leafpoints or rather leafknives? a technological...

1

Received 1 March 2013; accepted 25 June 2013.© 2013 Moravian Museum, Anthropos Institute, Brno. All rights reserved.

• L/2 • pp. ???–??? • 2012

MAŁGORZATA KOT, JÜRGEN RICHTER

LEAFPOINTS OR RATHER "LEAFKNIVES"? A TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BIFACIALLYSHAPED ARTEFACTS FROM MAUERN, GERMANY

ABSTRACT: The article shows the results of a scar pattern analysis of 21 bifacially worked artefacts from the siteWeinberghöhlen (Mauern) in the Altmühl Valley, Germany. A characteristic feature of the described tools is thesignificant asymmetry of one edge, which is much more convex than the other one. The results show that none of theanalysed tools bear traces of an idea of creating a symmetric tool with two edges convergent at the exposed tip. A lotmore effort was put on the retouch of the edge and its course than on exposing the tip and making the tool moresymmetrical. The asymmetry appeared at the moment of shaping the edges, the retouch has slightly deepened it. Thereis no trace of sequences which eliminated the asymmetry and form the shape of the tool. Therefore, we may concludethat none of the analysed tools can be called leafpoints from a technological point of view. The raw material used toproduce tools from Mauern certainly conditioned the form of the tools. The small thickness of flat flint slabs meant thatin order to obtain a usable edge it was necessary to perform broad flat decorticating removals on both sides. Furtherknapping had to follow the same pattern, so as not to blunt the edge. At the same time the thickness of the material wastoo small to create tools in the type of Micoquian Keilmesser, but the raw material allowed for producing tools withlong working edges. It was logical, therefore, to change the system of repair of one edge into a tool in which one coulduse subsequently fragments of edges and then abandon them. Therefore analysed tool should be rather called"leafknives" than leafpoints.

KEY WORDS: Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition – Altmühlian – Leafpoints – Technology – Scar pattern analysis– Raw material

ANTHROPOLOGIE

INTRODUCTION

Leafpoints are often considered the "index fossils" forthe Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition in CentralEurope (Allsworth-Jones 1986, Bosinski 1967, Freund1952, Mester 2008, 2010), but also for several MiddlePalaeolithic (MP) industries such as Altmühlian(Bohmers 1939, 1951), Babonyian (Ringer 1983, 2000,Ringer, Kordos 1995), Bohunician (Oliva 1984, Valoch1976, 1982, 2008), Jankovichian (Gábori-Csánk 1990,1993) or Moustero-Levalloisian of the Balkans(Dzambazov 1967, 1971, Haesaerts, Sirakova 1979,Kozłowski 2003, Sirakova, Ivanova 1988). Thementioned industries were considered as the early phaseof later "transitional cultures" such as Szeletian,Ranisian, Jerzmanowician (Bosinski 1967, Chmielewski1961, Freund 1954, 1987, Hillebrand 1935, Hülle 1977,Kadič 1916, Luttropp, Bosinski 1967, Prošek 1953).

If one takes into consideration the MiddlePalaeolithic industries with leafpoints, it becomes clearthat in many cases the occurrence of leafpoints is theonly common element in the inventory of mentionedentities. Thus, it is essential that the attribution of theseartefacts is conducted according to a definition thatpresents a coherent tool concept. Till now, leafpointshave been classified according to typological definitionof a bifacially shaped, symmetric tool in the shape ofa leaf, which is at least three times wider than ticker(Ginter, Kozłowski 1975).

The paper presents technological analyses of bifacialtools from Mauern, which are the most representativeinventory of Altmühlian industry (Allsworth-Jones 1986,Bolus 2004, Bosinski 1967, Hopkinson 2007). The term"Altmühlian group" was introduced by Bohmers (1939:156), who treated it as early phase of the later, e.g.Szeletian leafpoints industries (Bohmers 1951). Suchassumption has been widely accepted and since then, theAltmühlian leafpoints were treated as a characteristic anddistinctive element of late Middle Palaeolithic inGermany (Allsworth-Jones 1986, Bolus 2004, Bosinski1967, Hopkinson 2007), and have their continuation inlater Szeletian industries.

The objective of the paper is to check if in case of themost representative MP leafpoints from Germanya unified tool concept is represented. Recent analyses byRichter (1997) and Uthmeier (2004) advocated thepossibility that one is dealing here not with leafpoints,but a kind of a bifacial double scraper concept(Dopperschaber) with very specific diagonal symmetry(Drehsymmetrie). This paper shows the results oftechnological analyses conducted on a sample of bifacial

leafpoints from Mauern, which was aimed at checkingthose assumptions.

THE WEINBERHÖHLEN SITE (MAUERN)

The Weinberhöhlen site (Mauern) consists of severalinterconnected caves located on the western slope of theWeinberg hill in the Wellheimer Trockental valley,Germany, north of the modern Danube River valley.

Excavations on the site were carried out three times.The first systematic archaeological work began in 1937with Schmidt and was later ran by Bohmers (1937–1939)(Bohmers 1939, 1951). Another study was undertakenby Zotz in 1947 and he led it until 1949 (Zotz 1955,1959). Due to stratigraphy divergences obtained duringthe first two excavations, a re-exploration began in 1967and was carried out by Müller-Beck and vonKoenigswald (Koenigswald et al. 1974). The lastexcavations confirmed the general stratigraphicaldescription made by Bohmers.

According to Bohmers, the artefacts were located insix out of 10 layers (Figure 1). In the F layer, Bohmersfound 33 bifacially worked leafpoints. Apart from these,he also recovered two handaxes and 61 other tools,among them mainly: side scrapers (also with bifacialretouch), 15 cores and 210 non-retouched artefacts(Bohmers 1951). This inventory was described asAltmühlian by Bohmers. Bohmers correlated thesubsequent weathering layers with the VistulianInterstadials: the F layer was dated to Early VistulianInterstadials (OIS 5c) (Bohmers 1939: 156).

