Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant 9781841714936, 9781407325132

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
The Lower Palaeolithic Sites at Schöningen, Lower Saxony, Germany
Bilzingsleben - Homo erectus, his culture and his environment. The most important results of research
The small flint tool industry from Bilzingsleben - Steinrinne
Lower Palaeolithic sites with small artefacts in Poland
A new Lower Palaeolithic site with a small toolset at Raèinìves (Central Bohemia)
Changing environment - unchanged culture at Vértesszőlős, Hungary
The small tools of Evron-Quarry, western Galilee, Israel
The use of raw material at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Bizat Ruhama, Israel
Small instruments of the Lower Palaeolithic site Kuldara and their geoarchaeological meaning
The role of raw material in explaining tool assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China
Some Observation on Microlithic Assemblages in Central Europe during Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Kůlna and Předmostí II (Czech Republic), Vértesszőlős and Tata (Hungary)
The Taubachian, a Middle Palaeolithic Small Tool Industry from the Czech Republic and Slovakia
The Middle Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage from Wrocław, Southwest Poland
Palaeolithic micro-industries: value and significance
Research problems of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assemblages

Citation preview

BAR S1115 2003 BURDUKIEWICZ & RONEN (Eds): LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SMALL TOOLS IN EUROPE AND THE LEVANT

B A R

blue cover template.indd 1

Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant Edited by

Jan Michaá Burdukiewicz Avraham Ronen

BAR International Series 1115 2003

11/11/2009 12:23:03

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1115 Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2003 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841714936 paperback ISBN 9781407325132 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714936 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Jan Michał Burdukiewicz and Avraham Ronen, Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5 1. Hartmut Thieme, Lower Palaeolithic Sites at Schöningen, Lower Saxony, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 9 2. Dietrich Mania and Ursula Mania, Bilzingsleben - Homo erectus, his culture and his environment. The most important results of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3. Enrico Brühl, The small flint tool industry from Bilzingsleben - Steinrinne . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 49 4. Jan Michał Burdukiewicz, Lower Palaeolithic sites with small artefacts in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .65 5. Jan Fridrich and Ivana Sýkorová, A new Lower Palaeolithic site with a small toolset at Račiněves (Central Bohemia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 93 6. Viola T. Dobosi, Changing environment - unchanged culture at Vértesszőlős, Hungary . . . . . . . . . .101 7. Avraham Ronen, The small tools of Evron-Quarry, western Galilee, Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 113 8. Yossi Zaidner, The use of raw material at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Bizat Ruhama, Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 121 9. Vadim A. Ranov and Andrei E. Dodonov, Small instruments of the Lower Palaeolithic site Kuldara and their geoarchaeological meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 133 10. Susan G. Keates, The role of raw material in explaining tool assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 149 11. Marie-Hélene Moncel, Some Observations on Microlithic Assemblages in Central Europe during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Kůlna and Předmostí II (Czech Republic), Vértesszőlős and Tata (Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 169 12. Karel Valoch, The Taubachian, a Middle Palaeolithic Small Tool Industry in the Czech Republic and Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .189 13. Andrzej Wiśniewski, The Middle Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage from Wrocław, Southwest Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207 14. Marcel Otte, Palaeolithic micro-industries: value and significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 15. Jan Michał Burdukiewicz and Avraham Ronen, Research problems of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assmblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

3

4

Preface Jan Michał Burdukiewicz and Avraham Ronen

In accordance with ESF (European Science Foundation) regulations, Exploratory Workshops with a maximum of 20 participants were designed to encourage researchers from across Europe to put forward innovative and creative ideas in European research. The workshop ‘Lower Palaeolithic small tools in Europe and the Levant’ was accordingly held in Liège (Belgium) between September 3 - 7, 2001, in cooperation with the XIVth Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. (International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences)1. Since the excavations in Vértesszőlős (Hungary) in the 1960s, Lower Palaeolithic assemblages with very small tools have been known in Europe and referred to as microlithic assemblages. They were so different from the known European Lower Palaeolithic assemblages, that the Hungarian archaeologist L. Vértes introduced the new generic name Buda industry. At Vértesszőlős, dated to c. 350 kyr BP, were discovered small tools associated with constructed hearths confirming the early use of fire. Later, similar small artefacts were found at Bilzingsleben (Thuringia, Germany), one of the richest Lower Palaeolithic sites in Europe, with over 140,000 small stone artefacts, few larger pebble tools, several thousand animal bones and various activity areas, not usually preserved in Lower Palaeolithic sites. Bilzingsleben is dated by biostratigraphic and various physical methods to about 350 kyr BP. Both Vértesszőlős and Bilzingsleben, with their non-Acheulean assemblages are key sites in early European prehistory due to the excellent preservation, in travertine sediments, of human fossils, numerous animal bones as well as plant remains. Later thousands of very small flint artefacts were found during road construction at Isernia (Central Italy), with larger limestone choppers and numerous faunal remains. The site was dated by the K/Ar method to c. 730 kyr BP. Recently, additional non-Acheulean sites have been discovered in Central Italy, dated to between 300 - 500 kyr BP. In the 1980s, a new non-Acheulean site, la Pointe de Saint-Colomban, was discovered and excavated in marine deposits off Brittany at Carnac (France). This is the first site of this type to be located that far west from Central Europe. The flake and pebble tools of Saint-Colomban are so different from the regional Acheulean, that the name “Colombanian” was proposed for this new taxonomic unit. Another assemblage similar to that of la Pointe de Saint-Colomban was excavated in the 1990s in the closely located site of Menez-Drégan in Plouhinec. Dated to c. 460 kyr BP, the site contains traces of hearths. Additional sites with small tool assemblages were found in the late 1980s and 1990s in deep Middle Pleistocene deposits in the open-cast mines of Trzebnica and Rusko in Silesia (Poland). They are covered by Elsterian and Saalian glacial deposits, and their age may accordingly be estimated at around 500 and 350 kyr BP. A long-term archaeological survey project of the open-cast lignite mine at Schöningen (Lower Saxony, Germany) resulted in the outstanding discovery, in 1995, of wooden spears accompanied by small flake tools in organogenic sediments covered by Saalian glacial deposits. Further research of the Schöningen Quaternary deposits has brought to light spectacular wooden tools associated with small flint tools and many faunal and floral remains, including fossils of butchered horses. The Schöningen spears are currently the oldest wooden hunting weapons known in the world. Outside of Europe, sites containing small-tool assemblages have been found in Israel. The richest and oldest of these sites is Bizat Ruhama in the Northern Negev desert, excavated in 1996. Based on stratigraphy, palaeomagnetic measurements and isotopic methods, an age of c. 800 kyr BP was established for Bizat Ruhama. The faunal remains include horse, bovid and possibly hippopotamus. Scant charcoal remains and badly preserved, perhaps burnt, bones indicate the possible use of fire at Bizat Ruhama. A large piece of yellow ochre is one of the oldest occurrences of colorants in a human habitation, if not the oldest. Thus, the

5

presence of well-excavated small-tool assemblages in the Levant and in some regions of Europe adds a new dimension to the Lower Palaeolithic period. It remains to be established how the new taxonomic units relate to the traditional taxonomic units such as the Acheulean tradition or the pebble tool complex. The chronological framework of the small -tool assemblages is between c. 1000 and 300 kyr ago. In China small tools occurred throughout the Palaeolithic; and they existed beside sites with large tools, mainly central China. The oldest sites presently known are in China: Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo, in the Nihewan Basin, at least 1 myr old. The youngest sites with small tools are known form Eemian and early Weichselian period in Central and Western Europe. The technological similarities between the microlithic assemblages may simply indicate adaptation to local raw material resources or some ecological niches. On the other hand, the phenomenon may perhaps indicate a special technology or tradition. In this context, precise chronology of the sites may disclose the possible direction of migrations or in reverse, converge local innovations. The best recognized small tools are known from Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods, when they were used as inserts in composite tools. Is it possible that such idea appeared already in the Lower Palaeolithic? The international workshop ‘Lower Palaeolithic small tools in Europe and the Levant’ was the first meeting of professionals working on the taxonomic significance, chronology and culture of microlithic assemblages. The validity of the various regional names proposed for these assemblages, “Buda Industry”, “Lower Palaeolithic Microlithic Tradition”, “Colombanian”, “Archaic Industries” or “Taubachian” was discussed during the conference. Some traits may indicate symbolic behaviour on the part of the makers of the small-tool assemblages: Thus, the use of ochre in Ruhama and the possible (though questionable) treatment of fragmented human skulls at Vértesszőlős and Bilzingsleben may be interpreted in this vein. The presence of microlithic artefacts together with well-balanced wooden spears are indicative of composite tools, and testify to the high technological level of the bearers of this tradition. Perhaps the very occurrence of small tools reflects a wooded environment, where hafting required the production of small stone tools. List of participants and titles of talks Pilar LOPEZ (ESF/SCH representative; CSIC - Centro de Estudios Historicos, Madrid, Spain) Presentation of the European Science Foundation and ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) Jan M. BURDUKIEWICZ and Avraham RONEN Introduction Yossi ZAIDNER (Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Israel) Bizat Ruhama, A Lower Palaeolithic small-tool site in the southern Coastal Plain, Israel Laura LONGO (Conservatore Preistoria, Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Italy), Carlo PERETTO and Antonella MINELLI (Dipartimento di Scienze Geologische e Paleontologische, Universita di Ferrara, Italy) Middle Pleistocene flake industries: a typological dilemma or a behavioural strategy? The case of Italy (not received for publication) Viola T. DOBOSI (Hungarian National Museum, Hungary) Changing environment and unchanging tool-kit during the life-span of the Vértesszőlős early man settlement Jan M. BURDUKIEWICZ (Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Poland) Lower Palaeolithic small artefacts in Poland Hartmut THIEME (Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Germany) The Lower Palaeolithic site of Schöningen, Lower Saxony Dietrich MANIA and Ursula MANIA (Forschungsstelle Bilzingsleben, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Germany; presented by Jan M. Burdukiewicz) The Lower Palaeolithic site of Bilzingsleben (Germany) - the most important results of research since 1969 Enrico BRÜHL (Forschungsstelle Bilzingsleben, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Germany) The small flint tool industry from Bilzingsleben - Steinrinne Jan FRIDRICH and Ivana SÝKOROVÁ (Archaeological Institute of Czech Academy of the Science, Czech Republik) New Lower Palaeolithic site with small tools at Račiněves (Central Bohemia) Marie-Helene MONCEL (Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Paris, France) Les types d'exploitation de petits galets de sites a industrie microlithiques du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen d'Europe Centrale : les exemples de Předmostí et Kůlna en République Tcheque et Vértesszőlős et Tata en Hongrie Karel VALOCH (Anthropos Institute of Moravian Museum, Czech Republik) Middle Palaeolithic Small Tool Industries in the Czech Republic

