couches riches en artefacts épigravettiens, en charbon de bois, en restes fauniques et alimentaires. Trois dépôts distincts ont été identifiés lors des fouilles : une couche superficielle (USM1) compromise/contaminée, une couche intermédiaire (USM2) contenant des restes fauniques et des céramiques rares de l’âge du bronze, et une couche plus profonde (USM3) ressemblant aux couches épigravettiennes déjà mises au jour dans d’autres zones de la grotte. Les découvertes provenant de l’USM3 comprennent des artefacts distinctifs tels que des coquillages marins perforés (dont plusieurs portent des traces de pigment rouge), un pendentif en pierre polie et d’autres outils indiquant des activités symboliques et artisanales/manufacturières. Ces vestiges mettent en évidence la gestion sophistiquée des ressources et les pratiques symboliques des groupes de chasseurs-cueilleurs épigravettiens qui occupaient le site. Cette étude fournit des informations précieuses sur la dynamique culturelle et la culture matérielle de ces anciennes communautés épigravettiennes siciliennes. entrance (Figs 1C; 2). Initially perceived as a simple recess, subsequent investigation revealed a deep, sub-vertical cavity extending to a depth of approximately 180 cm, with a variable width (averaging 80 cm), designated as Trench “M” (Fig. 1C, marked with a red spot). Due to its predominantly vertical orientation, excavating the sinkhole was challenging in places where it narrowed. Trench M yielded a substantial assemblage of intentional fractured bones, terrestrial gastropods, and flint and quartzite artefacts. In addition, among the most noteworthy remains in this study, there are personal ornaments, such as perforated marine shells and a stone pendant, as well as possible tools and implements. The recurrent selection of specific marine taxa across geographically dispersed sites suggests symbolic and cultural preferences, making Epigravettian shell ornaments a key proxy for understanding identity, interaction networks, and symbolic behaviour in southern Europe during the Late Glacial period. Other artefacts recovered from Trench M are currently under study and will be presented in future publications. Furthermore, the red pigment is being studied separately, as it requires specific chemical characterisation MOTS CLÉS Pléistocène supérieur, Sicile, ornements, Épigravettien, pigment rouge, grotte de San Teodoro. KEY WORDS Upper Pleistocene, Sicily, ornaments, Epigravettian, red pigment, San Teodoro Cave. 623 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) fig. 1. — A, D, General location of the study sites; B, external view of the ST Cave; C, plan of the ST Cave (modified from Bonfiglio et al. 2001) showing the locations of the historical and recent excavations. The trench of the 2021 excavation is marked in green, and the Trench M in red. On the opposite side the position of Trench M here described, is marked in red, along with the indication of the breccia remnants Pal b (Garilli et al. 2020a); D, satellite image from Google Earth, modified, depicting the site, Grotta di San Teodoro site flagged in light blue. AB C D 10°W 0° 10°E 20° 30° 40° 30°N 14°35’30’’E 38°02’59’’N Mediterranean Sea Sicily E F G H I B C D E F G ST21 13 9 Pal b β trench Bonfiglio et al. 2002-2006 α trench Bonfiglio et al. 1998 Maviglia-Graziosi trench 1937, 1942 Anca trench 1859 Anca trench 1859? Trench M 5 m 1 000 m Oliveto Acquedolci Grotta di San Teodoro ST 624 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. and comparison with Sicilian ochres and other red pigments from the same period (Vita etal. 2024). Due to Sicily’s insular condition during the Epigravettian, which resulted from a sea levels being approximately 120-90 metres lower than today (Lea etal. 2002; Antonioli etal. 2014), this study also aims to contribute to the understanding of whether, and to what extent, cultural interactions with the Italian Peninsula and with continental Europe occurred. THE SITE Background of the study site The San Teodoro cave (ST) is located in northeastern Sicily, approximately 1 km from the village of Acquedolci (Messina) and around 1.2 km from the current coastline (Fig. 1D). During the Late Epigravettian occupation, about 15-17 kyr ago (Garilli etal. 2020a; Forgia etal. 2025), the sea level was approximately 120-90 m lower (Lea etal. 2002; Antonioli etal. 2014), meaning that the nearest coastline was around 6 km away from the study site. The cave is very large, consisting of a main chamber and a few smaller side chambers. The entrance aperture is about 5 m high and 15 m wide, with a maximum internal height of 20 m. Several excavations were carried out at the ST site from the late 1800s to the summer of 2024 (Anca 1860; Maviglia 1941; Graziosi 1943, 1947; Bonfiglio etal. 2001, 2008; Vita 2021, Vita etal. 2022a, 2024). Among the main trenches excavated, those of Anca (1860), Maviglia (1941) and Graziosi (1947) are no longer visible. The last excavation was carried out by our team/under the scientific direction of L.S. in the summer of 2025. The paleontological and radiometric analyses (Maviglia 1941; Graziosi 1943; Bonfiglio etal. 2001, 2008; Mannino etal. 2011; Garilli etal. 2020a; Vita 2021, Forgia etal. 2025) have provided insight into the stratigraphy and the chronology of the ST site (Appendix 1). stratigraphy of san teodoro cave The basal unit of the cave (the E-F layer, as defined by Graziosi (1947) corresponding to the B unit by Bonfiglio etal. (2001)) consists of sandy-muddy sediments bearing a characteristic Late Pleistocene mammalian fauna belonging to the San Teodoro-Pianetti Faunal Complex (Bonfiglio etal. 2001, 2008; Mangano & Bonfiglio 2005). An intercalated concretion in the lower part of this unit has been dated to 32 ± 4 kyr from a 230Th/234U analysis (Bonfiglio etal. 2008). The skeletal remains of six human individuals (ST1-4 and ST6-7) were found in the upper part of this unit, near the entrance to the cave (Maviglia 1941; Graziosi 1943, 1947). Some of these individuals were probably buried at the same time about 15 kyr ago (Mannino etal. 2011; Garilli etal. 2020a) and covered with a large and thick layer of ochre (Graziosi 1947; Garilli etal. 2020a). The gastropods Patella sp. and the bivalve Cerastoderma glaucum have been recovered in this layer (Maviglia 1941). A younger anthropic unit (the D-A layers of Graziosi (1947), corresponding to the A unit of Bonfiglio etal. (2001) and the PAL layers of Garilli etal. (2020a) is currently exposed near the cave entrance, on proximity of the left rock wall. This unit consists of locally consolidated, reddish-greyish sandy sediments that are rich in organic remains (mainly fragmented bones), locally abundant charcoal (Lona 1949) and many lithic artefacts attributed to the Epigravettian culture (Vigliardi 1968; Vita etal. 2022a; Forgia etal. 2025). During the 2019 excavation of the PAL, a shell of the littoral gastropod Tritia incrassata (synonym of Nassarius incrassatus) was recovered, representing the only marine element has been described in the 2019 excavation of the PAL (Garilli etal. 2020a). Today this unit is preserved in the consolidated breccia exposed along the cave walls (Fig. 1C). the paL Layer Following the recent resumption of excavations, it was decided to further rename the original layers excavated by Graziosi (A-D) as PAL layer, to indicate this stratigraphic set characterised by high human activity. The PAL layer (Garilli etal. 2020a) at San Teodoro Cave represents a distinct phase of late Upper Palaeolithic activity, stratigraphically positioned above the red ochre burial level. Consisting of two main facies (PAL1 and PAL2), it contains a high amount of burnt and fragmented faunal remains, lithic artefacts (mainly quartzite), charcoal, and terrestrial gastropods. This layer indicates a shift in site use from funerary to domestic and subsistence-related activities, including intensive butchering, marrow extraction, and cooking, as evidenced by the numerous cut marks and traces of burning