Zotz, on the basis of his excavations, distinguished10 layers (Zotz 1955). In two of them, F1 and F2, hefound leafpoints. The F1 layer should be seen as anequivalent to the Altmühlian level (layer F) of Bohmers(Figure 1). Layer F2 can be correlated with layer G' byBohmers, which he had called Mousterian. In total,Zotz's excavations yielded 18 leafpoints (of which sixwere from the F2 level and 12 from F1). Zotz believedin the evolutionary link between Acheulean, CentralEuropean leafpoint industries and Solutrean culture.Therefore, he defined the upper layers (F1 and F2)containing leafpoints as Presolutrean level II, and theindustries found in the lower layers (G and H) asPresolutrean level I (Zotz 1955). Zotz (1955: 21)correlated the F1 layer with Würm 2 (LowerPleniglacial), and the F2 layer with Würm 1–2 (EarlyVistulian Interstadial).

Müller-Beck made the correlation of all three profiles(Figure 1). As a result, he agreed with the results obtained

Małgorzata Kot, Jürgen Richter

2

by Bohmers (Koenigswald, Müller-Beck 1975,Koenigswald et al. 1974). A layer defined by Zotz as F2,and by Bohmers as G', which is characterised by thepresence of sharp-edged limestone rubble and MiddlePalaeolithic artefacts, was correlated by Müller-Beck witha temperate climate and dated to First Pleniglacial (OIS 4).

The Müller-Beck chronology has been criticisedrecently (Hopkinson 2007, Richter 1997, 2009, Uthmeier2004), noting that in the region there are no sites withsigns of settlement during the maximum of the FirstPleniglacial (OIS 4). Owing to comparative analyseswith Sesselfelsgrotte data, the Altmühlian levels werecorrelated with M.M.O-B3 dated to Oerel/Glinde (OIS3) (Richter 1997). Uthmeier (2004: 274) suggested thatlayer G (by Bohmers), containing Micoquian artefacts,as well as G', should be dated to the early phase of OIS3 by analogy to the layers of Sesselfelsgrotte (G-Complex) (Richter 1997). The layer F containingleafpoints (defined in the study of Zotz as F1), wasdescribed as a brown layer with weathered limestonerubble and should therefore also be dated to OIS 3. Whatis more, due to the comparative analyses of bothinventories from Mauern and Sesselfelsgrotte, the

Altmühlian has since been identified with the Micoquianassemblage of M.M.O.–BB3 cultural horizon (Richter1997, Uthmeier 2004). Thus, it does not appear asa distinct cultural unit of "transitional character", but asa part of the latest standard Middle Palaeolithic industriesin southern Germany. The following paper aims attesting the statement from the perspective of toolconcept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MaterialThe technological analysis covered 21 artefacts from

the Weinberghöhlen site, 13 of them come fromBohmers' collection and 7 from Zotz' collection. For theanalyses, all the bifacial tools in a shape similar toa leafpoint which are currently stored in theArchaeological Museum in Munich were chosen. Of theanalysed specimens, 20 are referred to as leafpoints ortheir fragments in the literature (Bohmers 1951, Zotz1955, 1959). One form (1951_663) was defined as a typeof knife (Bohmers 1951: Taf. 41).

Leafpoints or Rather "Leafknives"? A Technological Analysis of Bifacially Shaped Artefacts from Mauern, Germany

3

FIGURE 1. Collective profiles correlation from Bohmers, Zotz and von Koenigswald,Müller-Beck study.

The artefacts differ from one another in terms ofmorphology, mainly the size and shape. All the artefactsof Mauern are plano-convex and characterised by smallthickness, which was caused by using very thin slabs(about 1 cm thick) of flint called Plattensilex (Bohmers1951). The average thickness of Mauern tools is 0.93 cm.

MethodsIn the Mauern collection mainly bifacial tools got

preserved. The lack of debitage products did not allowto use the refitting method. Due to such limitations, theso-called scar-pattern analysis (working steps analysis)was used. This method has been used for a short timeonly (Bourguignon 1992, Richter 2001, Uthmeier 2004),and so far it was applied with success in the analysis ofMiddle Palaeolithic bifacial tools (Boëda 1995a, 1995b,2001, Graßkamp 2001, Jöris 2006, Migal, Urbanowski2006, Soressi et al. 2003, Soressi, Hays 2003,Urbanowski 2004).

A direct result of each examination is thereconstruction of single tool manufacturing scheme.However, it is the further comparative examination thatallows to understand bifacial tool formation process, andreconstruct a general tool concept, which can be calleda "mental template" (Migal, Urbanowski 2006) or an"ideal type" as defined by Cziesla (1989).

The analysis started from establishing the chronologyof removal scars visible on the tool and combining singleflake scars into flaking sequences which would, asa whole, reflect a particular action in the tool reductionsequence. The focus of the examination is placed onreconstructing the underlying idea of the knapper, andnot only the sole sequence of flaking actions. For thisreason, the analysis of the flaking sequences parameterwas used to understand the function of each of them.What is more, it was observed that the diversity ofremovals derived from different parts of the tool. In mostcases, different parts of the tool were treatedconsequently differently during the followingmanufacturing stages. Such parts of the tool weredistinguished as separate techno-functional units (Boëda2001, Kot 2013, in press), e.g. a cutting edge, a distal-posterior edge, a base, a back.

A crucial examination component was to establish thefunctions of all actions undertaken at consecutivemanufacturing stages and correlate them with particulartechno-functional units. Owing to this, it was possible todetermine what the goal of forming certain part of thetool was, and consequently, following parameterssignificant to the knapper, which decided about the utilityof a given form, or its abandonment.