6

Andrzej WIŚNIEWSKI (Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Poland) The Middle Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage from Wrocław, SW Poland Nathalie MOLINES (Laboratoire d'Anthropologie, Université de Rennes, France) The pebble-tool industries from the site of Menez-Dregan (Plouhinec, Finistere, France): cultural and palaeoenvironnemental approach (not received for publication) Vadim A. RANOV (Research Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan) The small tools in Lower Palaeolithic industries of the Loessic Palaeolithic (Tajikistan) Susan G. KEATES (Institute of Biological Anthropology, University of Oxford, Great Britain) The role of raw material in explaining assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China Yamei HOU and Weiwen HUANG (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China) Small tool industry of the Lower Palaeolithic site Donggutuo in the Nihewan Basin, North China (not received for publication) Jan M. BURDUKIEWICZ and Avraham RONEN Comparative analysis and discussion on of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic raw material, technologies, subsistence and cultural equipment. Future international cooperation and research projects. Dr. K. Valoch, the senior participant of the workshop, chaired the first scientific session. It became quite obvious that the main aim of the exploratory workshop, the comparative technological and stylistic analysis of the small tool assemblages in Europe and Asia, was a very interesting point of discussion for the participants. The contributors had not expected that human groups, which produced small lithic tools had settled such an extensive area of Asia and Europe. Small tool sites have recently become known in Asia from Israel through Tajikistan to eastern China and in Europe from Italy in the south to Poland and Germany in the north. There was a lively discussion of the environmental settings, in which small tool assemblages have been found and of the chronological framework. It emerged that the oldest sites with small tools are known from Chinese sites in Eastern Asia. The most surprising presentation was about the discovery of wooden spears and other wooden tools found recently by Dr. H. Thieme at Schöningen near Hannover (Germany). It became clear that small lithic tools had been part of much larger composite tools made from wood or other organic material and hard stone inserts. The discussion was prolonged after the scientific session. On Wednesday, 5 September 2001, the participants took part in the excursions organised by the U.I.S.P.P. to the Middle Palaeolithic sites in Belgium: Veldwezelt-Hezerwater in Wandersanden, Spy Cave, Goyet Cave, the caves of the Mehaigne Valley and Sclayn Cave. Several caves were excavated in the 19th century and their archaeological finds are now widely dispersed in various museums. The most interesting research results are from the recently excavated sites VeldwezeltHezerwater and Sclayn Cave. During the excursions original archaeological material was shown, and participants discussed methods of archaeological and palaeoecological research. The third day of the workshop was held in the Hotel Campanile, where a morning session and exhibition of microlithic artefacts had been organised. Professor C. Peretto of the University of Ferrara, chaired the session, which arrangement was somewhat changed because of a damaged slide projector and an additional lecture by a Chinese archaeologist. The main topic of the session was the use of microlithic technology by Middle Palaeolithic human populations in Central Europe. Did they continue a tradition developed already in the Lower Palaeolithic or did they create their own concept of small tool production? A resin haft for a flint tool was recently found in the deposits of the Neumark-Nord site in South-Eastern Germany by Professor Mania's team. This kind of haft shows that microlithic inserts were used in the Middle Palaeolithic. During the second part of the session the western and eastern-most sites with small tools were presented. The MenezDregan site in Plouhinec is located at the western end of Brittany (France), close to the Atlantic shoreline. In Central and Eastern Asia, small tools are much richer and more numerous and also much older than in Europe. Dr. Yamei Hou presented an additional lecture on the small tools from the Donggutuo site in China, one of the easternmost and oldest sites. The session ended with a discussion of the definition of small tools. Another important point raised during the workshop is the lack of comparable analysis of lithic assemblages in the various countries. The opportunity given by the European Science Foundation for participants to meet each other enabled them to discover the extent of the differences in local approaches to archaeological data analysis. Several participants proposed the continuation of the subject in future international cooperation and additional meetings. Professor P. Lopez, the representative of the ESF, supported such a proposal.

7

Later in the day the exhibition of the lithic artefacts series was officially opened in the conference room of the Hotel Campanile. On view were also distinctive examples of raw material from the sites with small tools brought by the participants. Outdoors, Dr. S. Keates and some other participants demonstrated knapping experiments and flaking techniques used in the Lower Palaeolithic of Asia and Europe. The exhibition enabled direct comparison of the small artefacts from different countries. This opportunity was a result of the exploratory workshop. For an hour participants in small groups examined artefacts from the different countries. They observed an extraordinary similarity of the artefacts from very remote collections: Germany, Poland, Israel, Tajikistan and China. The shape and size of many artefacts was more or less the same. How to explain such a phenomenon? After the break the participants continued a general discussion of the definition of “small tools”, also called “microlithic artefacts”, “microflake assemblages” or “archaic industries”. What caused such a high degree of similarity of artefacts from different regions? Preliminary ideas varied from a just accidental “opportunistic” approach to raw material used by early humans and to a separate technology or cultural tradition. Some researchers favoured the concept of raw material dependence. Another possible explanation is the influence of ecological adaptation of various human groups to similar environmental circumstances. Further research and international cooperation was proposed to promote a common analytical approach in the description of artefacts based on a widely accepted morphometric attribute analysis and the establishment of a computer database encompassing the various regions. This volume includes papers prepared by the participants of the Exploratory Workshop of the ESF. They are ordered spatially from west to east and temporally from the Lower to the Middle Palaeolithic. Professor Marcel Otte, the general secretary of the XIVth Congress of U.I.S.P.P. Liège, 2001, who was too busy to participate in the workshop, submitted his paper on ‘Palaeolithic micro-industries: value and significance’, for inclusion in this volume. The European Science Foundation supports the publication of the proceedings. The work depended greatly upon help of Dr. Susan Keates, who corrected and critically commented on the papers with generous outlay of her time. We express our warm appreciations to Piotr Jędrzejewski, Andrzej Wiśniewski, David Davison and all participants of the exploratory workshop, who helped much in edition of the book.

Note 1 The Exploratory Workshop of the European Science Foundation, Standing Committee for the Humanities 'Lower Palaeolithic small tools in Europe and the Levant' was organised by J.M. Burdukiewicz, Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław (convenor), A. Ronen, Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa (coordinator) and A. Wiśniewski, Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław (secretary) with very valuable help of Ms Philippa Rowe, Coordinator of ESF Exploratory Workshops Unit. Prof. Marcel Otte, the General Secretary of the XIVth Congress of U.I.S.P.P. Liège, 2001 and his team enabled kindly joining of the workshop with sessions of the XIVth Congress of U.I.S.P.P. The production of this volume was supported by the European Science Foundation and the Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław.

8

LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SMALL TOOLS IN EUROPE AND THE LEVANT Edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen, BAR S1115, 2003, p. 9-28

The Lower Palaeolithic Sites at Schöningen, Lower Saxony, Germany Hartmut Thieme 1 Introduction

1993). The channels and their associated sediments represent a series of interglacial/glacial cycles that have been named Schöningen I-VI (Figs. 1-2) and these indicate an age range from the Holsteinian to the Holocene (Mania 1995a). Channels I-III, which contain limnic sediments, date to the period between the Elster and Saale glacial sensu stricto.

Since 1983 long-term archaeological excavations have been conducted under the direction of the author in the area of the Schöningen brown-coal mine, situated about 100 km east of Hannover. During the course of the ongoing mining operation, an area of more than 350,000 m2 has been excavated in the c. 6 km2 large area of the mine complex, with most sites dating from the Neolithic to the Iron Age (Thieme and Maier 1995, 107). Since 1992, several Lower Palaeolithic sites have been discovered and excavated (8–15 m below the present ground surface) in Middle Pleistocene interglacial sediments (Thieme and Maier 1995, 57 ff.), dating to the Holsteinian complex: The oldest site (Schöningen 13 I), discovered in 1994, is from the earliest part of the Holsteinian complex. Its finds comprise flint artefacts and fossil fauna. The Schöningen 12 site, excavated in 1992, dates to the next following and newly discovered Reinsdorf Interglacial, and from which flint artefacts, a Palaeoloxodon antiquus-fauna and four wooden tools (interpreted as cleft hafts) were recovered. The Schöningen 13 II-4 site (Reinsdorf Interglacial), excavated since the autumn of 1994, has yielded flint artefacts, well preserved faunal remains (mainly of horse), a number of hearths and finds of diverse wooden implements (including a series of spears and a throwing stick).

The oldest interglacial sediments (Schöningen I) probably date to the Holsteinian (Fig. 1). The Schöningen II channel is filled by sediments of the Reinsdorf Interglacial (Thieme et al. 1993) and the ensuing Fuhne cold stage. The depositional sequence contains five levels of organic muds and peats (Fig. 2: 1-5). Level 1 represents both the early and interglacial maxima of the Reinsdorf Interglacial; the upper levels represent cool temperate phases and exhibit frost structures between Levels 4 and 5 (Fig. 2). The Reinsdorf interglacial is a new biostratigraphical unit between the Elster and Saale sensu stricto: palynological analysis by B. Urban (1995) indicates that its vegetational history differs from both the preceding Holsteinian and the succeeding Schöningen (III) interglacials. It is correlated to the Dömnitz Interglacial (Urban 1997). The molluscs of Level 1 of the Reinsdorf Interglacial are a thermophilous fauna rich in species, including Mediterranean and SE-European elements (Helicigona banaticafauna), indicating temperatures two to three degrees warmer than the present day (Thieme and Mania 1993; Mania 1995b). The Schöningen IV channel is younger than the Saale glacial sensu stricto (Drenthe) and consists of an extensive double soil complex (Fig. 2). The infill of channel V is correlated to the (last) Eemian Interglacial, whilst the sixth channel infill is of Holocene age. Work by D. Mania has established a correlation between the Schöningen sequence and the terrace-travertine series at Bilzingsleben in Thuringia, Germany (situated south of the Harz mountains, about 100 km south of Schöningen) (Mania 1993; 1995a; 1995b).

