![scraping hides scraping hides](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gGlwG6AJ4NY/VCtHDOppdEI/AAAAAAAAB4I/f_ogIojWB5w/s1600/DryScraper.jpg)
A technological and functional examination of stone tools is therefore necessary to comprehend the role played by stone artifacts in the changes associated with the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. In many cases, however, their exact use and function are still scarcely understood in that the typological system used by archaeologists is insufficient to reconstruct past behaviors. Paleolithic sites offer an abundance of tools made from a variety of organic and inorganic raw materials. Complexity increased, as well as specialization and standardization, in toolkits, traits generally considered hallmarks of modern behavior (Bar-Yosef 2002 Mellars 2011, 2004 Teyssandier 2008). This first spread of anatomically modern humans (hereafter AMH) is associated with the appearance of the initial Upper Paleolithic (hereafter IUP) (Kuhn and Zwyns 2014), Uluzzian, and Aurignacian cultural units, marking an abrupt change in many aspects of human beings like sociality, communication, economy, and technology, and coinciding with clear-cut implications on the design of stone tool sets.
![scraping hides scraping hides](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/1-hide-scraping-padre-art.jpg)
The emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia is traditionally considered to have been an abrupt rupture with the Middle Paleolithic that occurred between 48 and 39 ky cal BP, when Neanderthal populations were replaced by anatomically modern humans (Fu et al. Comparison with the few endscrapers from transitional industries that have been analyzed highlights marked differences in the production, morphology, and use of these tools and reinforces our view of the Aurignacian as a complex not directly related with preceding European traditions. Macroscopic and microscopic wear on the lateral edges of tools point to a considerable number of hafted endscrapers, which implies systematic time investment and planning depth. Moreover, we find no evidence that endscrapers were involved in the production of bone and antler tools during the late Protoaurignacian. Almost all the use-wear traces we recorded developed from hide working with transverse motion. Despite the large morphological variability, use-wear traces reveal functional consistency and high levels of specialization for these tools. We analyzed these artifacts using technological, morpho-metrical, typological, and functional approaches. With the aim to overcome this paucity of information, here, we present the results of a techno-functional study performed on the large endscraper assemblage recovered from the early and late Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy. Nevertheless, endscrapers and, in general, domestic tools have attracted relatively little attention in debates revolving around the significance of technological change, tool function, and tool specialization after the end of the Middle Paleolithic. Although they make their first ephemeral appearance in the Middle–late Middle Paleolithic transitional technocomplexes, endscrapers commonly appear in toolkits from initial and early Upper Paleolithic traditions onwards. Endscrapers are specialized tools that are usually recovered in great quantities in every Upper Paleolithic site in Europe.