Much as this outcome is informative in itself, it is thecollective and comparative analysis of particularreduction sequence within a chosen sample that maybring the most interesting findings. It was based ondividing the manufacturing process into stages, andcomparing artefacts among one another using particulartool formation stages with reference to then appliedschemes. The approach adopted in this paper can becalled a techno-functional approach (Boëda 1995a,1995b, 2000, 2001, Boëda et al. 2013) because it wasfocused on understanding the technological function ofcertain flaking sequences.

RESULTS

All the analysed tools are characterised by significanttechnological cohesion. However, they can be dividedinto three major groups. The groups presented belowwere distinguished due to scar pattern analysis and donot correspond to the divisions described by Bohmers(1951: 71). One single tool (1951_663) does not fall intoany of the groups and so it will be described separately.

Group IThe first group includes tools which are characterised

by slight edge asymmetry (one edge is slightly moreconvex than the other one; Figures 2, 3). In two cases(1949_780, 1951_603), the asymmetry is more visibleand the more convex edge even has a biangular profile.

In these tools one cannot see any difference in edgetreatment due to removal types but subsequent removalswere performed at a different angle in relation to eachedge. One of the edges was formed with removal seriesperpendicular to the vertical axis. This led to the creationof a straight vertical edge. The other edge was formedby angular removal series in relation to the vertical axis,creating a convex edge (Figure 2). The difference in bothedges treatment appears already at the stage of edgeforming and is then continued at the stage of edgeretouching. Both edges were formed in parallel at eachproduction stage.

What appears to be also typical are the differences inthe treatment of both surfaces. One face is flat and hasno retouch, whereas the second is slightly convex anddisplays all the retouches.

Tool knapping proceeded in four stages (Figure 2):I. Surface formation. Flat extensive removals were

performed onto both tool faces. Their purpose was notonly surface formation, but also nodule decortication. Allof this was done on one and then on the second edge.


4

The convex edge was treated as the second, whereas thefirst to be knapped was the more vertical one.

II. Edge formation. At this stage, differences in thetreatment of both edges are clearly visible. As alreadymentioned, one of the edges is formed with a series ofperpendicular removals, which reinforces the formationof a vertical edge. The second edge is formed with angularremovals which make it more convex (Figures 2, 3).

III. Edge retouches. The edges were retouched ina bottom-top edge scheme. A flat removal series applied

onto the lower face preceded a marginal retouch series.The marginal retouch is semi-flat. After the marginalretouch, a series of small removals to correct edge profilewere applied if necessary on the lower face.

IV. Notches. At the end of the manufacturing process,notches were formed. Some of them, made with a singlesemi-abrupt removals, could be treated as postdepositionaldamages; nonetheless, their identical location ona number of tools can indicate their intentional nature.The tools have at least three notches, of which one islocated at its base/tip (Figure 4), the other two on theedges. The notches might have occurred either duringuse, or they might be traces of hafting. The second optionis implied by their location.

The artefacts 1949_780 and 1949_791 had gypsumfillings at the edges which made it difficult to analyse


5

FIGURE 2. Removal directions and manufacturing scheme ongroup I tool. Phase I, surface formation; phases II, edge formation;phase III, edge retouches. The scheme shows different treatmentof both edges already at edge formation stage (phase II).

FIGURE 3. Group I tools shape classification with marked edgeasymmetry in vertical axis.

them properly. Due to the courtesy of the ArchaeologicalMuseum in Munich, it was possible to remove the fillings.As revealed in the analysis, the fillings existed in thenotches whose location corresponds well with the remainingnotch system in the artefacts included in group I.

In case of the 1949_780 tool, one can be sure thatthough one of the percussions (which created a notch) ispostdepositional, but earlier notch-creating percussionswere derived during the manufacturing process. Thus, itcan be assumed that in this case, part of the edgeunderwent postdepositional truncation at the existingnotch. In case of the 1949_791 artefact, nothing indicatesthat the maintenance of the filled notch hada postdepositional nature.

The tools show no signs of intensive repairs, whichmay be due to the fact that the next retouch series wouldonly cause total edges blunting. Small slabs thicknessprevented any attempts to renew the edges angle bymeans of removals onto the lower face.

The tools display traits of care for their shape. Theangular sequences at the very tips resulted in the creationof convex edges converging at the tip. However, greaterstrain was put on edge profile, even though tool

symmetry could have been achieved at a very smallexpense. For example, in the 1949_780 or 1951_603tools, additional retouch series could have led to a bettertip exposure and its return to the vertical axis (Figure 3).

The tools of group I exhibit asymmetry in verticalaxis, as well as a lack of care for the tip. At the sametime, the tools were knapped very precisely. Moreattention was devoted to edge profiles than to theirsymmetry. Both edges were treated in a parallel manner.No traces of preference for any edge in particular arevisible (except for a different removals angle, whichcreates bigger convexity on one of the edges; it isdifficult, though, to find an explanation for such edgetreatment). In addition, however, the tools are largelysymmetrical along the horizontal axis – the tip wastreated analogously to the base.

The construction of group I artefacts suggests thatthese tools were used in hafts. As a matter of fact, alltheir edges are sharp and the tools not only do not havethe back, but also, in most cases, a base, which couldhave served as a handle. Therefore, the tools were mostprobably shaped with the idea of hafting. Hence, thenotches and truncations, as it was already mentioned by


6

FIGURE 4. Positions of notches in group I tools and the profile line of both edges.

Bohmers (1951: 71) may probably be traces of toolhafting, or movements of the implement in the haft. Thearrangement of notches suggests that first one of the tipscould have been used, and then the tool was rotated andthe second tip was at work. This might be indicated byequal treatment of both tool ends, as well as both edgeson their entire length.

Group IIThe second group of artefacts is characterised by

significant edge asymmetry, of which one is much moreconvex than the other (Figure 5). In this respect, theartefacts resemble the tools from group I, but whatdistinguishes them is above all the productiontechnology, which might have led to the markeddifference in the arrangement of both edges.