2 Location and stratigraphy The Schöningen opencast mine is located in northern Germany in the northern foreland of the Harz Mountains (1,142 m elevation), at the south-eastern edge of the Triassic limestone ridge called the Elm (323 m elevation). This area belongs to the northern region of the 70 km long sub-herzynic basin between Helmstedt and Staßfurt. The mine covers an area of 6 km2 (6 km long and 1 km wide). In addition to the long-term archaeological excavations the massive sediment layers of the Pleistocene exposures (up to 30 m thick) were constantly monitored and analysed (Mania 1995a; Urban 1993, 1995; Urban et al. 1991a; 1991b).

3 The Lower Palaeolithic sites at Schöningen

The oldest Pleistocene deposits so far exposed in the mine are the sediments of the Elster Glaciation (Fig. 1). Above those sediments a series of six major erosional channels has been documented since 1992 in the southern part of the Schöningen open-cast mine (Fig. 2; Thieme and Mania

Since 1992, several Lower Palaeolithic sites have been discovered and excavated in Middle Pleistocene interglacial sediments, dating to the Holsteinian complex (Figs. 1, 2). Two of these sites, Schöningen 12 and Schöningen 13 II-4

9

HARTMUT THIEME (Figs. 2, 3 A, C), dating to the upper part of the Holsteinian complex (the Reinsdorf Interglacial), yielded finds of a variety of wooden implements.

(Voormolen in prep.). There are also numerous small mammals (van Kolfschoten 1993), including the water vole Arvicola terrestris cantianus and the beaver-like Trogontherium cuvieri, and remains of birds, fish and reptiles (Böhme 2000).

Because of the rapidly proceeding brown coal mining since 1992, the rescue excavations had absolute priority in order to secure the archaeological sources. It is especially in this context that the analyses of the largest part of the Lower Palaeolithic sites have so far been only preliminary.

Analysis of the A. terrestris cantianus molars from Schöningen II, Level 1 (the Reinsdorf Interglacial) suggests a correlation with the Bilzingsleben Homo erectus site (van Kolfschoten 1993; Heinrich 1997). Some of the large mammal bones exhibit cut marks from butchery, while a tibia shaft of Ursus spelaeus (Fig. 5) was probably used as a hard surface working support, perhaps to cut organic materials. Type, intensity and extent of the cut marks on the bear tibia are unique among the cut marked bones at Schöningen 12. The cut marks were analysed with the naked eye and microscope. A detailed analysis of the cut marks of the large mammal fauna is in progress (B. Voormolen in prep.).

3.1 Schöningen 13 I The oldest evidence of human occupation at Schöningen, a lakeshore site, dates to the earliest part of the Holsteinian complex (channel Schö-ningen I; Figs. 1, 2). This Lower Palaeolithic site was discovered and partially excavated (120 m2) in 1994 (Fig. 3, B). The archaeological materials comprise flint artefacts, mostly small flakes, some notched flake tools and numerous pieces of burnt flint together with faunal remains of steppe elephant (Mammuthus trogontherii), bovids, horse and red deer (Thieme 1995a). A first result of a series of TL-measurements on burnt flints from this site (by D. Richter) indicates an age of more than 400 kyr BP. On the surface of an overlying organic mud the fragmentary remains of a Bison sp. skull and several tracks of large mammals were discovered (Fig. 2).

Very important finds from this site are three worked branches of the common silver fir (Abies alba). These wooden tools, with one end broken (length: 170, 191, 322 mm; width: 36, 39, 42 mm), have a diagonal groove cut into one end (Fig. 6), probably for holding flint tools or sharp flakes to create a more efficient tool. If this supposition is correct, these implements were cleft hafts, and they represent the oldest composite tools in the world. A fourth cleft haft from this site (length about 120 mm) has grooves cut into both ends, and one can compare such tools with similar objects found in the Aboriginal culture in Australia. The specially selected material for these Lower Palaeolithic cleft hafts consists of the hard intact roots of the boughs of rotten trunks from the common silver fir (analysis by W.H. Schoch, who has made all of the wood identifications at Schöningen; Schoch 1995). This strongly indicates that already in these early times, late H. erectus had a thorough knowledge of raw material properties, in this case of wood.

3.2 Schöningen 12 The Lower Palaeolithic site Schöningen 12 (find layer 1) was discovered and excavated in 1992. The site is located in the Reinsdorf Interglacial horizon (Figs. 1-3 A), and more than 150 m2 were excavated in the course of three months (Thieme 1995b; Thieme and Mania 1993; Thieme et al. 1993). Lakeshore deposits with gyttja sands from the Reinsdorf Interglacial (Fig. 2, Schöningen II, Level 1) contained numerous artefacts (Fig. 4: 1-4, 6), which are all made of flint from the local Elsterian sediments: some denticulated tools, notched and pointed tools, and a very small handaxe-like tool. Most of the artefacts are small flakes, and tools were manufactured from flakes and frost fractured debris. The total number of artefacts has not been established because samples of mud (the sandy-pebble sediments), which potentially contain artefacts, have not been studied yet.

These unique Lower Palaeolithic four cleft hafts from Schöningen 12 (although of different dimensions, their manufacture was standardised), offer new aspects in attempts to understand small tool assemblages of the Lower Palaeolithic (Valoch 1977), in this case specifically the small flint artefacts from Schöningen 12 (Fig. 4). The dimensions of these stone artefacts may not necessarily be related to the locally available, often frost fractured and mostly small raw material clasts from the Elsterian deposits, but may indicate the conscious and targeted manufacture of small artefacts (flakes, tools, etc.) for insertion in wooden hafts.

The large mammal fauna comprises more than one thousand bones (including maxillae and mandibles) and teeth (Palaeoloxodon antiquus-fauna), from straight tusked elephant, rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis), horse (Equus mosbachensis), two species of bear (Ursus spaeleus, Ursus tibethanicus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), aurochs (Bos primigenius), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and other taxa (van Kolfschoten 1995). The large mammal fauna from Schöningen 12, find layer 1, has been studied by B. Voormolen (Leiden University, The Netherlands) under the guidance of T. van Kolfschoten

During excavations of find layer 1 a second archaeological horizon was discovered 2-3 m higher up in peat sediments of the Reinsdorf Interglacial, Level 2 (Fig. 2), with some flint artefacts (Figs. 4-5) and the butchered remains of large mammals in an excavated area of 30 m2 (Schöningen 12, find

10

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY layer 2; Thieme et al. 1993).

disbarked; the tip/distal ends (up to 60 cm long) were worked from the hardest part of the wood at the base of the tree. Although the points are symmetric, they were cut to avoid the pith ray. The tails are long and taper towards the proximal pointed end. With the maximum thickness and weight situated a third of the way from the tip, the spears resemble modern javelins and were used by the late H. erectus to hunt horses on the shoreline of a long shallow lake (Fig. 3).

3.3 Schöningen 13 II-4 The Schöningen 13 II-4 site (the ‘spear site’; Fig. 7) was discovered in the autumn of 1994 in Level 4 of the Schöningen II (Reinsdorf Interglacial) channel (Figs. 2-3, site C; Thieme 1995c). The archaeological materials from this site lie in an organic mud, which underlies a peat horizon (Fig. 2). Analysis of the molluscan fauna by D. Mania and of the pollen spectra by B. Urban, suggests a boreal, cool-temperate climate; the vegetation is a mix of meadow and forest steppe.

Beside these hunting weapons numerous other artificial wooden objects have been excavated, most of which have not yet been subjected to detailed analysis. Amongst them there is an 0.88 m long wooden stick (Thieme 1999b), manufactured from a spruce tree (Picea sp.), with a maximum diameter of 36 mm (Fig. 14). The bark is stripped off and the stick is carefully disbranched of all but one branch near the tip/upper end (Fig. 14: a, c, e, g). The distal and proximal ends are worked (up to 24 cm and 28 cm long). At the upper end the stick is carbonised over a length of about 8 cm (Fig. 14). The find position of the charred stick is at a distance of 6 – 7 m from two of the fire-places (hearths) at the site, and the function of this wooden tool could have been a fire hook to feed the fire as well as a spit to roast (and also smoke) the (perhaps cut into strips) meat of the extensive bag. For the latter activities, the c. 7 mm protruding (and not carefully worked) side branch, which lies exactly at the end of the charred part (about 85 mm below the distal end), could even be interpreted as an intentional, functional part of the stick. This protruding branch may have prevented chunks or strips of meat to slip off or served as a spit.

To date, the excavation has yielded more than 25,000 well preserved faunal remains from an area of 2,500 m2 (Fig. 8). Most of the fossil fauna (more than 90%) is horse (Equus mosbachensis). Many of the bones display traces of butchery, in the form of cut marks and fracturing. The assemblage of flint artefacts includes predominantly very carefully retouched scrapers, some points (Fig. 9) and about 1,200 chips (retouch waste). The lack of waste materials from blank production indicates that the flint tools were brought to this site and were resharpened or reworked in case of need. Furthermore, some places were discovered, where the chalky sediments (just below the find layer) had turned red and display fossil drying cracks, very probably formed by the heat of fire. At least four such places have been identified at the site. These lie at the western border of the dense find zone, are separated from each other by several metres and have diameters of c. 1 m (Fig. 8). These places are still under investigation.

The main find scatter of the Schöningen 13 II-4 site is more than 40 m long and about 10 m wide on the western upper banks of the lake (Fig. 8), sometimes with more than 120 objects per square metre, with the wooden hunting spears and the other wooden artefacts amongst the skeletal remains of a hunted and butchered herd of horses. Most of the horse skulls were completely preserved, and based on the most recent count of these specimens, the minimum number of individuals (MNI) is 19, with many of the mandibles preserved. About 90% of the large fauna has not been analysed yet (because of financial constraints).