recovered on the bones. The PAL units were in fact progressively destroyed during human occupation of the site and during the archaeological excavations of the last century, remaining only present in some peripheral areas, on the wall. An AMS 14C analysis performed on an aurochs tooth collected from the lower part of this unit yielded an age of 15 224-14 708 cal years BP (Garilli etal. 2020a), which corresponds to the late Epigravettian occupation. The beginning of Epigravettian attendance has recently been dated to 16 500 BP (Forgia etal. 2025). the Lithic industries of san teodoro cave The assemblage is characterised by a dominance of smallto medium-sized tools, primarily end-scrapers, burins, and retouched flakes, which are often made on short, thick blanks (Vigliardi 1968). As by Vigliardi (1968) and Martini etal. (2007) have previously noted, the site is characterised by the prevalence of marginal, direct retouch, and a lack of formal microliths, although some semi-microlithic elements are present. Together with the typological parallels to other southern Italian contexts, these traits support attribution to the Epigravettian, particularly its evolved and final phases. The upper portion of Layer D (Appendix 1), displays a return to more macrolithic forms, which Vigliardi interprets as a functional rather than chronological shift. Among the lithic assemblage from Grotta di San Teodoro, Vigliardi reports the presence of several backed points, primarily made from flint. Though not numerous, these pieces stand out for their relatively regular shaping 625 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) and careful retouching along one edge, forming a steep, often abrupt back. Their modest dimensions are consistent with Epigravettian typologies, and they probably served as armature elements for composite projectiles. The use of flint, a finer-grained and more workable material than the predominant quartzite, allowed for more precise shaping and finer retouch. Backed pieces can be considered as further evidence of cultural affinities with the broader Epigravettian technocomplex, particularly given their resemblance to similar tools found at contemporaneous sites in southern Italy. Forgia etal. (2025) also report this diversification in the lithic assemblage from San Teodoro, noting the use of local raw materials (both quartz-arenite and high-quality chert), likely collected from nearby riverbeds or beaches. The presence of all phases of the quartz-arenite chaîne opératoire, along with most phases of the flint production sequence, confirms on-site knapping activities. Retouched tools are scarce but they suggest a high level of technical investment in finishing, with deep, invasive retouches and the probable use of pressure flaking and anvil percussion, as attested by end-scrapers with flat, parallel negatives. TRENCH M stratigraphy Trench M is a natural recess that has been filled by a progressive stochastic accumulation. It was presumably included and sealed by the expansion of the breccia that covered both sides of its entrance, and which is visible in limited portions of the margins and the surrounding area. As in other parts of the cave, the breccia layer has been removed by anthropic activity, but the interior of this natural recess has presumably not been further modified except in the uppermost layers. Despite the limited reliability of a stratigraphic approach in this sub-vertical hole, we can provide evidence to support the identification of three main phases and three distinct horizons, proceeding from the top to the bottom (Fig. 3). USM1 Superficial layer with an average thickness of about 10 cm consisting of greyish silty sand containing ancient and modern pottery, plastics, glass, and bone fragments. fig. 2. — External view of the niche containing Trench M, the PAL-e breccia, and the location of the PAL-b breccia (labelled in light blue). The red line connecting the lower levels of the two breccias represents the presumed ground level during the Epigravettian period. The transparent yellow silhouette depicts the section of Trench M. 626 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. USM2 Intermediate layer with an average thickness of about 20 cm. Dark grey silty sand containing an Epigravettian lithic industry, charcoals, a few fragments of broken bones (from wild and domestic animals, including Cervus elaphus and Capra sp.), pottery presumably from the Bronze Age and many fragments of terrestrial gastropods. USM3 Deepest layer within the sub-vertical cavity. It is approximately 1.50 metres thick, but we have not reached the bottom as the cavity narrows and splits into two smaller chambers. It is a filling of a dark coloured silty sand due to the presence of abundant charcoal. Many complete shells of terrestrial gastropods are dispersed in the sediment, and accumulated in two areas. There are numerous intentionally fractured bones and two modified bones consisting in two perforated red deer femurs. Furthermore, Epigravettian lithic artefacts made of both quartzite and flint, numerous processing waste and yellow flint projectiles were also found. Moreover, marine shells (four perforated and two red pigment-stained), a stone pendant and a red pigment-stained pebble (probably a pestle). Sporadic human bone remains from one adult and one infant were also found (not included in this discussion). aMs radioMetric anaLysis An AMS 14 C dating was performed to define the chron - ostratigraphy of the USM3 and USM2. Radiocarbon analysis was conducted at the Innova SCaRl laboratory (Naples, Italy) on two femur fragments (Cervus elaphus and Sus scrofa) from USM3. A further attempt was made at Beta Analytic (Miami, Florida, United States) on two deer bones: one astragalus from USM3 and another from USM2. The stratigraphic layers, the associated material culture, and the radiocarbon dates in the different excavation sectors of the cave are presented in Table 1. the reconstruction of the paLeosoL and the genesis of the fiLLing of the sinkhoLe In order to gain a deeper understanding of the significance of this cavity, we endeavoured/attempted to reconstruct the likely level of the cave floor during the Epigravettian period. Examining the remnants of ossiferous breccia scattered around the cave, referred to as PAL (Garilli etal. 2020a; Vita 2021) scattered around the cave led us to conclude that the current ground level does not align with the historical one (Fig. 2; Appendix 2). A substantial sediment thickness of the sediment, ranging from 1.40 to 2 m, appears to be missing. We speculate that this deposit removal occurred during the 1859 excavation of Anca (Anca 1860; Fig. 1A) particularly in the proximity of the M area. While precise data on the extent of sediment removal is lacking, the presence of suspended breccia indicates its formation on the sediment supporting PAL-b (Appendix 2B). Based on the PAL-b and PAL-e breccias, we reconstructed the likely ground level during the Epigravettian period corresponding to the opening (niche) in the right wall, designated as trench M (Fig. 2, red line). This suggests that the niche was initially at ground level and gradually filled with various materials, including bones, land snails, Epigravettian lithic artefacts, and charcoals. Notably, due to the narrow and steep course of this natural sinkhole, no evidence of trampling by humans or animals was observed. Consequently, numerous fragile objects that would otherwise been fragmented by trampling have been preserved in this deposit, including two strata of fragile marine shells such as Columbella. MATERIAL AND METHODS faunaL asseMBLage During the sieving of the sediment contained in trench M, several bones were recovered, most of which showed signs of breaking and chipping. table 1. — 14C and 230Th/234U Dates for Stratigraphic Layers at San Teodoro Cave. Laboratory Number Sample Material Dated 230Th/234U Age 14C Age (BP) Calibrated Calendar Age (cal. BP) Cultural attribution Layer/References ND