From the perspective of retouches, both edges aretreated equally and have a similar, straight profile(Figure 5). One can notice significant care for a straightedge profile throughout its entire length, from the tip tothe base. The tip, due to edge asymmetry, is not in thetool axis, and it is well exposed. The artefacts reflecta tendency for lack of a marginal retouch at the very tip,perhaps due to the care for edge profile. If so, it wouldindicate greater attention devoted to the edge profile thanto the tip itself. As a result, the tip is slightly exposed butnot retouched.

Additionally, the 1949_786 and 1951_612 tools havea characteristic big notch on one of the edges, locatednear the base (Figure 5). The notch is formed withseveral semi-abrupt or abrupt removals and has traces ofusewear. The process of notch knapping removes thebase off the tool axis and exposes it at the same time. The1949_788 tool has multiple postdepositional fractures

and it was glued together as well as completed withgypsum in the course of restoration. By courtesy of theArchaeological Museum in Munich it was possible toremove the gypsum and observe the entire artefact.Hence, the very base of the tool is missing, which makesit impossible to see whether the tool had a notch at thebase or not.

All artefacts classified into group II have a verysimilar knapping scheme. This scheme can be describedas "consequent edge scheme of knapping", where thetool, after initial manufacturing, was knapped on one ofthe edges from the moment of shaping until marginalretouch. Only then the second edge was formed, fromsurface formation to edge retouch. In case of flake tools,knapping was limited to edge formation and retouch. Themost consequent edge scheme was applied in the1949_786 tool, where the convex edge knapping beginswith extensive removals forming the surface on thelower face, right after forming, shaping and correctingremovals or maybe even after a marginal retouch of theopposite edge (Figure 6).

The tools are also characterised by different treatmentof both tool surfaces, one of which is flat, and the otherone is convex and retouched. Each knapping stagefollows a bottom-top scheme, where flattening removalsare derived on the lower face, whereas the upper face isformed with semi-flat removals and retouches. It is worthnoting that these tools could have been made moresymmetrical by performing a series of removals onto thelower face, but the removals would have made the edgeprofile more S-shaped, which, as it seems, was avoided.This may indicate that for the described tools, the retouchand straight edge profile were more important than thetool symmetry in itself.


7

FIGURE 5. Comparison of group II tool shapes with marked edge asymmetries along the vertical axis, and with notches on the edges.


8

FIGURE 6. Consequent edge scheme of knapping of the 1949_786 tool. Phase I, surface formation; phases II and III, edge formationfrom extensive removals to probably marginal retouch series; phase IV, repair; phase V, notch formation. Original drawing after Zotz(1955: Fig. 46).

From the point of view of reduction sequence itappears to be an important fact that the steep notches atthe base were made during the manufacturing process.In the 1951_612 tool the notch appeared before knappingthe other edge. The retouch focused on the near-the-basepart of the edge, opposite to the notch. In case of the1949_786 tool, first a notch near the base had beencreated, and then the edge opposite to the notch wasretouched. An analogous retouching scheme in relationto the created notch as well as identical notch locationand morphology suggests that these tools representa similar way of tool using and, probably, hafting. Thefollowing figure shows a hypothetical reconstruction ofhow these tools were hafted (Figure 7).

Parallel to that, it ought to be underlined that on the1949_786 tool, two zones appear on each edge, differentin terms of usewear (Uthmeier 2004: Figure 5.26). Incontrast to the part of the same edge located closer to thetip which has traces of intensive usewear, visible evenwithout magnification, the parts located directly near thenotch do not have traces of usewear (Figure 7a). On the

other edge the usewear is very clearly visible on the partof the edge located near the notch. The part closer to thetip has a less intensive usewear. Such a distribution ofusewear may suggest not only hafting of the tool, butalso the fact that the edges could have been usedinterchangeably (Drehsymmetrie; Richter 1997).Perhaps, therefore, after retouching one of the edges, thefirst notch was created at one of the tips. Then, after edgeblunting, the manufacturing and retouching of the secondedge was done by removing the previous notch andcreating a new one on the opposite end (Figure 7b).Hence, one can assume that the state in which thedescribed artefacts can be seen today is only the finalstage of the entire tool using and reshaping scheme.

There is no direct data pointing to the presence, ofa notch placed at the second tip at earlier knappingstages. In case of the 1951_612 and 1949_788 tools(Figure 5), its existence is impossible due to very littleflake thickness in its apical part. However, even with thesecond notch absent, it is a fact that in case of the1949_786 tool (Figure 7), first the apical part of the firstedge was subjected to intensive use. Then, the secondedge was formed and retouched, and the part near thebase was used. The tool in this respect is, therefore, itsown mirror reflection in the diagonal axis (Figures 6,7a), which can be explained only by changing the tool'sorientation and changing the base into the tip (Richter1997: 204, Uthmeier 2004: 135).

If the described tools are to be regarded as forms withonly one edge used at a time, then the question arises asto the described tools' ergonomics, and mainly the1949_786 tool. What was, then, the purpose of suchprecise convex edge line formation and tip exposure, ifat that time only half of one edge and tip were used?

Comparing the amount of effort put into theformation of both tools (1951_612 and 1949_786) to thefinal effect (the length of the cutting edge), one can havedoubts as to the validity of the presented tool haftingreconstruction. On the other hand, the diagonal locationof the notch, with no technical obstacles for forminga transversal notch which would enable vertical toolhafting, allows for the hypothesis that the artefacts werehafted diagonally.