The first wooden tool from this site, discovered in October 1994, has a length of 0.78 m, a maximum diameter of 30 mm and is made of spruce (Fig. 11). Both ends are sharpened to a point. The function of this excellently preserved implement was most probably a throwing stick, resembling in shape and size the throwing sticks used by the aborigines of Australia (Cooper et al. 1981, 95) to hunt birds in flight. The most spectacular wooden implements from this site first came to light in autumn 1995: three spears (Figs. 10-12; Thieme 1996; 1997; 1999a). Since then a large collection of more than half a dozen exceptionally well preserved spears with lengths varying between 1.82 m (Spear III) to 2.5 m (Spear VI, Fig. 13) and maximum diameters of between 29 mm to 50 mm have been excavated. These were found associated with abundant faunal remains. The spears were made of spruce (Picea sp.), with the exception of Spear IV that was made of pine (Pinus sp.). The wood selected exhibits a dense concentration of growth rings, indicating slow growing conditions in a cool environment with some warmer elements (plants, molluscs). The spears were made from individual trees, which were felled, disbranched and

Because of the density of finds, i.e. the close proximity of the artefacts and skeletal remains, one is led to believe that this was a planned and organised activity in order to obtain a herd of horses in one episode of hunting. The aim was to secure enough meat and skins to ensure a constant supply of nourishment and warmth (for clothes and tents), with first indications of seasonal hunting in autumn, as can be inferred amongst other evidence from the presence of specific plant traces preserved on the bones (Thieme 1999a: 481). On the upper (exposed) part of most fossils there are innumerable narrow, brown black streaks of humic acid derived from the decomposition of the sedge vegetation. This plant covered the find material with a dense protective carpet not long

11

HARTMUT THIEME after the butchery and processing activities of the animal carcasses had occurred, at the earliest in ‘late autumn’, though more likely in ‘winter’, and at the latest when the materials were covered by snow.

have been prepared to acknowledge (Binford 1981; Gamble 1987; Nitecki 1987). Acknowledgements

Conclusions

We are grateful to the Braunschweigische Kohlen-Bergwerke AG (BKB), Helmstedt, for the technical and organisational support of the long-term archaeological excavations in the Schöningen mine, especially for their efforts and their courtesy in enabling us to excavate and analyse the complete sedimentary sequence of the new Reinsdorf Interglacial up to an area of about 3,000 m2 and about 6 m thickness (see Fig. 7) – a unique chance for Pleistocene Archaeology.

Since 1983, the development of the lignite open-cast mine at Schöningen in Eastern Lower Saxony has been accompanied by large-scale rescue excavations conducted by the Bodendenkmalpflege, Hannover, Office for the Preservation of Historical Monuments. In the course of these operations since 1992, several Lower Palaeolithic sites have been discovered and excavated from Middle Pleistocene interglacial sediments, dating to the Holsteinian complex (Figs. 1-2). Two of these sites (Schöningen 12 and Schöningen 13 II-4), dating to the new discovered Reinsdorf Interglacial, yielded finds of a variety of wooden implements.

I thank the Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz for a grant that supported the rescue excavations at the ‘spear site’. Thanks are due to: A. Pastoors (Cologne) for the drawings of Figs. 1-3, 8; B. Kaletsch (Marburg) for the drawing of Fig. 10; A. Bojahr (Hannover) for the drawing of Fig. 14; P. Pfarr (Hannover) for the photographs of Figs. 7, 11, 13; C.S. Fuchs (Hannover) for the photographs of Figs. 5-6 and S. Keates (University of Oxford, England) for reviewing this paper.

The four cleft hafts from Schöningen 12 indicate, that the production of small sized artefacts (flakes and tools) in the Lower Palaeolithic could have been planned for the insertion in wooden tools (composite tools). The size of the available raw materials may therefore not have necessarily determined the dimensions of the artefacts.

Author's address: The wooden finds from the Lower Palaeolithic horse hunting site Schöningen 13 II-4 are, with an age of at least 400 kyr, the world's oldest wooden throwing spears – so far the oldest-known completely preserved hunting weapons of humankind. The throwing spears were found among the skeletal remains of at least 19 horses, which were probably killed with these hunting weapons on the shore of a lake. In this context, the spears also provide new insights about the early hunting of large mammals, because these long-range weapons were apparently aimed exclusively at horses, fast and transient herd animals – a hunting technique and specialisation for which there has hitherto been no evidence for the Lower Palaeolithic.

Hartmut Thieme Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Scharnhorststr. 1 30175 Hannover Germany Tel. +49 511 9255299 Fax. +49 511 9255328 E-mail: [email protected]

Previously, ‘monospecific accumulations of fauna’ were known ‘regularly only after the Eemian interglacial’ (Gaudzinski 1996: 222) and that evidence for such hunting behaviour was Middle – and predominantly Upper Palaeolithic at the earliest (Musil 1993). Thus, the javelins from Schöningen revise the common idea of early hominids as marginal scavengers and substantiate the existence of systematic and co-ordinated methodical biggame hunting, involving fore-sight, planning and appropriate technology, with first indications of seasonal hunting in autumn and possibly air-dried or smoked meat stockpiling as well as high-level skills in wood-working – already as parts of the behavioural repertoire of Middle Pleistocene hominids. Accordingly, meat from hunting may have provided a larger dietary contribution than many researchers

12

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 1. Schöningen, Germany. The brown coal mine Schöningen: Section through the cyclical Quaternary sedimentary sequence, in the depression along the Staßfurt-Helmstedter Saltdome. The distance between Cycle VI and the Saltdome is reduced in this figure; the actual distance is about 2 km. – The oldest interglacial sediments, Schöningen I, in the southern part of the pit probably date to the Holsteinian. The second channel (Schöningen II) contains sediments of the Reinsdorf Interglacial: palynological analysis indicates that its vegetational history differs from both the preceding Holsteinian and the following Schöningen interglacials (Schöningen III), which is correlated to the Dömnitz Interglacial (Fig. 2). The Schöningen IV channel is younger than the Saalian glacial sensu stricto (Drenthe) and consists of an extensive double soil complex. The infill of channel Schöningen V is correlated to the Eemian interglacial, whilst the sixth channel infill is of Holocene age. 1 – Elsterian glacial deposits, 2: Saalian glacial deposits, 3 – Lacustrine deposits, 4 – Limnic telmatic sequences, 5 – Soil complexes, 6 – Loess deposits, 7 – Evaporites, 8 – Gypsum caprock, 9 – Buntsandstein, 10 – Triassic limestone (Muschelkalk), 11 – Triassic deposits (Keuper), 12 – Tertiary deposits (after Mania 1995a).

13

HARTMUT THIEME

Fig. 2. Schöningen, Germany. Composite schematic stratigraphical sequence through the Schöningen deposits, which cover the period from the Middle Pleistocene to the Holocene. The sequence (Schöningen 0 – VI) was correlated with the climate-cycles (terracetravertine series) at Bilzingsleben and other sites in the Elbe-Saale-region: 1 – Denudation horizon, 2 – Gravally sands, 3 – Sands, 4 – Lacustrine deposits, 5 – Limnic organogenic sediments, 6 – Peat, 7 – Travertine, 8 – Loess, 9 – Soils (Lessivé, Pseudogley) and humic zones, 10 – Ground moraines, 11 – Laminated clay deposits, 12 – Periglacial structures, 13 – Lower Palaeolithic find horizons (the spears are from level 4 within the Schöningen II sequence and date from the end of the Reinsdorf Interglacial). Abbreviations:– Lg – Late glacial, Plg – Pleniglacial, Eg – Early glacial, Igl – Interglacial; 1- 5 – Upward shallowing sequences in the Reinsdorf Interglacial. – a: arctic; w: warm-temperate (after D. Mania).

14

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 3. Schöningen, Germany. Course of the six Pleistocene/Holocene channels in an area of 1 km2 in the southern part of the Schöningen open-cast mine: 1 – Schöningen I, 2 – Schöningen II, 3 – Schöningen III, 4 – Schöningen IV, 5 – Schöningen V, 6 – Schöningen VI. The Elsterian glacial deposits lie beneath all the channels; the channel of Schöningen III is covered by the glacial series of the Saalian glaciation sensu stricto (Drenthe). Channels Schöningen VI contain Holocene deposits. Location of the Lower Palaeolithic sites mentioned in the text: A – Schöningen 12 (excavated in 1992) with two archaeological find horizons, B – Schöningen 13 I (excavated in 1994), C – Schöningen 13 II (excavations in progress since autumn 1994, see Fig. 7) with the ‘spear site’ (Schöningen 13 II-4).

15

HARTMUT THIEME

Fig. 4. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 12, flint artefacts: 1-2 – notched and denticulated tools (made from frost fractured debris), 3 – small flake with use retouch, 4 – bifacially retouched flake, 5 – pointed retouched flake, 6 – miniature handaxe with trihedral point. 1-4, 6 – find layer 1; 5 – find layer 2. Scale 2 : 3.

16

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 5. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 12: tibia shaft of Ursus spelaeus with a series of regular cut marks (probably used as a working support).

17

HARTMUT THIEME

Fig. 6. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 12: three views of a worked branch of the common silver fir (Abies alba) with a diagonal groove cut in the upper end. Scale: 1 : 1.

18

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 7. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II: Situation in summer 1999 (view to the east), the terminal berm to the right, with the sediment socle (70 × 50 m) preserved by quarrying of the Reinsdorf Interglacial sequence (four series of littoral sediments with muds and peats: 1 -4). The fourth horizon (site Schöningen 13 II-4 with the spears) is already excavated for the most part (see Fig. 8). The overlaying sequence of 10 m sediments (amongst others the peat of the upper fifth sequence of a first early glacial interstadial) was cut by machines in January 1995. Length of the measuring pole in the centre of the picture is 4 m.

19

HARTMUT THIEME

Fig. 8. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: the excavated area in summer 1998. 1 Palaeorelief maps with the surfaces of the find bearing humic mud (layer ‘b’) and 2 of the underlaying chalky mud (layer ‘c’). The main find scatter is between the broken lines (more than 40 m long and about 10 m wide) on the upper banks of the lake.

20

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 9. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4, flint tools: 1-2 – convex side scrapers, 3 – alternate retouched side scraper, 4 – déjeté scraper, 5-6 – pointed tools.

21

Fig. 10. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: 1– Spear I, broken into five parts (total length: 2.25 m), in top view and right lateral view, 2 – Spear II, the base broken and incomplete (length more than 2.30 m), in four views. Scale: 1 : 10.

HARTMUT THIEME

22

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 11. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: View of the Lower Palaeolithic throwing stick (length: 0.78 m; Picea sp.) in the field in October 1994. Close to the stick is a larger bone fragment with a flint scraper to its left. Scale in cm.

Fig. 12. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: Detail of the tip of Spear II. Scale in cm.

23

HARTMUT THIEME

Fig. 13. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: Spear VI, the longest spear, in the field in May 1997 (length: about 2.5 m).