Subsample 1 Flowstone 32 000 ± 400 Ky – – – Layer B, sublayer βCl in the β trench/ Bonfiglio et al. (2008) ND ST1 Human bone collagen – – 14 750 Late Epigravettian Layer E (burial)/ Incarbona et al. (2010) ETH-34451 San Teodoro 1 Human bone collagen – 12 580 ± 130 15 232-14 126 (95.4%) Late Epigravettian Layer E (burial)/ Mannino et al. (2011) DSH-2749 – Equid bone collagen – 18 330 ± 400 1σ: 22 340-21 440 (68%) 2σ: 23 230-23 120 (1%) 23 000-20 910 (95%) 20 680-20 570 (0.9%) – Layer B, facies B1 in the β trench/ Antonioli et al. (2014) DSH9270-GE ST-01 Aurochs tooth collagen – 12 624 ± 59 1σ: 15 146-14 878 (100%) 2σ: 15 224-14 708 (100%) Late Epigravettian Layer PAL/ Garilli et al. (2020a) LTL22344 ST21-1 Charcoal – 14 140-13 780 16 090-15 730 Epigravettian Layer ST21/ Forgia et al. (2025) LTL22345 ST21-2 Charcoal – 14 340-13 970 16 290-15 920 Epigravettian Layer ST21/ Forgia et al. (2025) LTL22343 ST21-3 Charcoal – 14 740-14 360 16 690-16 310 Epigravettian Layer ST21/ Forgia et al. (2025) 627 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) These were mixed with terrestrial snails, charcoal, and Epigravettian lithic artefacts. Animal remains have been collected and identified through the reference osteological collections at the Laboratory of Anthropology of the University of Palermo (LabHomo) and in the Laboratory of Archaeozoology at the University of Ferrara. Specific manuals were also consulted (Pales & Lambert 1971; Schmid 1972; Pales & Garcia 1981; Cohen & Serjeantson 1996). The Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) was used for the preliminary quantitative analysis of the sample. This allowed to estimate the total number of the remains, including fragments (Grayson 1984). Taphonomic data were collected following among others Fernandez-Jalvo & Andrews 1996; Vettese etal. 2020. However, analysis is still ongoing. ornaMents and sMaLL finds As previously mentioned, Trench M has revealed itself to be very rich in lithic industry, bone objects and “jewels” of intentional artistic production. The samples are summarised in Table 2. Method Reference articles for technology analysis and use-wear As far as the drilling method is concerned and use-wear analysis, we compared the shape of the hole with the experimental data obtained by Harzhauser etal. 2007; Tátá etal. 2014; Cabral & Martins 2016; Cristiani etal. 2020; Hoareau etal. 2021a; and studies on archaeological samples by André & Bicho 2016; Cabral & Martins 2016; Rigaud & Gutiérrez-Zugasti 2016; Guzzo Falci et al. 2019; Bar-Yosef Mayer etal. 2020; Cristiani etal. 2021. Stereomicroscope analysis In order to investigate the morphological characteristics of perforations on shell and bone artefacts, we employed a Hirox HRX-01 digital optical microscope. This high-resolution system is capable of both twoand three-dimensional imaging. The magnification of this Hyrox system provides a magnification ranges from 20× to 160×, allowing for detailed examination of microtopography and surface alterations without the need for coating or destructive preparation. Regarding illumination, observations were carried out using auxiliary lamps, which enabled the adjustment of the light’s position to highlight the area of interest. This provided a clearer view of the edge morphology, wear patterns, and potential manufacturing traces. This method was particularly fig. 3. — Section of Trench M showing the niche containing PAL-e and the stratigraphy with layers M1, M2 and M3. The blue line indicates the level reached by the excavation. The red points indicate the location of the finds of Table 2; 1 000 represents the reference quota. Abbreviations: TMBp, Trench M Bone perforated; TMP, Trench M Pestle; TMS, Trench M Shells; TMSP, Trench M Stone Pendant; USM, Unità Stratigrafica M. table 2. — Materials under study taken from Trench M. Sample Material TMS 001 Columbella rustica TMS 002 Columbella rustica TMS 003 Anadara gibbosa TMS 004 Naticarius sp. TMS 005 Patella caerulea TMS 006 Glycymeris glycymeris TMBp 001 Cervus elaphus femur TMBp 002 Cervus elaphus head femur TMSP 001 Stone pendant TMP 001 Pebble (pestle) 1 m 1 m Trench M section Ossiferous breccia with terrestrial gastropods USM1 USM2 USM3 Terrestrial gastropods Charocoals Broken terrestrial gastropods 1000 PAL-e TMP1 TMBp2 TMBp1 TMS1 TMS3 M3 M2 M1 TMS2 TMS4 TMS5 TMSP 634 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. include cores, blades, bladelets, points, and flakes of varying sizes. Several specimens show a refined débitage technique, aiming at the production of elongated blanks for composite tools. Among the flint implements, backed bladelets (both straight and curved) are present and indicate a microlithic tradition consistent with the Final Epigravettian, as described by Martini etal. (2007). The occurrence of microburins further supports this association, as they are typically by-products of microlith fabrication. Several tools (Appendix 5), such as the thick end-scraper (specimen 1) and retouched flakes and blades (e.g. specimens 4, 8, 11), correspond to general Upper Palaeolithic tool types (Clark 1969). Regular blades without standardised retouch (e.g. specimen 7) may represent blanks or early-stage tools, a feature documented in Epigravettian chaînes opératoires (Martini etal. 2007). Notably, geometric microliths are absent from the assemblage, while the abundance of quartzite artefacts (Appendix 4) recalls the macrolithic component observed in Layer D by Vigliardi (1968). Although Martini etal. (2007) do not use the term “macrolithism”, they note the persistent use of large tools alongside microliths in several Sicilian contexts. This reflects a diversification in tool production strategies, rather than a strict adherence to microlithic norms. Specimens 2, 5, and 6 in Appendix 5 are typical backed bladelets, characteristic of the Late Epigravettian in Sicily. radiocarBon dating No results were obtained from the bones from USM3. Attempts to use radiocarbon dating on the femur and astragalus samples from USM3 failed due to the absence of collagen. This outcome is likely attributable to extensive post-depositional diagenesis, particularly microbial degradation processes. Anaerobic bacteria such as Clostridium perfringens are known to play a significant role in the breakdown of bone collagen through the secretion of collagenolytic enzymes, as demonstrated in both experimental and archaeological contexts (MacLennan etal. 1953; Collins etal. 2002; Jans etal. 2004). The enzymatic activity of bacterial collagenase leads to the fragmentation of collagen fibrils, thus compromising the structural and chemical integrity of the bone matrix (MacLennan etal. 1953). Furthermore, the archaeological context in which the bones were found, characterised by a confined sedimentary space, high organic content, and evidence of burning may have further promoted additional microbial activity and collagen loss. The following dating was obtained for a deer astragalus from USM2 (at the top of the trench): Conventional Radiocarbon Age 4660 +/- 30 BP (Appendix 6). DISCUSSION faunaL asseMBLages, Bone, pestLe and stone ornaMents The opening of a new trench near the western wall of the cave in 2021, in correspondence with a natural sinkhole, enabled interesting cultural evidence to be collected, over a two-year excavation campaign, of interesting cultural evidence. This evidence includes modified marine gastropods and bivalves, red pigment, a stone pendant, perforated bones, and zooarchaeological evidence deriving from human occupation and food processing activity. Regarding the faunal composition, the stratigraphic unit under study (USM3) does not differ significantly from the assemblages recovered in the opposite part of the cave (Garilli etal. 2020a). In Trench M, Bos remains were not identified, though it cannot be excluded that they are present within the relevant percentage of unidentified bone fragments. Notably, it differs from the faunal assemblage described in the PAL layer on the opposite side of the