What is characteristic of the described artefacts is:– edge manufacturing scheme, focused on obtaining

a long, convex edge;– mirror placement of edge sharpening retouch and

usewear in diagonal axis (Figure 7a). The observed edges asymmetry is probably related to

their scheme of knapping and their non-parallel


9

FIGURE 7. Artefact 1949_786. (a) usewear placement on theedges. Red marks edge fragment with intensive usewear, yellow–less intensive usewear, blue–edge without usewear; (b)hypothetical hafting of group II tools according to visible notchesand usewear placement. The scheme depicts two usage phaseswith one tool edge being used first and the other one next. Originaldrawing after Zotz (1955: Fig. 4.6).

manufacturing process. This means that one of the edgeswas formed from the beginning until the end, and onlythen the second. Such a manufacturing process indicatesthat the edges and their profiles were more importantthan their symmetry, which might have even not beentaken into account. The edges, then, do not have shapingsequences. Every consecutive sequence follows the edgeshape formed by the previous sequence, only slightlyaffecting the overall edge shape. In case of these tools,getting a straight edge profile appears to be a majorfeature in relation to the rest of tool. Also, the system ofnotches, with a large notch at the base, indicates that atthis point, for the purpose of producing or resharpeningone of the edges, it was possible to partly remove theopposite edge or blunt it by producing a series of notches(1951_612).

Group IIIThe largest group consists of broken tools which were

retouched and rejuvenated after breaking. These toolshave two edges processed in parallel and treated with

identical types of removals, one of the edges is usuallymore convex, but this is not a rule.

The tools, like other bifacially worked artefacts fromMauern, are plano-convex, which is the result ofdifferent tool surfaces treatment. At the same time, edgeswere formed simultaneously during the toolmanufacturing process, but also after the breakage whenretouch was provided analogously on both edges.

All artefacts included in this group have transversalfracture scars at the base (Figure 8). Most tools werebroken in about half of their length. Each of thedescribed artefacts was retouched after fracture. It isinteresting that in most cases, the fracture appearedafter the edge formation stage and before the edgeretouch stage. In this case, both edges were retouchedonly after the transversal fracture. Only the 1951_604,1949_777 and 1951_618 tools have retouchingsequences made on one of the edges before breaking(or the analysis did not allow to establish with fullcertainty that retouching was performed after fracture).In all three cases, the second edge is retouched after


10

FIGURE 8. Group III tools shape comparison and edge profile scheme. The scheme also shows notches placement.

fracture, whereas there are no traces of post-fracturerepair applied on the first edge.

From the perspective of the manufacturing process,the tools were formed analogously to group I tools.

I. Surface formation. By performing flat, broadremovals on both surfaces.

II. Edge formation. At this stage, edge shape andprofile correcting removals are derived. The removalsare less extensive than during surface formation, but theygo far onto the tool's surface. Their aim is also to thin thethickest blank parts. Removals are not performed alongthe entire edge length, but only where this is necessary.

III. Transversal fracture. An impact point is visibleon three fracture scars. In the following four cases onecan recognise that the tool was broken by a percussionintroduced in the middle of either the lower or the upperface. In three cases, the scar is not clearly visible or itsobservation was not detailed enough to unambiguouslydetermine the fracture's nature. If the fracture scarsrequired correction, its surface was additionallyretouched (1951_620, 1951_604), or the angle betweenthe fracture scar and the edge was removed with a seriesof steep removals (1951_618, 1949_787, 1951_620).

IV. Edge retouch and potential repairs. Edgeretouch was derived according to the bottom-top scheme,where a flat removal series on the lower face was donefirst, and then a convex surface was formed with semi-flat removals retouching the upper face. If necessary,a further series of minor edge profile correcting removalswas derived along the lower face. The tools are, then,retouched on both edges to the upper face. Two of thedescribed tools (1951_620 and 1951_626) have anirregular edge profile caused by applying a denticulatedmarginal retouch. This may indicate that the edges wererepaired, and this caused their blunting. Additionally, the1951_626 tool was retouched on both surfaces. Theremaining tools show neither repair signs nor edgeresharpening removals.

V. Notches. Eight of the described tools have notchesalong their edges (Figure 8). They differ amongthemselves in both their size and their creation intensity:from those with a single truncation on the edge up tothose formed with multiple, steep removals (1951_620).In most cases, the notch shows signs of wear, which canbe the trace of usewear, or getting worn in the haftingprocess. In three cases, semi-steep or steep removalswere derived on the tip, resulting in its removing andblunting, or even more, creating a notch on the tip(1951_620 1951_621, 1951_642). The described notchesmay be related to the notches at the base observed ingroup II tools, and therefore could have been used for

tool hafting the tool. This conclusion, however, is nota definite one.

One should take into account the fact that thedescribed artefacts' shape was acquired by these formsafter the base fracture. In addition to that, the artefactsare characterised by lack of retouching on the very tip,which moves it off the axis.

All of the presented features, that is: the transversalfracture, impact point visible on some fracture scars, noretouching or only partial retouching before breakage,parallel retouching of both edges after breakage or theretouch of an edge non-retouched earlier, indicate thatthese tools had been intentionally broken after the edgeformation stage. Subsequent production stages and edgeretouches, ran analogously to those in, e.g. group I tools.It therefore cannot be said that the described tools werereshaped after fracture and that their original concept wasdifferent from the ultimate effect.

Even if group III tools were not broken intentionally,which seems to have been successfully proved above,they bear witness to the re-usage of failed preforms ofother unfinished bifacial tools. The post-fracture care forboth edges, with parallel lack of concern for the tip, oreven its obliteration with steep removals, testify to thefact that these artefacts should be seen as double workingedge tools (probably not at the same time, butinterchangeably).

Other toolsAn interesting tool is 1951_663 (Figure 9). This is

a completely bifacially knapped tool with one edgestraight and the other convex. The tool is equallyknapped both at the tip and the base, both tip areunexposed. In case of the described tool, the upper or thelower face cannot be considered since the tool, whenconvex at the tip, it is flat at the base and vice versa onthe other face. Perhaps such a form is due to the originalshape of blank used for tools production. However, thisshape was used to create a tool whose base is the mirrorimage of its tip after the tool's rotation by 180° (Figure9). Its production was therefore performed in such a waythat when rotated, the tool was still functional.