24

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY

Fig. 14. Schöningen, Germany. Site Schöningen 13 II-4: Four views (a-d) of a 0.88 m long wooden stick (Picea sp.), carbonized at the upper end. Scale: about 1 : 4. Details of the upper part of the wooden stick (e-h) showing extent of carbonization (hatches). Scale: about 3 : 3.5.

25

HARTMUT THIEME Bibliography

Nitecki M.H. 1987, The Idea of Human Hunting. In: M.H. Nitecki and D.V. Nitecki (eds.), The Evolution of Human Hunting, Plenum Press, New York - London, p. 1–9. Schoch W.H. 1995, Hölzer aus der Fundschicht 1 des altpaläolithischen Fundplatzes Schöningen 12 (Reinsdorf-Interglazial). In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schön-ingen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 73–84. Thieme H. 1995a, Der altpaläolithische Fundplatz Schöningen 13 I (Holstein-Interglazial). In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 57–61. Thieme H. 1995b, Die altpaläolithischen Fundschichten Schöningen 12 (Reinsdorf-Interglazial). In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 62–72. Thieme H. 1995c, Ein altpaläolithischer Lagerplatz aus der Zeit des Urmenschen von Schöningen 13 II (Reinsdorf-Interglazial). In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt. Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 95–106. Thieme H. 1996, Altpaläolithische Wurfspeere aus Schöningen, Niedersachsen. – Ein Vorbericht, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 26, p. 377–393. Thieme H. 1997, Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany, Nature, 385, p. 807–810. Thieme H. 1999a, Altpaläolithische Holzgeräte aus Schöningen, Lkr. Helmstedt. Bedeutsame Funde zur Kulturentwicklung des frühen Menschen, Germania, 77(2), p. 451–487. Thieme H. 1999b, Ein angekohlter Holzstab vom altpaläolithischen Fundplatz Schöningen 13 II-4. In: E. Cziesla, Th. Kersting and St. Pratsch (eds.), Den Bogen spannen … Festschr. B. Gramsch. Beiträge zur Urund Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 20 (Weiß-bach), p. 15–27. Thieme H. and R. Maier 1995, Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover. Thieme H. and D. Mania 1993, "Schöningen 12" – ein mittelpleistozänes Interglazialvorkommen im Nordharzvorland mit paläolithischen Funden, EthnographischArchäologische Zeitschrift, 34, p. 610–619. Thieme H., D. Mania, B. Urban and T. van Kolfschoten 1993, Schöningen (Nordharzvorland). Eine altpaläolithische Fundstelle aus dem mittleren Eiszeitalter, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 23, p. 147–163.

Binford L.R. 1981, Bones: ancient men and modern myths, Academic Press, New York - London. Böhme G. 2000, Reste von Fischen, Amphibien und Reptilien aus der Fundstelle Schöningen 12 bei Helmstedt (Niedersachsen) – Erste Ergebnisse, Praehistoria Thuringica, 4, p. 18–27. Cooper C., H. Morphy, J. Mulvaney and N. Peterson 1981, Aboriginal Australia. – Ausstellungskatalog des Australian Gallery Directors Council, National Library of Australia, Sydney. Gamble C. 1987, Man the Shoveler: Alternative models for Middle Pleistocene occupation in northern latitudes. In: O. Soffer (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World. Regional Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, p. 81– 98. Gaudzinski S. 1996, Kärlich-Seeufer. Untersuchungen zu einer altpaläolithischen Fundstelle im Neuwieder Becken (Rheinland-Pfalz). Mit Beiträgen von F. Bittmann and H.-H. Leuschner, Jahrbuch des RömichGermanischen Zentralmuseums Meinz, 43, p. 3-239. Heinrich W.D. 1997, Zur Taphonomie, Paläoökologie und Biostratigraphie fossiler Kleinsäugerfaunen aus dem mittelpleistozänen Travertinkomplex Bilzingsleben in Thüringen. In: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (ed.), Bilzingsleben V. Homo erectus – seine Kultur und Umwelt, Verlag Ausbildung + Wissen, Bad Homburg/Leipzig, p. 121–134 and 256–259. Kolfschoten T. van 1993, Die Vertebraten des Interglazials von Schöningen 12, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 34, p. 623–628. Kolfschoten T. van 1995, Faunenreste des altpaläolithischen Fundplatzes Schöningen 12 (Reinsdorf-Interglazial). In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds.), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 85–94. Mania D. 1993, Die Terrassen-Travertin-Sequenz von Bilzingsleben. Ein Beitrag zur Stratigraphie des Mittelund Jungpleistozäns im Elbe-Saale-Gebiet, Ethnographisch-Archäo-logische Zeitschrift, 34, p. 554–575. Mania D. 1995a, Die geologischen Verhältnisse im Gebiet von Schöningen. In: H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover, p. 33–43. Mania D. 1995b, The earliest occupation of Europe: the Elbe-Saale region (Germany). In: W. Roebroeks and T. van Kolfschoten (eds.), The earliest occupation of Europe, University of Leiden, Leiden, p. 85–101. Musil R. 1993, Unterschiede im Jagdwild der verschiedenen paläolithischen Kulturen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Bilzingsleben. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 34, p. 601–607.

26

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITES AT SCHÖNINGEN, LOWER SAXONY, GERMANY Urban B. 1993, Mittelpleistozäne Interglaziale im Tagebau Schöningen, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 34, p. 620–622. Urban B. 1995, Palynological evidence of younger Middle Pleistocene Interglacials (Holsteinian, Reinsdorf and Schöningen) in the Schöningen open-cast lignite mine (eastern Lower Saxony, Germany), Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst, 52, p. 175–186. Urban B. 1997, Grundzüge der eiszeitlichen Klima- und Vegetationsgeschichte in Mitteleuropa. In: A. Wagner and K.W. Beinhauer (eds.), Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer. Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa, Universitätsverlag Winter, Heidelberg, p. 241–263. Urban B., R. Lenhard, D. Mania and B. Albrecht 1991a, Mittelpleistozän im Tagebau Schön-ingen, Ldkr. Helmstedt, Zeitschrift dt. geol. Ges., 142, p. 351–372. Urban B., H. Elsner, A. Hölzer, D. Mania and B. Albrecht 1991b, Eine eem- und frühweichselzeitliche Abfolge im Tagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, 41, p. 85–99. Valoch K. 1977, Die Mikrolithik im Alt- und Mittelpaläolithikum. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift,18, p. 57–62.

27

28

LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SMALL TOOLS IN EUROPE AND THE LEVANT Edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen, BAR S1115, 2003, p. 29-48

Bilzingsleben - Homo erectus, his culture and his environment. The most important results of research Dietrich Mania and Ursula Mania

Bilzingsleben is situated on the northern edge of the Thuringian Basin. Here, D. Mania discovered a Lower Palaeolithic horizon at the base of a Middle Pleistocene travertine in 1969. Since that time a Research Excavation program has been conducted there at Bilzingsleben, which until 1992 was established at the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle, and then transferred to the Friedrich Schiller Universität of Jena.

the glacials, the travertines during the interglacials. Three glacials alone were determined between the Elster and the Saale glaciation (Bilzingsleben I - III: this is the Holstein complex). The first interglacial corresponds to the Holstein interglacial sensu stricto, the second interglacial (Bilzingsleben II) contains the find horizon. Uranium series chronology dates the archaeological horizon to more than 350 kyr BP, and according to ESR dating it is between 320412 kyr old (Schwarz et al. 1988; Malik 2000). The third interglacial was dated to about 300 kyr and the fourth interglacial belongs to the Saale complex which is shown by dates of about 220 kyr BP. The fifth interglacial represents the Eemian (125 kyr ago?) and the sixth the Holocene.

The archaeological horizon with the camp site of early man, a great number of cultural remains and life traces have been preserved. Additionally, human fossil remains were found: at present, there are 27 cranial fragments, one right mandible and eight isolated teeth. A team of experts has studied and published on the various aspects of Bilzingsleben since 1975. They are, besides Dietrich and Ursula Mania, Jena (directors of the Forschungsstelle), Dr. Manfred Altermann, Halle (pedologist), Dr. Gottfried Böhme, Berlin (palaeontologist), Dr. Jan Burdukiewicz, Wrocław (archaeologist), Dr. Klaus Erd, Berlin (palynologist), Dr. Karlheinz Fischer, Berlin (palaeontologist), Prof. Ekke W. Guenther †, Ehrenkirchen (palaeontologist), dipl. biologist Walter Hebig, Dresden (zoologist), Dr. Wolf Dieter Heinrich, Berlin (palaeontologist), Dr. Jan van der Made (palaeontologist), Prof. Dr. Dieter Hans Mai, Berlin (palaeobotanist), Prof. Dr. Rudolf Musil, Brno (palaeontologist), Dr. Erika Pietrzeniuk, Berlin (palaeontologist), Werner H. Schoch, Adliswil (fossil remains of wood), Dr. Karel Valoch, Brno (archaeologist), Prof. Dr. Emanuel Vlček, Prague (anthropologist), Dr. Friedrich Wiegank, Potsdam (palaeomagnetic investigations), and others. Dating values were obtained from Prof. Dr. Karl Brunnacker, Cologne, Prof. Dr. HIP. Schwarcz, Hamilton, work team of Prof. Dr. G.A. Wagner, Heidelberg, and Dr. Tim Schüler, Weimar

Characteristics of the interglacial Bilzingsleben II Vegetation: According to the pollen diagrams, this interglacial does not correspond to the Holstein sensu stricto, but represents an interglacial of the Holstein complex unknown so far. Based on the floral macro remains discovered at Bilzingsleben, mixed oak-tree woods with Buxo-Quercetum, Buxo-Syringetum and Berberidion grew in the area during the climatic maximum (Fig. 3). An abundance of exotic elements (mediterranean, pontic and kolchic) were also discovered. This phenomenon has not been observed to such an extent in any known interglacial of the middle Elbe-Saale region. Such elements are Buxus sempervirens, Pyracahtha coccinea, Celtis australis, Syringa josikaea, Juniperus sabina, Cornus mas, Viburnum lantana, Ligustrum vulgare and Vitis sylvestris. At the same time, subcontinental species such as Potentilla fruticosa immigrated.

Geology and chronology

The landscape was only moderately covered with woods. Light dry mixed woodland and shrub associations alternaed with steppe meadows.