cave (Garilli etal. 2020a) due to the large number of terrestrial gastropods. In in two levels these form an assemblage of intact specimens (Appendix 7). Small and fragile bones such as those of birds and amphibians, may be better preserved here due to the absence of trampling pressure. USM3 shows a faunal content and lithic industry that closely resemble that of the PAL layer of the eastern side of the cave (Garilli etal. 2020a; Vita 2021), Consequently, it can be inferred that the unit contains materials that are chronologically comparable to those dated in the anthropological PAL layer. Although no radiocarbon dates are available for USM3 due to the absence of preserved collagen, Trench M is situated within a narrow vertical sinkhole, a geomorphological setting that likely contributed to poor sediment oxygenation. Such lowoxygen conditions would have favoured the proliferation of anaerobic microorganisms and intensified collagen degradation. These remains align with broader patterns observed in taphonomic analysis, which highlight the importance of both environmental and biological factors in collagen preservation. These issues constrain the chronological interpretation and reinforce the need to rely primarily on material culture for cultural attribution. The cultural attribution of this unit can table 3. — Composition of the faunal remains found in USM3. Taxa NR Percentage of bones Mammalia Vulpes vulpes 9 1.30% Large indeterminate ungulates 189 27.23% Sus scrofa 121 17.44% Cervus elaphus 248 35.73% Equus hydruntinus 1 0.14% Aves Columba palumbus 5 0.72% Turdus sp.1 0.14% Amphibia Bufo sp. 2 0.29% Gastropoda Patella caerulea patellidae 1 0.14% Columbella rustica 2 0.29% Cornu aspersum 107 15.42% Naticarius sp. 1 0.14% Bivalvia Anadara gibbosa 1 0.14% Glycymeris sp.2 0.14% Mytilus galloprovincialis 2 0.29% Venus sp.3 0.43% Total fauna 694 635 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) be reliably inferred from the technological and typological characteristics of the lithic assemblage. The lithic industry is dominated by both quartzite and flint artefacts, the latter showing a clear laminar and microlithic component. The presence of backed bladelets (including curved and straightbacked points), microburins, and regular elongated blanks (Appendix 5) are diagnostic features of the Epigravettian tradition, and are widely attested in the Late and Final Epigravettian horizons of southern Italy and Sicily (Martini etal. 2007). In the Palaeolithic period, personal ornaments held symbolic significance, representing cultural identity, social hierarchy, and communication within and beyond the group (Maudet 2002). However, it was during the Upper Palaeolithic that Homo sapiens began to make extensive use of ornaments. Evidence of this can be found in numerous studies (Álvarez Fernández 2006; Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006; Zilhão etal. 2010; Borić & Cristiani 2019; Arrighi etal. 2019; Cârciumaru etal. 2019; Perlès 2019; Shunkov etal. 2020; Tejero etal. 2021; Velliky etal. 2021; Rigaud etal. 2022; Borić etal. 2023; Gazzo etal. 2025). These artefacts, which were crafted from materials such as shells, ivory, stone, bones, and perforated teeth, contributed to the cultural repertoire of Palaeolithic communities (Kuhn etal. 2001; Baker etal. 2024 with references therein). The use of perforated bones in the Upper Palaeolithic has been documented for use as buttons on clothing (Ambrose 2001; Gilligan 2010; Cârciumaru etal. 2019) as well as for use as beads (Shunkov etal. 2020). The pierced red deer femur head TMBp1 (see Appendix 3C, D) suggests a potential use as either a point or a percussion instrument. This pierced femur head may be a bead or button. The drilling technique indicates that the hole in TMBp2 was created by a skilled hand, and the shape and internal surface of the hole suggest that a pointed tool was used in a rotating motion. The intended purpose of the pierced TMBp2 red deer femur bones cannot be determined (Appendix 3A-D). The stone pendant TMSP1, a key find from Trench M, underwent painstaking work; in addition to the surfaces being smoothed, the corners were rounded off. This object is a new specimen in the Sicilian archaeological context, and its shape likely held precise significance. The raw material is probably phyllite; this lithotype is quite common in the area and is found in the epimetamorphytes of Longi-Taormina (Giunta & Carbone 2013). Stone pendants have been found at several Palaeolithic sites (Rigaud etal. 2014; Cârciumaru 2022; Baker etal. 2024; Cârciumaru etal. 2024) and were made from different types of rocks with various petrographic characteristics and colours. This adds to the growing body of evidence for the symbolic role of such objects. Groundstone tools used for grinding ochre have been recovered in some Palaeolithic sites, especially in burials (Clark & Brown 2001; Dubreuil & Grosman 2009; Granato 2011; Cristiani etal. 2012; Richter etal. 2019). In the Oriente Cave on the island of Favignana, a pebble bearing traces of ochre was found in an Epigravettian burial (Mannino 2002; Vita etal. 2022b, 2024). The pebble (TMP1), which was used as a pestle, may have been sourced/collected from the terraces above the cave, where the raw material for the lithic artefacts was obtained (Vita etal. 2022a). In addition to presenting traces of ochre (Fig. 9A) on its rounded part, traces of streaks due to grinding can be seen (Fig. 9B-D). the sheLL ornaMentes The symbolic use of marine shells for personal adornment is a long-standing tradition in human prehistory. Early examples can be traced back to Neanderthals in the Middle Palaeolithic, as evidenced by the modified shells from Cueva de los Aviones site, dating back approximately 115 ka BP (Hoffmann etal. 2018). Although molluscs were also consumed as food at Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Middle East and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2005), their intentional selection, modification, and use as body ornaments only became widespread with anatomically modern humans. Within this framework, the Epigravettian tradition on the Italian Peninsula is one of the most significant regional traditions in the use of marine shells as ornaments, with frequent selection of Tritia incrassata, T.reticulata, T. gibbosula, Columbella rustica, Mitrella scripta, Antalissp., and Glycymeris sp. (Hoareau etal. 2021a, with references therein). The proportions of these species vary from site to site, with other species being rarer (Bar-Yosef 2005). In Sicily, examples of Palaeolithic ornaments include perforated shells found in Burial A of Grotta d’Oriente on the island of Favignana (Mannino 2002), including eight shells of Lurida lurida and two shells of Ostrea sp. In Grotta d’Oriente, burial C also contains some perforated shells in an Epigravettian layer, including one engraved shell of Columbella rustica, one shell of Cerithiumsp., and one of Tritia incrassata syn. Nassarius incrassatus (Cilli etal. 2012). In the Capraia and Incisioni caves, on Mount Pellegrino in Palermo, many shells of Columbella rustica (some od which are perforated) have been found in probable Epigravettian levels (Reese 2016). In the burial ST1 of San Teodoro Cave, twelve perforated deer canines were found, presumed to have been part of a necklace among the funerary grave goods (Graziosi 1947). In Trench M, several marine shells (e.g. Columbella, Naticarius, Glycymeris, Anadara) had been clearly selected for ornamentation, as indicated by intentional perforation and the presence of red pigment in some specimens (see Results). The variety of perforation techniques observed suggests both technical expertise and individual choices. Notably, the Glycimeris specimen may have been naturally perforated, a practice attested in other Upper Palaeolithic contexts where shells with naturally occurring holes have been reused. Although its use as a container cannot be excluded, the presence of pigment suggests a symbolic or