DISCUSSION

Bifacially worked tools from Mauern are calledleafpoints in a literature of subject (Allsworth-Jones1986, 1990, Bohmers 1951, Bolus 2004, Bosinski 1967,Hopkinson 2007, Koenigswald et al. 1974, Zotz 1955).The majority of the analysed material fits the general


11

typological definition of a leafpoint. However, thetechnological analysis revealed that in case of Mauern,from the perspective of the manufacturer's plan, thegreatest emphasis was put on creating straight in profile,long, sharp edges. The analysed tools from Mauernexhibit therefore a different mental tool template thanleafpoints. The whole manufacturing process of thesetools differed because of its different aims. Bifacial tools

from Mauern, contrary to leafpoints, did not indicate thatsymmetry was meticulously planned (Kot 2013, inpress). Moreover, some of the artefacts becamesymmetrical only as a result of later repairs. The toolsare characterised by the primacy for their sharpness overthe shape can be seen.

The tools are plano-convex in cross section, which iscaused by different treatment of both tool surfaces, oneof which is flat, and the other one is convex andretouched. The scheme was applied in a bottom-top-bottom-top manner by introducing flat removals onto thelower face and semi-flat onto the upper face. All of thiswas done on first, and then on the second edge. Sucha bottom-top-bottom-top edge scheme is substantiallydifferent from the plano-convex/plano-convex onedescribed by Boëda (1995a, 1995b) where one edge isformed semi-abruptly on one face and flat on the other,and only then the second edge is knapped analogicallybut alternately, which contributes to the tool's biconvexcross-section. In such cases, the abrupt removals wereaimed at preparing an appropriate angle for further flatremovals on the opposite face. In case of Mauern, firstthe flat removals were derived on the lower face, andonly after the semi-flat ones on the upper face. On theother hand, the scheme was also substantially differentfrom WGK described by Bosinski (1967) because oneedge was created first, and only then the second one wasknapped. The WGK scheme is aimed at creating all thetools surfaces and edges (the back, the cutting edge, thebase etc.) simultaneously, whereas in Mauern one isdealing with a tool concept focused on creating only thecutting edge.

The raw material (Plattensilex) used to produce toolsfrom Mauern certainly conditioned the tools' form andknapping scheme in itself. The thickness of material wastoo small to create tools according to the scheme of knifeused in typical Keilmesser forms, e.g. Klausennische,Königsaue A (Burdukiewicz 2000, Jöris 2006, Kot inpress, Mania, Toepfer 1973, Obermaier 1927, Obermaier,Wernert 1914, 1929). A knife is a tool whose main aim isto maintain the cutting edge; thus, it is an essential, andsupposedly also functional artefact part (Kot 2013, inpress). The Keilmessers are constructed in a way whichenables multiple resharpening of single edge without itsblunting. The main goal of the repair process is toresharpen/rejuvenate the edge without losing its straightprofile. The other edges, particularly the distal posterioredge, are created due to the need of adjusting the angle ofthe cutting edge during subsequent resharpening stages.

In case of tools from Mauern, the raw material didnot allow for producing tools with a thickness big


12

FIGURE 9. Edges arrangement scheme of 1951_663 tool. The toolbeing symmetrical after its reorientation achieved through rotatingit in its vertical and horizontal axes. Original drawing afterBohmers (1951: Taf. 41.1).

enough for subsequent rejuvenation of one edge.Nevertheless, the thin slabs enabled the production oflong working edges. It was logical, therefore, to changethe manufacturing scheme of subsequent repairs of oneedge into creating a tool, in which it would be possibleto use interchangeably consecutive edge fragments. Thenafter one part of the edge was exhausted, the other partcould be used. At the same time, notches would enabletool hafting with the use of a subsequent tool part. Thedescribed bottom-tom-bottom-top edge scheme ofknapping can also be treated as a consequence ofadjusting the manufacturing process to the smallthickness of flint slabs.

CONCLUSIONS

All the described Mauern items have several commonfeatures. On one hand both edges were formed withidentical removal series, analogously to each other; bothedges were also retouched. On the other hand most toolsshow certain edges asymmetry, one of which is moreconvex than the other. They do not bear traces offormation or any special treatment aimed at preservingtool symmetry. Sequences which would enhance theedge asymmetry and form the tool shape are notablyabsent.

The manufacturing process was divided into threemain stages: surface formation, edge formation andretouch. Between those main steps breakages couldappear (group III). Both edges were not necessarilyknapped simultaneously (group II), but one edge couldhave been prepared by applying sequences of removalof all three stages, and only then the second edge couldhave been done. Such formation of the edgessymmetrical in the diagonal axis of the edge, theplacement of the use-wear and the system on notchessuggests the reorientation of tools during therejuvenation stage.

The described features give us grounds to concludethat we are dealing rather with leaf-shaped knives or"leafknives" instead of leafpoints. Such a concept is moresimilar to the Micoquian Keilmesser than to a leafpoint,which can strengthen the conclusions by Richter (1997)and Uthmeier (2004) that Altmühlian has no particularcultural significance. Bifacial tools from Mauern shallbe therefore seen more as an adjustment to the specificityof raw material than as a significant feature of a separatecultural entity.

REFERENCES

ALLSWORTH-JONES P., 1986: The Szeletian and the transitionfrom Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in central Europe.Clarendon Press, Oxford.

ALLSWORTH-JONES P., 1990: The Szeletian and thestratigraphie succession in Central Europe and adjacent areas:Main trends, recent results, and problems for resolution. In:P. Mellars (Ed.): The Emergence of modern humans: Anarchaeological perspective. Pp. 160–242. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh.