Bilzingsleben is located in a valley where the embedded travertines had formed after the Elster glaciation. Six terrace-travertine sequences were determined corresponding to as many climatic cycles (Figs. 1-3). They comprise 80 - 100 kyr each (Bilzingsleben I - VI). The terraces formed during

Fauna: The vertebrate fauna is represented by a Palaeloxodon antiquus fauna characteristic of the Middle Pleistocene. Besides the straight-tusked elephant the following species occurred: Dicerorhinus kirchbergensis, D. hemitoechus, Bison priscus, Cervus elaphus, Dama clactoniana, Capre-

29

DIETRICH AND URSULA MANIA olus suessenbornensis, Equus mosbchensis-taubachensis, Sus scrofa, Ursus deningeri-spelaeus, Panthera (Leo) spelaea, Felis sylvestris, Canis lupus, Vulpes vulpes, Meles meles, Martes sp., Macaca florentina, Castor fiber, and Trogontherium cuvieri. The small vertebrates are especially represented by Allocricetus bursae, Lagurus lagurus, Glis glis and Arvicola cantianus. Further species were also identified (insectivores, rodentia, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish).

Culture of Bilzingsleben

The molluscan fauna is a Middle Pleistocene Helocigonabanatica fauna with exotic elements from South and Southeast Europe. Among the ostracod fauna, a species which is now subtropically distributed appears besides salt-water species (it is Microdarwinula zimmeri).

Many of the archaeological materials, especially the larger and heavier objects, are still in their primary position. They allow to give information on the structure of the settlement and of different activities. Different activity zones are discernible: there are three dwelling structures whose periphery is outlined by big boulders and bones forming diffuse circles. These have a diameter of 3 to 4 m. In front of the circles are fireplaces and workshops with an anvil in their centre (Fig. 5). In front of the dwelling structures an 8 mwide workshop zone is apparent. It consists of the remains of workshops with anvils, choppers, hammerstones, bone tools, a great number of flint artefacts and waste material from bone, antler and stone. Wooden remains and workshops used for the working of wood have also identified (Figs. 6-12).

The camp site of Bilzingsleben was situated on a peninsulashaped shore terrace. Adjoining it, a source spring emptied into the lake forming a diluvial fan consisting of travertine sand. The primary boundaries of this camp site were discovered as well as the slope on the northern and the swamps of reed on the eastern and southern side of the shore terrace. The site has a diameter of about 35 m (Fig. 4).

The presence of Middle Pleistocene species is a striking phenomenon: they are Trogontherium cuvieri, Dama clactoniana, Cepreolus suessenbornensis, Arvicola cantianus and Macaca florentina occurring only in the Elbe-Saale region. The rhinoceroses, horses, bears and cervids exhibit a Middle Pleistocene phylogenetic trend. Besides woodland species, a great number of the open landscape species occur, among them steppe forms. Climate: Climatic values are similar to those found in the northern Mediterranean area and in Southeast Europe. The annual average temperature was +9-13o C (today only +8.6o C), mean July temperature +20-25o C (+17o C today), seven warm months with a mean temperature of more than +10o C (5.5 months today); an absolute temperature minimum is -19o C (-29o C today), the and an annual precipitation with: of 800 mm (500 mm today). The precipitation is distributed in two peaks (today only in one peak), therefore the summers were very hot and dry. This is indicative of the subcontinental influence of the climate.

On the lake shore, another activity zone with a special find association was discovered. Apparently, work was conducted here which necessitated water. In front of the shore zone, a great quantity of waste from bone and stone from the camp site was discovered in the diluvial fan. In the southeast part of the camp site, a paved area with a diameter of about 9 m and of circular shape was identified. No tools or waste material was found on its surface with the exception of some wooden artefacts. In its western part, an anvil whose tiny crushed bone particles lying on its surface indicate the smashing of bones there. Different fragments from the crashed human skulls were discovered beside it and also lying directly on it. Refittings indicate that they belong to the two reconstructed crania whose single fragments were discovered in the diluvial fan and on the shoreline (individual I), and in the southern section of the camp site (individual II).

The humans from Bilzingsleben E. Vlček reconstructed two crania from the human fossil fragments (Fig. 4). They show the greatest similarity and even agreement to the finds of Olduvai Hominid 9, Pithecanthropus VIII and Sinanthropus III. The greatest similarity was found to exist to the Asiatic finds. The Bilzingsleben crania are ascribed to an evolved representative of Homo erectus. The mandible equally shows the greatest similarity to the Homo erectus finds from Zhoukoudian and Chenjiawo. Quite a different morphology is discovered in the finds of the archaic Homo sapiens or the early Neanderthals. Taxonomically, they cannot be correlated with the Bilzingsleben Homo erectus. The taxon „Homo heidelbergensis” cannot be applied to the Bilzingsleben finds with the mandible from Mauer already exhibiting strong Neanderthal-like features. Therefore, for morphological reasons, it is incorrect to correlate the forms of the early forms Neanderthals with the taxon „Homo heidelbergensis”.

It appears that there was a relationship between these occurrences. It can therefore be concluded that the paved area represents a place of special socio-cultural significance. As a whole, it can be recognised from the findings that Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben was able to create for himself a micro-world by erecting a camp site with dwelling structures and by using fire. Artefacts The following artefacts occur: Manuports: These are slabs and blocks of stone, wooden material, large bones and tusks from elephants.

30

BILZINGSLEBEN - HOMO ERECTUS, HIS CULTURE AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OF RESEARCH Pebble tools: These comprise 15% of all tools. Most tools are choppers and large hammerstones, and less frequently chopping tools (Fig. 13). Additionally, blocks and slabs were used as anvils. The raw materials selected by the Bilzingsleben hominids for these tools are quartzite, Muschelkalk, travertine, and crystalline. Small hammerstones of quartz pebbles were used for the working of flint.

The preserved animal food remains consist of fractured bones and jaw fragments from mammals. We interpret them as evidence of active hunting conducted by Middle Pleistocene man. With the discovery of hunting instruments at Schöningen made of from sticks of spruce the idea of scavenging as a means of passive hunting can now easily be abolished. Large mammals mainly represented the animals that were hunted. Counted as individuals, about 27% comprise rhinoceros, 12% juvenile elephants, 11% bears, 5% bisons, and 4% wild horses. Medium-sized game are cervids with 13%. Especially red deer, though less frequently fallow deer (Dama dama), were hunted. Roe and wild pigs are rare. Apart from beavers (Castor and Trogontherium) totalling 18.6% of the kill, small game was hardly hunted (Fig. 18). Carnivores such as lion, wolf, fox and badger were only occasionally hunted. Remains of large fish like the silurid (Silurus glanis) occurring in the river, and the relatively frequent pike and tenche remains, can be explained as deliberate killings. The same is valid for the shells of large river mussels (Unio sp.) and the remains of large birds’ eggs.

Specialised tools of flint: 75%. Large tools (30 - 100 mm long) were uncovered showing cutting function’s (scrapers, backed knives, knives whose edges and/ or whose surfaces were facially retouched, and bifacial knives and pointed tools). Small tools (8 - 40 mm long) were used for different functions, especially for the working of organic materials such as wood: scrapers, grattoirs, denticulated and notched tools, pointed tools (for instance Tayac-, Quinson points, pics, trihedrals and others), borers, and burins. A great number of small cores for the striking of flakes, and finally also some prepared cores have been identified. Bone tools: These were predominantly made from the compacta bone of the straight-tusked elephant) (6%). The bone tools include a variety of end-scrapers (10-80 cm long), wide and pointed scrapers with fractured edges, chisels, handaxe-like tools, dagger-shaped and knife-like tools, and numerous bone flakes (Fig. 14). Work supports were made of shoulder-blades and pelvis. Some scrapers and pointed splinters were made of tusks. Cudgel-shaped pieces and mattocks derived from cervid antlers (3%).

Bone artefacts exhibiting deliberate engravings In 1988, Mania and Mania presented four bone artefacts in the journal Rock Art Research showing regularly engraved sequences of lines apparently cut with one flint knife each and not deriving incidentally from work. Steguweit (pers. comm.) confirmed the manner of cutting last year with the help of laser-microscopic studies.

Wooden tools: Their remains are preserved only in a calcified state or as imprints. Two 2.5 m-long rod-like remnants can be interpreted as spears, after the discovery of the corresponding spears from Schöningen became known. There are also sticks with a hole at one end (Lochstäbe), spatulaand shovel-like tools, and tools with hook shaped ends. Additionally, there are many small wooden remains (Figs. 15-17).

Object l: This is a 39.5 cm-long tool made of from the compacta tissue of an elephant. One end is pointed and rounded, the other end is broad and fractured obliquely and in a chopper-like way. The sequence is engraved on the flat 5 6 cm-broad elongated edge beginning at the pointed end with a diverging sequence of lines which continues in a fanlike way with 14 lines. It is possible that the part broken off had seven lines engraved on it.

Raw material and shape of the tools are correlated according to the functions of the tools. The great diversity of the tool types is indicative of functional specialisation. Many utility objects seemed to have been mainly produced from organic material, especially from wood. Technical processes, such as the splitting of large bones, the preparation of specialised flint tools or the working of wood are deliberate, planned actions.

Object 2: This is a thin rib of a length of 28.6 cm and a width of 3.6 cm showing four parallel cut lines cut obliquely and running across the surface with each line consisting of three single lines set behind the other. A fifth consists only of two composite lines and a sixth only of one line. Object 3: This is a triangular flat compacta splinter (it is 14.1 cm long and 6.1 cm broad), showing a sequence of five double cut lines on one surface. They were made with a serrated blade.

Sources of food Vegetable food was not preserved except for some stones of the sweet cherry. But the occurrence of different species contained in the travertine flora indicates the variety of edible plants available for exploitation by the Bilzingsleben hominids.