decorative role (Fig. 6C, D, yellow arrow). A fragment of Glycymeris sp. (Appendix 8) may represent a similar object, although its broken state prevents a definitive interpretation. The use-wear traces observed on the ornaments from Trench M provide compelling evidence of their actual use and cultural significance within the Epigravettian community. These traces, including edge rounding, localised polish, and striations, suggest that the objects were actively worn, manipulated, and integrated into daily or symbolic 636 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. practices rather than merely produced. Several shells exhibit well-developed smoothing and rounding around their perforations, suggesting extended contact with a flexible material, such as sinew or fibre. This wear pattern is consistent with suspension, likely as pendants or as elements sewn into composite ornaments. In some cases, the polish is distributed asymmetrically, wich implies that directional movement was caused by repeated friction during use. Such traces can provide insight into how these objects interacted with the human body and with other components of personal adornment. Notably, the Anadara gibbosa specimen shows polish and abrasion concentrated near the umbo, with directional wear consistent with a suspension that allowed the object to swing freely. This supports the hypothesis that it functioned as a mobile ornament. The Naticarius sp. specimen presents a more complex wear pattern, comprising surface polish, abrasion, and micro-striations along its aperture. These traces suggest repeated manipulation, potentially in association with a sewn or tied context. The orientation and localisation of the polish hint at specific modes of attachment and use, reinforcing the idea that ornamentation was dynamic rather than static. In addition, red pigment residues were observed on some of the mollusc shells, either within or around the perforations. Although sparse, these traces are significant as they may point to intentional colouring practices. The presence of ochre, which is commonly associated with symbolic or ritual activities in Palaeolithic contexts, further supports the interpretation of these objects as culturally significant. It is plausible that ochre was applied as part of body decoration or ornament preparation, suggesting that these shells were used not only fo adornment but also for broader symbolic puposes. These remains contribute to our growing understanding of symbolic behaviour in Late Epigravettian Sicily, showing that ornaments were markers of aesthetic expression as well as embodied cultural objects that were part of daily routines and social interactions, and potentially life-cycles. Their wear tells the story of continued use, movement, and contact. The red pigment preserved inside Patella caerulea, as was also observed in Patella ferruginea from an Epigravettian burial in Favignana (Mannino 2002), could indicate use as a container or applicator for pigment. Regarding their provenance, the molluscs were probably collected from the nearest available shoreline. During the Epigravettian period, at the beginning of the last deglaciation, the seabed was shallow, at around -90 m (Lea etal. 2002). Therefore, the nearest shore would have been approximately six kilometres away from the study site (Garilli etal. 2020a). A comparison between the materials used for ornaments at various Italian Epigravettian sites is reported in Table 4. CONCLUSION The evidence recovered from USM3 of Trench M, along together with its contextual analysis, highlights some differences from the population believed to have preceded it (Garilli etal. 2020b), who were responsible for the burials. Significantly, the ecofacts of Trench M contained an abundance of red deer; however, no perforated deer teeth were found, despite their generally better preservation compared to marine shells. In contrast, burials yielded no perforated shells but instead contained perforated deer canines (Graziosi 1943). This may suggest that perforated canines were used exclusively used for burials and, therefore, absent from Trench M. The selection of Columbella rustica, Naticariussp., Glycymeris sp. and a specimen of Anadara gibbosa (morphologically similar to Cerastoderma shells) together with the stone pendant, reflects affinities with European Epigravettian and Gravettian cultures. The perforation techniques employed are consistent with those observed at numerous continental Upper Palaeolithic sites. These observations suggest that these populations were not culturally isolated from the mainland. Taken together, these observations support the notion that the populations at San Teodoro were not culturally isolated for an extended period. On the contrary, they appear to have maintained or reintroduced cultural and technological traits of continental origin, as indicated by the absence of distinctly local or insutable 4. — Epigravettian sites with personal ornaments and detailed descriptions of associated mollusc species and other materials used during this period. Site Region/Country Type of ornament Shell species Chronology References Grotta di San Teodoro Sicily, Italy Red deer canines, perforated shells Nassarius incrassatus c. 15 ka BP Graziosi 1947; Garilli et al. 2020a; present study Grotta d’Oriente Sicily, Italy Perforated and pigmented shells Columbella rustica, Cerithium sp., Tritia incrassata, Luria lurida c. 14.2 ka cal BP Mannino 2002; Cilli et al. 2012 Capraia / Incisioni Sicily, Italy (Mt. Pellegrino) Perforated shells Columbella rustica Late Epigravettian Reese 2016 Riparo Mochi Liguria, Italy Shell perforations, stone pendants Tritia gibbosula, Antalis sp., Glycymeris sp. c. 17-14 ka BP Stiner 1999; Hoareau et al. 2021b Vela Spila Croatia Ornaments with perforations and pigment Tritia spp., Columbella spp., Cerithium sp. 18-13 ka cal BP Borić & Cristiani 2019 Badanj BosniaHerzegovina Perforated and pigmented shells Tritia spp., Mitrella scripta, Antalis sp. Epigravettian Borić et al. 2023 Paglicci Cave Apulia, Italy Perforated marine shells Tritia reticulata, Mitrella scripta c. 17-14 ka BP Arrighi et al. 2019 Grotta delle Veneri Marche, Italy Funerary ornamentation Antalis sp., Glycymeris sp. c. 14-13 ka BP Rigaud et al. 2014 637 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) lar features in the artefact assemblage. This interpretation is consistent with genetic analyses that confirmed that these populations were not genetically distinct from the broader Mediterranean European population (Catalano etal. 2020). Author contributions GV, UTH & LS: conceptualization and writing of the manuscript; analysis of the materials. GV, UTH & AR: comparative analysis of the bone remains. GV, NC & MPV: excavation of the Trench M. GV, UTH & AR: microscopic analysis of the faunal remains and use-wear. GV & MAV: archaeometric analysis. LS: fund raising. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the Parco Archeologico di Tindari (Messina, Italy) for granting permission for the excavation at San Teodoro Cave (2022-2024) excavation campaigns. Excavation authorisation granted to L.S. was issued under Prot. No. 0000661 of 12/11/2019 (and subsequent) by the Archaeological Park of Tindari. Special thanks to Angelo Mulone (Geolab srl, Carini, Italy) for his assistance during laboratory analyses and valuable discussions. We sincerely thank the team that conducted the excavation campaign over the years (2021-2025). Although not all of them are present as authors, they all supported us during the numerous difficulties encountered during the excavation of Trench M. Funding Logistic expenses were covered from the ordinary operating fund (University of Palermo) attributed to LS. Radiocarbon dating and other analyses have been performed using FFO funds (University of Palermo) and AGED Prin 2017 (MIUR –I) funds attributed to L.S. REFERENCES Á Lvarez f ernÁndez e. 2006. — Historia de las investigaciones sobre los objetos de adorno colgantes en el territorio europeo durante el Paleolítico Superior y el Mesolítico (con especial referencia a la cornisa cantábrica y el valle del Ebro). Sautuola XII: 89-116. aMBrose s. h. 2001. — Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291 (5509): 1748-1753. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1059487 anca f. 1860. — Note sur deux nouvelles grottes ossifères découvertes en Sicile en 1859. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 17: 684-695. a ndré L. & B icho n. 2016. — Perforation techniques and traces of use on the Mesolithic adornments of the Trench Area at Cabeço da Amoreira Shellmidden (Muge, central Portugal). Comptes Rendus Palevol 15 (5): 569-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crpv.2015.10.003 antonioLi f., Lo presti v., gasparo MorticeLLi M., BonfigLio L., M annino M., p aLoMBo M. r., s annino g., f er - ranti L., furLani s., LaMBeck k., canese s. p., cataLano r., chiocci f. L., Mangano g., schicchitano g. & tonieLLi r. 2014. — Timing of emergence of the Europe–Sicily bridge (40–17 cal ka BP) and its application for the spread of modern humans, in harff J., BaiLey g. & Lüth f. (eds), Geology and Archaeology: Submerged Landscapes of the Continental Shelf, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 411: 111-144. a rrighi s., M oroni a., t assoni L., B oschin f., B adino f., B orto - Lini e., B oscato p., c rezzini J., f igus c., f orte M., L ugLi f., M arciani g., o xiLia g., n egrino f., r ieL - s aLvatore J., roMandini M., spinapoLice e., peresani M., ronchiteLLi a. & Benazzi s. 2019. — Bone tools, ornaments and other unusual objects during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quaternary International 551: 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2019.11.016 Baker J., rigaud s., pereira d., LLoyd a. c. & d’errico f. 2024. — Evidence from personal ornaments suggest nine distinct cultural groups between 34,000 and 24,000 years ago in Europe. Nature Human Behaviour 8: 431-444. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41562-023-01803-6 Bar-yosef Mayer d. e. 2005. — The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. Paléorient 31 (1): 176-185. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2005.4796 Bar-yosef Mayer d. e., groMan-yarosLavski i., Bar-yosef o., hershkovitz i., kaMpen-hasday a., vanderMeersch B., zaidner y. & weinstein-evron M. 2020. — On holes and strings: earliest displays of human adornment in the Middle Palaeolithic. PLoS ONE 15 (7): e0234924. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0234924 BonfigLio L., Mangano g., Marra a. c. & Masini f. 2001. — A new late Pleistocene vertebrate faunal complex from Sicily (S. Teodoro Cave, North Eastern Sicily, Italy). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 40: 149-158. B onfigLio L., d i M aggio c., M arra a. c. & M asini f. 2003. — Bio-chronology of Pleistocene vertebrate faunas of Sicily and correlation of vertebrate bearing deposits with marine deposits. Il Quaternario 16 (bis): 107-114. B onfigLio L., e su d., M angano g., M asini f., p etruso d., soLigo M. & tucciMei p. 2008. — The Late Pleistocene vertebrate bearing deposits at San Teodoro Cave (North-Eastern Sicily): preliminary data on faunal diversification and chronology. Quaternary International 190 (1): 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2007.10.019 B ori Ć d. & c ristiani e. 2019. — Taking beads seriously: prehistoric forager ornamental traditions in Southeastern Europe. PaleoAnthropology: 208-239. https://doi.org/10.4207/PA.2019.ART132 BoriĆ d., cristiani e., pravidur a., MariĆ a. & whaLLon r. 2023. — Osseous tools and personal ornaments from the Epigravettian sequence at Badanj. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 55: 7-72. caBraL J. p. & Martins J. M. 2016. — Archaeological Glycymeris glycymeris shells perforated at the umbo: natural or man-made holes? Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.11.008 cârciuMaru M. 2022. — Gravettian stone pendants in Europe (a proposal for a possible repertory). Annales Universitatis ‘Valahia’ Târgoviste. Sectiunea de Arheologie si Istorie 24. cârciuMaru M., niȚu e. c., oBada t., niȚu c., serghei c., Lupu f., Leu M. & nicoLae a. 2019. — Personal ornaments in the Mid Upper Palaeolithic East of the Carpathians. PALEO – Revue Archéologique de Préhistoire 30 (1): 80-97. https://doi. org/10.4000/paleo.4446 cârciuMaru M., niȚu e.-c., otte M., pettitt p., ovidiu c., Leu M., Lupu f.-i., & ghiȚĂ h. 2024. — A newly-discovered stone pendant from the Upper Palaeolithic of Poiana CireșuluiPiatra Neamț (Romania) and its wider context. L’Anthropologie 128 (4): 103282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2024.103282 cataLano g., vetro d. L., faBBri p. f., MaLLick s., reich d., rohLand n., sineo L., Mathieson i. & Martini f. 2020. — Late Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers in the Central Mediterranean: new archaeological and genetic data from the Late Epigravettian 638 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. burial Oriente C (Favignana, Sicily). Quaternary International 537: 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.01.025 ciLLi c., coLonese, anna chiara, giacoBini g., Lo vetro d. & Martini f. 2012. — Nuove evidenze di manufatti in materia dura animale del Paleolitico superiore e del Mesolitico di Grotta d’Oriente (Favignana, Trapani). Atti della XLI Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria “Dai Ciclopi agli Ecisti, Società e territorio nella Sicilia Preistorica e Protostorica”. Edizioni ETS, San Cipirrello: 1055-1060. cLark J. g. d. 1969. — World Prehistory: A New Outline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 374 p. cLark J. d. & Brown k. s. 2001. — The Twin Rivers Kopje, Zambia: stratigraphy, fauna, and artefact assemblages from the 1954 and 1956 excavations. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (3): 305-330. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0563 cohen a. & serJeantson d. 1996. — A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites, London. Archetype Publications Ltd., London, 125 p. coLLins M. J., nieLsen-Marsh c. M., hiLLer J., sMith c. i., roBerts J. p., p rigodich r. v., w ess t. J., c sapò J., M iLLard a. r. & turner-waLker g. 2002. — The survival of organic matter in bone: a review. Archaeometry 44 (3): 383-394. https://doi. org/10.1111/1475-4754.t01-1-00071 cristiani e., LeMorini c. & daLMeri g. 2012. — Ground stone tool production& use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic: the evidence from Riparo Dalmeri (Venetian Prealps, Italy). Journal of Field Archaeology 37 (1): 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1179/0093 469011Z.0000000003 cristiani e., zupancich a. & cvitkušiĆ B. 2020. — Combining microscopic analysis& GIS to analyse experimental perforations on Columbella rustica shells, in Margarit M. & Boronean Ț A. (eds), Beauty and the Eye of the Beholder: Personal Adornments across the Millennia. Editura Cetatea de Scaun, Târgoviște: 27-40. cristiani e., MeLis r. t. & Mussi M. 2021. — Marine shells as grave goods at S’Omu e S’Orku (Sardinia, Italy), in BoriĆ d., antonoviĆ d. & MihaiLoviĆ B. (eds), Foraging Assemblages. Vol. 2. Serbian Archaeological Society/The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, Columbia University: 558-566. duBreuiL L. & grosMan L. 2009. — Ochre and hide-working at a Natufian burial place. Antiquity 83: 935-954. fernÁndez-JaLvo y. & andrews p. 2016. — Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification. Springer Dordrecht (Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series), Dordre, 368 p. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1 f orgia v., s peciaLe c., Ö Lz M. e., r oMano a., s avarino f., n atoLi r. & s ineo L. 2025. — The human entry in Sicily: new archaeological and paleoenvironmental evidence from San Teodoro cave (Acquedolci, Messina). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 17: 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12520-025-02223-5 g ariLLi v., v ita g., B onfigLio L., M uLone a. & s ineo L. 2020a. — From sepulchre to butchery-cooking: facies analysis, taphonomy and stratigraphy of the Upper Palaeolithic post burial layer from the San Teodoro Cave (NE Sicily) reveal change in the use of the site. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30: 102191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102191 gariLLi v., vita g., La paroLa v., pinto-vraca M., giarrusso r., rosina p., BonfigLio L. & sineo L. 2020b. — First evidence of Pleistocene ochre production from bacteriogenic iron oxides. A case study of the Upper Palaeolithic site at the San Teodoro Cave (Sicily, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science 123: 105221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105221 g azzo s., c ristiani e., n egrino f. & r ieL -s aLvatore J. 2025. — Early Upper Palaeolithic marine mollusc exploitation at Riparo Bombrini (Balzi Rossi, Italy): shellfish consumption and ornament production. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 17: 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02148-5 giLLigan i. 2010. — The prehistoric development of clothing: archaeological implications of a thermal model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17: 15-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10816-009-9076-x giunta g. & carBone s. 2013. — Carta Geologica d’Italia Alla Scala 1:50.000. Foglio 599 Patti. Progetto CARG, ISPRA – Servizio Geologico d’Italia, Rome. g ranato d. 2011. — Le arene candide, i livelli epigravettiani: macine ed altri strumenti per la lavorazione dell’ocra. Origini: Preistoria, Protostoria e Civiltà Antiche 33: 39-60. g rayson d. k. 1984. — Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaelogical Faunas. Academic Press, Fribourg, 202 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-21855-1 graziosi p. 1943. — Gli scavi dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana nella grotta di S. Teodoro (Messina), nota preliminare. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Memorie 52: 72-98. graziosi p. 1947. — Gli uomini della grotta di S. Teodoro (Messina). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 2: 123-224. graziosi p. & MavigLia c. 1947. — La Grotta di S. Teodoro (Messina). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 1: 277-283. guzzo faLci c., cuisin J., deLpuech a., van giJn a. & hofMan c. L. 2019. — New insights into use-wear development in bodily ornaments through the study of ethnographic collections. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26: 755-805. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9389-8 h arzhauser M., L enneis e. & n eugeBauer -M aresch c. 2007. — Freshwater gastropods as Neolithic adornment: size selectiveness and perforation morphology as a result of grinding techniques. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Serie A für Mineralogie und Petrographie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Anthropologie und Prähistorie 109: 73-85. hoffMann d. L., angeLucci d. e., viLLaverde v., zapata J. & ziLhão J. 2018. — Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 years ago. Science Advances 4: eaar5255. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar5255 hoareau L., zen c. & Beyries s. 2021a. — Experimental Protocol on Shell Ornaments Perforation: Identifying Techniques and Stigma Variability According to the Utilized Species. Beyond use-wear traces: tools and people. Proceedings of the AWRANA Conference, Nice. Sidestone Press. hoareau r., rigaud s., crépin L., d’errico f. & vanhaeren M. 2021b. — Les coquillages marins dans les parures de la Préhistoire récente : variabilité des taxons, pratiques sociales et évolution. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 118 (2): 215-248. incarBona a., zarcone g., agate M., BonoMo s., stefano e., Masini f., russo f. & sineo L. 2010. — A multidisciplinary approach to reveal the Sicily climate and environment over the last 20,000 years. Open Geosciences 2 (2): 71-82. https://doi. org/10.2478/v10085-010-0005-8 Jans M. M. e., nieLsen-Marsh c. M., sMith c. i., coLLins M. J. & kars h. 2004. — Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (1): 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.07.007 kuhn s. L., stiner M. c., reese d. s. & güLeç e. 2001. — Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: new insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (13): 7641-7646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.121590798 Lanza B., nistri a., & vanni s. 2007. — Amphibia, in ruffo s. & stoch F. (eds), Checklist and distribution of the Italian fauna. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 17: 1-8. Lea d. w., Martin p. a., pak d. k. & spero h. J. 2002. — Reconstructing a 350 ky history of sea level using planktonic Mg/Ca and oxygen isotope records from a Cocos Ridge core. Quaternary Science Reviews 21 (1-3): 283-293. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0277-3791(01)00081-6 Leighton r. 1999. — Sicily Before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 244 p. 639 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Lona f. 1949. — Ricerche sulla flora quaternaria italiana. I carboni dei focolari paleolitici della Grotta di S. Teodoro (Messina). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 4: 187-193. MacLennan J. d., MandL i. & howes e. L. 1953. — Bacterial digestion of collagen. Journal of Experimental Medicine 98 (2): 167-174. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI102860 Mangano g. & BonfigLio L. 2005. — Campagna di scavo 2002 nei depositi pleistocenici della Grotta di S. Teodoro (Acquedolci, Messina, Sicilia nord-orientale). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 2: 143-148. Mannino g. 2002. — La Grotta d’Oriente di Favignana (Egadi, Sicilia): risultati di un sondaggio esplorativo. Quaderni del Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘‘Antonino Salinas 8: 9-22. Mannino M. a., di saLvo r., schiMMenti v., di patti c., i ncarBona a., s ineo L. & r ichards L. 2011. — Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer subsistence in Mediterranean coastal environments: an isotopic study of the diets of the earliest directly-dated humans from Sicily. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (11): 3094-3100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2011.07.009 Martini f., Lo vetro d., coLonese a. c., de curtis o., di giuseppe z., LocateLLi e. & saLa B. 2007. — Le pratiche funerarie, in Martini F. (ed.), L’Epigravettiano finale in Sicilia. L’Italia tra 15.000 e 10.000 anni fa: cosmopolitismo e regionalità nel Tardo Glaciale. Vol. 18. Atti della Tavola Rotonda, Firenze: 245-247. Maudet M. 2002. — Les objets de parure en matières dures animales du Paléolithique supérieur des régions Cantabriques (Espagne). Bulletin de la Société d’Études Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques de l’Ouest 26: 43-51. M avigLia c. 1941. — Scheletri umani del Paleolitico Superiore rinvenuti nella Grotta di S. Teodoro (Messina). Archivio per l’Antropologia e l’Etnologia 70: 94-104. paLes L. & garcia M. a. 1981. — Atlas osteologique pour servir a l’identification des mammiferes du Quaternaire. Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris, 263 p. p aLes L. & L aMBert c. 1971. — Atlas osteologique pour servir a l’identification des mammiferes du quaternaire. Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris, 3 p., 84 plates. perLès c. 2019. — Special issue: Personal ornaments in Early Prehistory cultural implications of uniformity in ornament assemblages: Paleolithic and Mesolithic ornaments from Franchthi Cave, Greece. PaleoAnthropology: 19-23. https://doi.org/10.4207/ PA.2019.ART131 r eese d. s. 2016. — Marine shells from Kef Zoura D and Aïn Misteheyia (Algeria), in LuBeLL D. (ed.), Holocene Prehistory in the Télijène Basin, Eastern Algeria. Capsian Occupations at Kef Zoura D and Aïn Misteheyia. Archaeopress, Oxford: 135-139. richter t., Bocaege e., iLsøe p., ruter a., pantos a., pedersen p. & y eoMans L. 2019. — Ochre, ground stone, and wrapping the dead in the Late Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant: revealing the funerary practices at Shubayqa 1, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 44 (7): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/009 34690.2019.1645546 rigaud s. & gutiérrez-zugasti i. 2016. — Symbolism among the last hunter–fisher–gatherers in northern Iberia: Personal ornaments from El Mazo and El Toral III Mesolithic shell midden sites. Quaternary International 407 (Part B): 131-144. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.10.029 rigaud s., rousseL M., rendu w., priMauLt J., renou s., huBLin J.-J. & soressi M. 2014. — Les pratiques ornementales à l’Aurignacien ancien dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. L’apport des fouilles récentes aux Cottés (Vienne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de France 111 (1): 19-38. https://doi.org/10.3406/ bspf.2014.14362 rigaud s., o’hara J., charLes L., Man-estier e. & paiLLet p. 2022. — The management of symbolic raw materials in the Late Upper Paleolithic of South-Western France: a shell ornaments perspective. Papers from the Palaeolithic 2: e65. https://doi. org/10.24072/pcjournal.185 r ufà a. & L arouLandie v. 2021. — Unravelling the taphonomic stories of bird bones from the Middle Pleistocene Layer VIII of Grotte Vaufrey, France. Quaternary 4 (4): 30. https://doi. org/10.3390/quat4040030 schMid e. 1972. — Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, London, New York, 189 p. shunkov M., fedorchenko a., kozLikin M. & derevianko a. 2020. — Initial Upper Palaeolithic ornaments and formal bone tools from the East Chamber of Denisova Cave in the Russian Altai. Quaternary International 559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2020.07.027 stiner M. c. 1999. — Palaeolithic mollusc exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): food and ornaments from the Aurignacian through Epigravettian. Antiquity 73 (282): 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065492 tÁtÁ f., cascaLheira J., Marreiros J., pereira t. & Bicho n. 2014. — Shell bead production in the Upper Paleolithic of Vale Boi (SW Portugal): an experimental perspective. Journal of Archaeological Science 42: 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2013.10.029 teJero J. M., Bar-yosef o., MeshveLiani t., JakeLi n., M atskevich z., p inhasi r. & B eLfer -c ohen a. 2021. — New insights into the Upper Palaeolithic of the Caucasus through the study of personal ornaments. Teeth and bones pendants from Satsurblia and Dzudzuana caves (Imereti, Georgia). PLoS ONE 16 (11): e0258974. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0258974 tricoMi g. 1938. — Cenni su un recente assaggio nella grotta di S. Teodoro in provincia di Messina. Bollettino della Società di Scienze Naturali ed Economiche 20: 1-4. vanhaeren M. & d’errico f. 2006. — Aurignacian ethnolinguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (8): 1105-1128. vaufrey r. 1928. — Le Paléolithique italien. Masson et C. (Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine; Mémoire 3), Paris, 196 p. veLLiky e. c., schMidt p., BeLLot-gurLet L., woLf s. & conard n. J. 2021. — Early anthropogenic use of hematite on Aurignacian ivory personal ornaments from Hohle Fels and Vogelherd caves, Germany. Journal of Human Evolution 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102900 v ettese d., B Lasco r., c Áceres i., g audzinski -w indheuser s., M onceL M. h., t hun h ohenstein u. & d auJeard c. 2020. — Towards an understanding of hominin marrow extraction strategies: a proposal for a percussion mark terminology. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12 (48). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12520-019-00972-8 vigLiardi a. 1968. — L’industria litica della Grotta di San Teodoro in provincia di Messina (Scavi Graziosi-Maviglia). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 23: 33-144. v ita g. 2021. — Pleistocene cave paleosols and sediments in northern Sicily. Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Doctoral Thesis in Erasmus Mundus in Quaternary and Prehistory, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, 180 p. http://hdl.handle. net/10803/671689 vita g., forgia v., vraca M. p., caLaBrese n., divita d. & sineo L. 2022a. — Petrographic characterization of quartzite tools from the Palaeolithic site of San Teodoro cave (Sicily): Study on the provenance of lithic raw materials. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 45: 103593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jasrep.2022.103593 vita g., schiMMenti v. & sineo L. 2022b. — Studio preliminare su composizione e provenienza di ocra dalla sepoltura epigravettiana di Grotta d’Oriente A, Favignana (Egadi, Sicilia), in MiLiteLLo p., nicoLetti f. & panvini R. (eds), La Sicilia preistorica. Dinamiche interne e relazioni esterne. Atti del 640 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. APPENDICES appenDix 1. — Section of the San Teodoro Cave deposit (from Figure 1 of Graziosi 1947, modified), showing stratigraphy and the position of four inhumed individuals found. Stratigraphy is as follows: F, E, Late Pleistocene layer with Upper Pleistocene mammal fauna, coprolites, and late Epigravettian human burials; D-A, anthropogenic layers with faunal remains, charcoals, and lithic artefacts (the PAL layer of Garilli et al. 2020a); β, ochre layer. Note that in the cave, layer A no longer exists as well as most of the upper part of the C, B layers. A B C D β E F Convegno Internazionale Catania-Siracusa, 7-9 october 2021: 91-99 (in Italian with English abstract). vita g., saLadino M. L., arMetta f. & sineo L. 2024. — Geochemical and mineralogical characterization on an ochre residue adhering to a pebble found in the Oriente A Epigravettian burial, in the Grotta d’Oriente of Favignana (Egadi, Italy). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 16: 175. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12520-024-02084-4 ziLhão J., angeLucci d., BadaL-garcía e., d’errico f., danieL f., dayet L., douka k., highaM t., MartínezsÁnchez M., M ontes - B ernardez r., M urcia -M ascaros s., p erez c. roLdÁn-garcía c., vanhaeren M., viLLaverde v., wood r. & zapata J. 2010. — Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (3): 1023-1028. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0914088107 Submitted on 22 February 2025; accepted on 20 September 2025; published on 19 December 2025. 641 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) appenDix 2. — A, Current height of the breccia PAL-b concerning the present walking surface; B, detail of the PAL-b breccia showing fractured/broken bones (b), land snails (ls) and charcoals (ch); C, Breccia PAL-e inside the niche. PAL-e ls ls ch b b AB C 642 COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) Vita G. et al. appenDix 3. — A, B, Perforated distal femur of red deer: A, anterior view; B, posterior view; C, D, perforated femur head of red deer: C, inferior view; D, superior view. Scale bars: A, B, 8 cm; C, D, 4 cm. AB CD 643 Material culture of the Sicilian Epigravettian COMPTES RENDUS PALEVOL • 2025 • 24 (30) appenDix 4. — Selection of quartzite artefacts from USM3: A-C, cores or chunky flakes with knapping marks; D, a long flake with a potentially retouched edge. Could be a rough tool or a simple implement; E, flake with a curved profile and retouched edge. It could be a scraper or a bit of a more complex tool; F, thick, long flake with a straight worked edge. This could be a scraper or another type of tool made on a thick flake; G, slightly triangular flake with retouched edges. This could be a rough-out for a point or a fragment of a pointy tool; H, I, possibly small cores or tools on thick flakes with some edge work; J-N, small flakes or fragments. Some (such K and M) may show more obvious retouching. N is very tiny. Scale bar: 10 cm. A B C DE FG H IJ KLMN