BOËDA E., 1995a: Caractéristiques techniques des chaînesopératoires lithiques des niveaux micoquiens de Külna(Tchécoslovaquie). Les industries à pointes foliacées d'Europecentrale, Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, 10–15 septembre1991. Paléo, supplément 1: 57.

BOËDA E., 1995b: Steinartefakt-Produktionssequenzen imMicoquien der Kulna-Höhle. Quartär 45–46: 75–98.

BOËDA E., 2000: Les techniques des hommes de la préhistoirepour interroger le présent. Cours d'Éric Boëda, septième écoled'été de l'ARCO, Bonas, 10–21 juillet 2000.

BOËDA E., 2001: Détermination des unités techno-fonctionnellesde pièces bifaciales provenant de la couche acheuléenne C'3base du site de Barbas I. Les industries à outils bifaciaux duPaléolithique moyen d'Europe occidentale. Actes de la table-ronde internationale organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie – France) – 14 et 15 octobre 1999, Liège. ERAUL 98: 51–75.

BOËDA E., HOU Y. M., FORESTIER H., SAREL J., WANGH. M., 2013: Levallois and non-Levallois blade production atShuidonggou in Ningxia, North China. QuaternaryInternational 295: 191–203.

BOHMERS A., 1939: Die Ausgrabungen in den Höhlen vonMauern. Germanien 4: 151–156.

BOHMERS A., 1951: Die Höhlen von Mauern. Palaeohistoria 1:1–107.

BOLUS M., 2004: Settlement analysis of sites of the Blattspitzencomplex in central Europe. In: N. J. Conard (Ed.): Settlementdynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age II.Pp. 201–226. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.

BOSINSKI G., 1967: Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde imwestlichen Mitteleuropa. Böhlau–Verlag, Cologne–Graz.

BOURGUIGNON L., 1992: Analyse du processus opératoire descoups de tranchet latéraux dans l' industrie moustérienne de l' abridu Musée (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne). Paléo 4: 69–89.

BURDUKIEWICZ J. M., 2000: The backed biface assemblagesof East Central Europe. In: A. Ronen, M. Weinstein-Evron(Eds.): Toward modern humans: the Yabrudian andMicoquian, 400–50 k-years ago: Proceedings of a congressheld at the University of Haifa, November 3–9, 1996. BAR IS850. Pp. 159–169. Archaeopress, Oxford.

CHMIELEWSKI W., 1961: Civilisation de Jerzmanowice. ZakładNarodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków.

CZIESLA E., 1989: Siedlungsdynamik auf steinzeitlichenFundplätzen methodische Aspekte zur Analyse latenterStrukturen. Studies in modern archaeology. Holos, Bonn.


13

DZAMBAZOV N., 1967: Палеолитно находище при с. Муселиево,Плевенски окръг [Paleolitno nahodishte pri c. Muselievo,Plevenski okrug]. АРХЕОЛОГИЯ [Archeologia] 10, 2: 54–64.

DZAMBAZOV N., 1971: Начало на късния палеолит в България [Nachalo na kisnja Paleolit w Bulgarja].АРХЕОЛОГИЯ [Archeologia] 13, 4: 1–16.

FREUND G., 1952: Die Blattspitzen des Paläolithikums inEuropa. Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn.

FREUND G., 1954: Les industries à pointes foliacées duPaléolithique en Europe centrale (A propos du "Présolutréen").Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France 51, 3/4: 183–192.

FREUND G., 1987: Das Paläolithikum der Oberneder-Höhle(Landkreis Kelheim/Donau). Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn.

GÁBORI-CSÁNK V., 1990: Le Jankovichien en Hongrie del'Ouest. Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieurancien en Europe. Nemours: Musée de Préhistoire d'Ile-de-France. Mémoires 3: 97–102.

GÁBORI-CSÁNK V., 1993: Le Jankovichien: Une civilisationpaleolithique en Hongrie. Etudes et RecherchesArchéologiques de l'Université de Liège.

GINTER B., KOZŁOWSKI J. K., 1975: Techniki obróbkii typologia wyrobów kamiennych paleolitu i mezolitu.Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa.

GRAßKAMP S., 2001: Die mittelpaläolithischen Blattspitzen vonRörshain (Schwalmtal, Hessen), Grabung 1965. MasterThesis. Cologne University.

HAESAERTS P., SIRAKOVA S., 1979: Le paléolithique moyenà pointes foliacées de Mousselievo (Bulgarie). PraceArchaeologiczne 28: 36–63.

HILLEBRAND J., 1935: Die ältere Steinzeit Ungarns. MagyarTorténeti Múzeum, Budapest.

HOPKINSON T., 2007: The Middle Palaeolithic leaf points ofEurope: ecology, knowledge and scale. BAR InternationalSeries 1663. Archaeopress, Oxford.

HÜLLE W., 1977: Die Ilsenhähle unter Burg Ranis inThüringen. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.

JÖRIS O., 2006: Bifacially backed knives (Keilmesser) in theCentral European Middle Palaeolithic. In: N. Goren-Inbar,S. Gonen (Eds.): Axe age: Acheulian Tool-making from quarryto discard. Pp. 287–310. Equinox Publishing Limited,London.

KADIČ O., 1916: Ergebnisse der Erforschungder Szeletahöhle.Mitteilungen aus dem Jahrbuch der kgl. UngarischenGeologischen Reichsanstalt 23: 161–301.

KOENIGSWALD W. V., MULLER-BECK H. J., 1975: DasPleistozän der Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern). Quartär26: 107–119.

KOENIGSWALD W. V., MULLER-BECK H. J., PRESSMAR E.,1974: Die Archäologie und Paläontologie in denWeinberghohlen bei Mauern (Bayern): Grabungen 1937–1967.Selbstverlag Institut fur Urgeschichte, Tübingen.

KOT M., 2013: The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic bifacialleafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. Technologicalapproach. PhD Thesis. Warsaw University, Warsaw.