Object 4: This is a small flat piece of bone (11.4 x 5.5 x 0.9 cm), which displays a group of parallel cut lines running obliquely across the piece. It begins with two thin lines crossing in the centre and forming a flat cross horizontally set. It is followed by seven J? shorter lines. The fourth and the fifth line’s converge and are connected with two further

31

DIETRICH AND URSULA MANIA lines which also gives the impression of a horizontally placed cross. All of the four objects are closely related to the workshops. We interpret their deliberate sequences of lines as optically communicated thoughts expressed in a graphical way and indicative of symbolic meaning. We recognise in it the capability of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben to think abstractly. The four deliberately engraved objects are also important evidence that language, primitive though it may have been, must have existed. Authors’ address: Dietrich Mania, Ursula Mania Forschungsstelle Bilzingsleben Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Löbdergraben 24a 07743 Jena Germany Tel. +49 3641 616469 Fax. +49 3641 931682

32

BILZINGSLEBEN - HOMO ERECTUS, HIS CULTURE AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OF RESEARCH

Fig. 1. The terrace-travertine-sequence from the Wipper valley near Bilzingsleben. 1 – ground moraine (Elsterian), 2 – glacilimnic sediments (Elsterian), 3 – gravels from the glacial phases, 4 – fluviatile sediments from the interglacial phases, 5 – travertine complexes, 6 – loess, 7 – gyttja and peat of the Late Weichselian, 8 – loamy alluvial sediments, 9 – slope debris, solifluction sediments, 10 – humous slope debris. 11-15 – molluscan faunas, 11 – Theodoxus scrratiliniformis fauna, 12 – Corbicula fluminalis fauna, 13 – Helicigona bunatica fauna, 14 – interglacial faunas with Mediterranean elements, 15 – common forest fauna, 16 – occurrence of Celtis sp.

33

DIETRICH AND URSULA MANIA

Fig. 2. The climatic record of the late Middle and Late Quaternary of the Elbe-Saale region. A: stratigraphical complexes, B and C: glacials and interglacials, D: development of climate (1 – arctic, 2 – subarctic, 3 – boreal, 4 – temperate), E: sequence of Bilzingsleben, F: sequence of Schöningen (northern foreland of the Harz), G: other important stratigraphic sequences, H: fossil soil complexes (loess stratigraphy) (uBK, oBK – lower and upper soil complex of Mahlis/Saxony, FHK – soil complex of Freiburg, RBK – soil complex of Rudelsburg, LBK – soil complex of Langenbogen, NBK – soil complex of Naumburg, KV – soil complex of Bad Kösen, H – Holocene soil). Molluscan fauna: 1 – Fagotia acicularis fauna, 2 – Helicigona banatica fauna of Middle Pleistocene, 3 – Helicigona banatica fauna of Upper Pleistocene, 4 –Theodoxus serratiliniformis fauna, 5 – Corbicrula fluminalis fauna, 6 – common forest fauna, 7 – Bradybaena fruticum and Chondrula tridens fauna, 8 – Pupilla and Columella fauna. Vertebrate fauna: Af – Archidiskodon meridionalis fauna, Mtf – Parelephas trogontherii fauna; Paf – Palaeoloxodon antiquus fauna, Mf – Mammuthus primigenius fauna, Lf – Lagurus fauna, Wf – Middle European forest fauna.

34

BILZINGSLEBEN - HOMO ERECTUS, HIS CULTURE AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OF RESEARCH

Fig. 3. Some important species of the interglacial vegetation of the Bilzingsleben site: above: Buxus sempervirens; central: Celtis australis; bottom: Pyracantha coccinea. Hatched – recent distribution, circles – interglacial distribution (after D.H. Mai).

35

DIETRICH AND URSULA MANIA

Fig. 4. The camp site of Bilzingsleben: 1 – limit of the excavation, 2 – faults, tectonic structures, 3 – border line, 4 – brook channel, 5 – deluvial fan with the waste of the settlement, 6 – activity zone near the border line, 7 – dwelling structures, 8 – activity zone „workshop zone”, 9 – special workshop zone, 10 – paved area, 11 – fire places, 12 – workshop with anvil, 13 – heated bloc, 14 – engraved bone artefact, 15 – row of pebbles, 16 – tusk, I7 – human skull remain, 18 – human tooth. Southern of the living floor is a reed bank.

36

BILZINGSLEBEN - HOMO ERECTUS, HIS CULTURE AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OF RESEARCH

Fig. 5. Bilzingsleben camp site. Working of wood. 1 – stones (manuports). 2 – bones, teeth and antlers, 3 – pebble tools, 4 – wood remains. The anvil (tibia of an elephant) is supported by the pelvis of a rhino and a slab of Muschelkalk (profile A-B).

37

DIETRICH AND URSULA MANIA

Fig. 6. Bilzingsleben, camp site. Distribution of the manuports (stone material).

Fig. 7. Bilzingsleben, camp site. Distribution of choppers and pebbles.

38

BILZINGSLEBEN - HOMO ERECTUS, HIS CULTURE AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS OF RESEARCH

Fig. 8. Bilzingsleben, camp site. Distribution of the scrapers from bone: 1 – small scrapers (1% CaCO3). The optimum advanced part of a structure of paleosapinion, the morphological parameters of paleosoils 11 and 12 can confidently be compared with paleosoils of loess-soils sections below the10th paleosoil (Ranov et al. 1987, 65-68). Palynological research, which has been carried out on samples taken from the western wall of the excavation unit, has shown that in the majority of samples the pollen of wood plants are more abundant than pollen of grassy plants. The structure of the dendroflora is as follows: Cedrus, Pinus, Juglans, Nilia, Rhus, Carya, Pistacia, etc. (the palynological work was executed by M.M. Pakhomov). In some samples the pollen of Himalayan cedrus (Cedrus deodora) predominates. In a number of samples pollen of Tilia is more abundant than Juglans, Platanus and other broad-leaved species. All this testifies to a damp and mild climate, which defined the existence in the mountains of a belt of coniferous and broad-leaved forests with significant cedrus forest vegetation. The pollen's Caria points to an age of the first half of the Pleistocene. Many components of dendrofloras were determined at Kuldara site, nowadays vegetated in some areas with the monsoon vegetation. The pollen in the examined paleosoils was caused by rather low heights of the Hindu Kush, counted out movement of Pamiro-Darvaz air mass of summer monsoons coming, on the part of the Indian Ocean.

133

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV ‘A high degree of exotical dendrofloras (45 %) speaks about a sufficient antiquity of sediments. On structure of flora the age of sediments must be determined as Early Pleistocene. It specifies not only mentioned high degree of exotic flora, but also its botanic geographical structure’ (Ranov et al. 1987, 69). Thus, from the above-stated geological, pedological, paleomagnetic and palynological data, the ancient age of the two paleosoils and the excavated units is unequivocal. The excavated unit was cut in a slope of the left side of Kuldara creek and formerly the level of paleosoil 11 was at a height 7-8 m above the water level. The area of excavation is 66 m2 large (Fig.4, section III). The character of sediments overlapping the paleosoils can be observed on a longitudinal cut of the western wall dug out 7 m from east edges (Figs. 5-6). Between paleosoils 11 and 12, on the area 30 m2, almost horizontal, dense carbonate crust with a thickness of up to 22 cm was found. Only half of palaeosoil 11 is preserved, but paleosoil 12 is almost complete and the climatic optimum was of up to 1.8 m thick. In both paleosoils 11 and 12 at the top part are visible traces of secondary hydromorphism as clay introductions. The remaining part of paleosoil 12 corresponds to normal buried soil syngenetic soil formation and has a characteristic very old soil of brown-red colour. The vertical and horizontal distribution of artefacts is shown in Figure 7. As is the case for the majority of other sites in the loessic Palaeolithic of Southern Tajikistan, archaeological finds in the thicker paleosoils are extremely rare. At Kuldara the very provisional calculation gives one find per 4 m3 of the excavated soil. The maximum quantity of finds on a square metre is five. The paleosoil has yielded six artefacts, and other artefacts have been found in paleosoil 12. Below all these artefacts are described. In the first case, the finds gravitated to the bottom of paleosoil, which represents of climatic optimum (but this is probably a deformed image, because the top part of the paleosoil was not preserved here). In the second case, artefacts had been mostly found in the upper of paleosoil. Any traces of fireplaces, stone constructions or other traces of a cultural layer on site were not fixed. This is typical position of the loessic Palaeolithic sites, which has also been described in another publication of Ranov (2000, 30-31). Fauna is rather rare and comprises undetermined fragments of bones, probably belonging to small ungulates. Archaeological materials, found during the excavation, are not numerous and only 96 specimens have been collected. And, if from this number the more than ten small bones and damaged small pebbles (diameter of 3-4 cm.) have been excluded, only 52 specimens (54.2 % of total) amount will be analysed. In addition, some finds cannot be clearly identified as artefacts, only 40 specimens (40.4 %) should be seen as unquestionable artefacts. Thus, it is necessary at

once to note the characteristic for all industries of Kuldara that tools are amorphous and difficult for typological description. The archaeological finds were associated with paleosoils 11 and 12, however they were rather dispersed. Similar location of stone artefacts has been previously described from sites of the Karatau Culture (Lomov and Ranov 1984). It is possible to notice, that on marks 1.2 - 1.3 m above carbon crust of 12 paleosoil the level of concentration of stone products is traced certain, poorly expressed. Among 40 artefacts the following groups of products are distinguished: cores- 2 (5%), blades - 2 (5%), flakes - 3 (7.5%), flakes with scars - 10 (25%), flakes and spallswedges - 2 (5%), fragments and spalls with scars and retouch - 3 (7,5%), slices or quarter d'orange - 2 (5%), pebbles with scars 3 (7.5%), borers (?) - 2 (5%), side scrapers and scrapers - 4 (10%), fragment of the bifacial instrument - 1 (2.5%), debris - 6 (15%). Cores. The first core was found in palaeosoil 11, and can be described as a multiplatform, disc-like and even wedgelike core, as the top surface of it is wide, and below this orientation appreciably converges on a wedge. On the core surface are just visible fine scars by the size 1.2 x 1.2 cm, 2.2 x 1.5 cm and 3.2 x 1 cm, etc. Sizes of the platform: 2.6 x 1.8 cm. A wedge in the bottom part was very sharp and formed by alternating scars. Probably it could serve for cutting. The sizes: 3.4 x 3.9 x 2.4 cm. By the crushing of the one side, it is possible, that this core was used as an instrument - rough side scraper with slightly notched edge (Fig. 8: 6). The second core was found in the paleosoil. It is a single platform core, with flatting working surface, on which most part yet are not made scars, and there is the surface of splitting formed, obviously, on a crack. But scars on edge from both parties of core, their sizes on a working surface are expressed very well: 0.9 x 0.5 x 1.2 and 2.7 x 1.8 cm, from the return party -2.3 x 0.9 cm. The sizes this unilateral flat platform core: 3.4 x 2.9 x 1.9 cm (Fig. 8: 5). Blades. They are named so provisionally. Notwithstanding what the ratio of length and width at them corresponds to the sizes accepted for blades, their indistinct form and bad flaking on dorsal surface specify that they should be classified rather as flake-blades. The larger blade has parallel directions of flaking on dorsal surface. The butt is cortical and is at a very oblique angle to the ventral surface (less than 120 degrees). The blade is split lengthways, and this occurred by chance during knapping. The sizes: 3.8 x 1.6 x 1.1 cm (see Fig. 8: 2). The second blade has partly pebble crust and two small scars on dorsal surface. The triangular butt was formed by one scar (Fig. 8: 7).