KOT M., in press: The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic leafpoints inCentral and Southern Europe. Technological approach. Humansettlement in Europe, MIS 8–3. Quaternary International.

KOZŁOWSKI J. K., 2003: From bifaces to leaf points. In: M. Soressi,H. L. Dibble (Eds.): Multiple approaches to the study of bifacialtechnologies. Pp. 149–164. University of Pennsylvania Museumof Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

LUTTROPP A., BOSINSKI G., 1967: Rörshain, Kr. Ziegenhain.Fundberichte aus Hessen Wiesbaden 7: 13–18.

MANIA D., TOEPFER V., 1973: Konigsaue: Gliederung,Okologie und mittelpalaolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit.Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin.

MESTER Z., 2008: Les outils foliacés de la grotte Jankovich: larenaissance d'un problème ancien. Praehistoria 8–9: 67–84.

MESTER Z., 2010: Technological analysis of Szeletian bifacialpoints from Szeleta Cave (Hungary). In: L. Longo (Ed.):Integrated methodological approaches to the study of lithictools. Pp. 107–123. Human Evolution (Firenze) 25, 1–2.

MIGAL W., URBANOWSKI M., 2006: Pradnik knives reuse.Experimental approach. In: T. Wiśniewski, A. Płonka, J. M.Burdukiewicz (Eds.): The Stone. Technique and technology.Pp. 73–89, Wrocław.

OBERMAIER H., 1927: Der skulptierte Rengeweihstab aus dermittleren Klausenhöhle bei Essing (Niederbayern). Klinkhardt& Biermann.

OBERMAIER H., WERNERT P., 1914: Die Klausennische beiNeu-Essing (Niederbayern). Paläolithbeiträge ausNordbayern 44: 53–55.

OBERMAIER H., WERNERT P., 1929: Alt-Paläolithikum mitBlatt-Typen. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaftin Wien 59: 293–310.

OLIVA M., 1984: Le Bohunicien, un nouveau groupe culturel enMoravie: quelques aspects psycho-technologiques dudéveloppement des industries paléolithiques. L' Anthropologie88, 2: 209–220.

PROŠEK F., 1953: Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenská Archeologia1: 133–194.

RICHTER J., 1997: Sesselfelsgrotte III: der G-Schichten-Komplexder Sesselfelsgrotte: zum Verstandnis des Micoquien.Saarbrucker Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbrucken.

RICHTER J., 2001: Une analyse standarisée des chainesopératoires sur les pièces foliacées du Paleolithique moyentardif. In: L. Bourgignon, I. Ortega, M.-C. Frère-Sautot (Eds.):Une analyse standarisée des chaines opératoires sur les piècesfoliacées du Paleolithique moyen tardif. Pp. 77–78.Universität zu Köln, Köln.

RICHTER J., 2009: The role of leaf points in the Late MiddlePalaeolithic of Germany. Praehistoria 9–10: 99–115.

RINGER A., 1983: Bábonyien e. mittelpalaolit. Blattwerkzeug -industrie in Nordostungarn. Eötvös Loránd TudományegyetemRégészeti Intézetéből, Budapest.

RINGER A., 2000: Le Complexe techno typologique duBábonyien-Szélétien de la Hongrie de Nord-Est et leYabroudien. In: A. Ronen, M. Weinstein-Evron (Eds.): Towardmodern humans: the Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400–50 k-yearsago: Proceedings of a congress held at the University of Haifa,November 3–9, 1996. BAR International Series 850. Pp. 181–183. Archaeopress, Oxford.

RINGER A., KORDOS L., 1995: Le complexe babonyien-szeletien en Hongrie du nord-est dans son cadre chronologique


14

et environnemental. Les industries à pointes foliacéesd'Europe centrale, Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, 10–15septembre 1991. Paléo, supplément 1: 27–30.

SIRAKOVA S., IVANOVA S., 1988: Le site paléolithique près duvillage Muselievo, département de Pleven. Studiapraehistorica 9: 63–77.

SORESSI M., DIBBLE H. L., CLARK J. D., 2003: Multipleapproaches to the study of bifacial technologies. Universityof Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

SORESSI M., HAYS M. A., 2003: Manufacture, transport and useof Mousterian bifaces. A case study from the Perigord(France). In: M. Soressi, H. L. Dibble (Eds.): Multipleapproaches to the study of bifacial technologies. Pp. 125–147.The University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.

URBANOWSKI M., 2004: Pradnik knives as an element ofMicoquian techno-stylistic specifics. PhD Thesis. WarsawUniversity.

UTHMEIER T., 2004: Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien inBayern: Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel- zumJungpaläolithikum (Archäologische Berichte). Rudolf Habelt,Kerpen-Loogh; Bonn.

VALOCH K., 1976: Die altsteinzeitliche Fundstelle in Brno-Bohunice. Academia, Praha.

VALOCH K., 1982: Neue paläolitische Funde von Brno-Bohunice. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. Soc. 67: 31–48.

VALOCH K., 2008: Brno-Bohunice, eponymous Bohunician site:new data, new ideas. In: Z. Sulgostowska, A. J. Tomaszewski(Eds.): Man–Millennia–Environment: studies in honour ofRomuald Schild. Pp. 225–236. Institute of Archaeology andEthnology, Polish Academy, Warsaw.

ZOTZ L., 1955: Das Paläolithikum in den Weinberghöhlen beiMauern. L. Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn.

ZOTZ L., 1959: Noch eine Blattspitze von Mauern, Ldkr. Neuburga. d. D. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 24: 78–79.

Małgorzata KotInstytut ArcheologiiUniwersytet Warszawskiul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/2800-927 WarszawaPolandE-mail: [email protected]

Jürgen RichterInstitut für Ur- und FrühgeschichteWeyertal 1250-50923 KölnGermanyE-mail: [email protected]


15

leafpoints or rather leafknives? a technological...

Documents