134

SMALLINSTRUMENTS INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA SMALL OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING ANDTHEIR AND MEANING

Flakes with processing traces. The most expressive flakes with secondary retouch or negatives of small flakes, larger scars or reminding working edges as chisel-like pieces, such as ‘piece ecaillée’, are preserved as very small fragments, microlithic flakes from more or less hard raw materials. To large specimens it is possible to attribute products shown in the Figs. 8: 8-9, 11; 9: 11. Flakes and spall-wedges. It is a very interesting, but poorly represented group of artefacts. This technique further becomes very significant in the sites of the Lower Palaeolithic Karatau Culture. Examples of wedges are shown in Figure 8: 3-4. Fragments and debris with scars and retouch. They are very different and can only be included in the same group because of the presence of retouch on edge, sometimes rather precise (Figs. 8: 10; 9: 2-6; 9: 5, 8, 12). Slices or ‘quartier d'orange’ (dol'ki in Russian). This is a new category of lithic instruments in the Russian literature. These artefacts are very characteristic products of pebble industries from different periods of time. The apparent example of such technique is shown in Figure 9: 9 and less expressed specimens - in Figure 9: 13.

dark, reminding diorite of breed. On a thickening are made fine, obviously deliberate scars, forming the oblique scraping edge of the scraper. Fragment of the bifacial instrument was made from dark grey felsite-porphyre piece, rhomb-like in section (size: 2.8 x 3.7 x 1.5 cm). Fine scars are well visible on both sides (their sizes: 1.0 x 0.5; 2.0 x 1.4 and 1.3 x 1.3 cm). It was processed rather as biface than core. On the one side - the fine additional retouch, several scars the small thorn is allocated. Fragments. The splinters and fragments (sizes: 0.9 x 1.0 x 1.4; 1.2 x 1.5 x 0.5; 1.6 x 2.0 x 0.4 and 2.3 x 1.5 x 0.9 cm) are not casually break stones, which natural hit in paleosoils is practically excluded. They turn out as a result of splitting the pebbles because of bad quality of raw material. This process was repeatedly marked by the experiments (Ranov and Jukov 1982).

Borers (?). Borers well expressed are not present. At the same time it is possible to attribute separate specimens, mainly fine, as though to this category of artefacts (Fig. 9: 2, 10).

Another character has classification of the stone material from Kuldara, made by Spanish archaeologists, which use a different method of the description of knapping and manufacturing of Palaeolithic artefacts (Ranov et al. 1992). According to this approach, the industry of Kuldara can be classified as follows: a negative basis of the first generation (core and pebble or other basis with scars) - 3 (9%), positive basis (flakes of any character) - 18 (51%), basis of the second generation (basis already separated from basis of the first generation) - 12 (34%), uncertain basis - 2 (6%). The operative system of processing of lithics in Kuldara is characterized by three strategies: bifacial centripetal unipolar, bifacial centripetal recurrent and strategy Lakhuti (pebble technique; Ranov et al. 1995). The calculations of presence of pebble cortex on products of a positive basis are given with the following result: entirely cortical -7 (35%), cortex dominant - 2 (10%), cortex not dominant - 5 (25%), and cortex absent - 6 (30%).

Side scrapers and scrapers. This is the most representative category of tools. Besides four examples a few scrapers-like tools included to the category of flakes with retouch. The category of side scrapers and scrapers in this situation is only provisional (Fig. 9: 7). Irregular scraper was made on club-shaped block of felsite-porphyte. Working edge was formed by several large (0.8 x 0.7 and 0.7 x 0.4 cm) facettes but strict fine retouch is absent. The sizes are: 4.8 x 4.0 x 1.0 cm (Fig. 9: 7).

The total weight of the following categories is described here too: the negative basis of the first generation has a gross weight of 60 grams, and a length and width of 4 to 5 cm. The gross weight of a positive basis is 155 g, and length ranges from 2 to 4 cm. The amount of cortex on striking platforms is noticeable. Later this feature was advanced by application of the Lakhuti technique (in V.A. Ranov's terminology - pebble technique of the Lower Palaeolithic Karatau Culture of the Middle Pleistocene).

Another scraper reminds a chisel-lake tool . More correctly, fragment of grey coarse granular raw material is the bestexpressed side scraper. On a convex part of it is well-traced wide flat facette or scar. On its edge is a large notched retouch. It is less possible, that it was result of ‘tramples’. The size is: 5.7 x 3.0 x 1.5 cm (Fig.9: 14). The fourth scraper (size: 3.6 x 1.9 x 1.3 cm) represents trihedral in section fragment of

From thirty initial blanks (bases) 12 were transformed into retouched tools. However, it is not possible to call such retouch regular and careful. The blanks have rather irregular character. The shape of working edge, linked with the second-generation negatives was trihedral-dihedral and dihedral. Gross weight of retouched products was 180 g, length from 2.4 up to 5 cm. It is necessary to note that the splitting

Pebbles with scars. Among the most expressed specimens of this type one is interesting indeed. It is fragment of a pebble with facettes having chopped off. Their deliberate character as though does not cause doubts. The pebble is slated lengthways, and due to two rather abrupt scars here is formed small spout -a working element. The material quartzite sandstone - the size: 4.8 x 2.0 x 1,5 cm .

135

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV of stone at Kuldara site was carried out by application of hard hammer technique (Ranov et al. 1992, 339-341; Fig. 11). The scarcity of artefacts certainly reduces the value of Kuldara as an isolated archaeological site, but from chronological point of view these finds have great significance. We can in the given situation note only some features of the material. First of all, it is necessary to point out small size of the artefacts. One fourth of the specimens, identified as artefacts, is smaller than 2 cm, and half of the artefacts is varying in length range up to 4 cm. On the contrary, the high-quality processing of some of the artefacts, first of all the fragments of the bifacial tool or two microlithic cores, may seem surprising. Here, obviously, we should appreciate such artefacts not from established archaeological traditional representations, but from very old age of the new site. Some elements of that industry can appear a little bit unusual. It is probable that new discoveries of artefacts of this industry will allow us to allocate the typological series, of which basic outline is shown in the present publication. The main technique of knapping stone of the Kuldara industry is the pebble technique, which is characterised domination of cortical flakes. In summary, it is possible to note that this still little known industry is unlike other industries known in South Tajikistan. Laying the basis of a developed pebble industry, already known in South Tajikistan, it represents a particular variant of this most ancient site of Lower Palaeolithic in Central Asia (Fig. 10). In any case, based on the techno-typological features it should be considered separate from the Karatau Culture of the Middle Pleistocene and it is allocated as a distinct industry of small tools. This is of chronological significance, marking the early occurrence of the Stone Age people in Central Asia . The Kuldara small flake industry is not an isolated phenomenon. It is possible to refer it to very small instruments with fine retouch known from Mindel period, which have size similar to Mesolithic microliths (Vértes 1970; Burdukiewicz et a1. 1979) or Holstein period in Bilzingsleben (Mania and Vlček 1977). The small instruments are known from the Lower Palaeolithic, including very early industries of East Africa, such as industry from quartzite in the valley Omo (Roche 1981), Koobi Fora (Isaac and Harris 1978) and Olduvai (Leakey 1971). However, there jointly with small instruments of length 3-5 cm are also present numerous larger tools. The small size artefacts prevail absolutely in other mentioned sites. So, an average size of Vértesszőlős tools is 2.4 cm and size of finds in the Omo Valley is over 3 cm. Last years the attention to small instruments first of all was involved in Asia: Israel - Ruhama, 740 kyr old (Ronen et al. 1998) Kazakhstan - travertine sites Shoktas and Koshkurgan, 500 kyr old (Derevianko et al. 2000), in China Donggutuo, Xiaochangliang, 1 myr old (Keates 2000). The

new sites with small artefacts are also known in Europe: in Poland - Trzebnica, 500 kyr old (Burdukiewicz et al. 1994), in Czech Republic - Račiněves, 600 kyr old (Tyráček et al. 2001), and some other sites (Moncel, this volume). These researches, first of all in China and Israel, have given a new impulse to study of small instruments, which resulted in occurrence of new problems - how to set so early occurrence of the small size tools. In connection with the interest in small tools and special technology of these Lower Palaeolithic artefacts there are questions requiring special discussion. Which stone tools should be considered as small? Is it possible to base definition of small tools on measure criteria (for example, to exclude instruments longer than 5 cm from group of small tools)? In archaeological literature there is no consistent view, as in many other cases, when the size criteria will be seen as crucial. If yes, such criteria will introduce further complications. For example, in a paper devoted to the artefact collection from the Evron site in Israel, artefacts of ‘normal’ size and small ones occur in the same assemblage, within the limits of 1.7 to 4 cm (Ronen, this volume). In an article G. Prince has suggested another description: ‘113 objects have very small sizes from 2 to 11 cm maximum’ (Prince 2001, 338). For Xiaochangliang as small artefacts are included specimens having length from 0.5 up to 4.5 cm (Keates 2000, 31). In other Chinese works artefacts from Nihewan localities are determined as ‘extremely small’. Czech archaeologists called ‘rather small’ artefacts having average sizes in 6.4 cm (Tyráček et al. 2001, 136). The microindustrial complexes in Southern Kazakhstan have in the base artefacts of Koshkurgan 1 site, which were characterized as ‘miniature’ for specimens varying from 2 to 4 ?m in length (Derevianko et al. 2000, 18). Thus, it is roughly possible to consider, instruments should be defined as small if their length is up to 5 cm (with some variation). As well as in many other cases of archaeological classification, here it is impossible to avoid difficulties and exceptions. In the current situation, taking into account the interests of the researchers engaged in the study of small instruments, it would be correct, when mixed industries (including small as well as large instruments) will be described by specification of percentage ratio of both groups (Gilead 1977, 47). As frequently the question, which reasons induced usage of small instruments is far from solution. Here it is possible to allocate three probable hypotheses, each of which has the convincing and opposite substantiations: a) Functional hypothesis. The most significant kind of this hypothesis was submitted in the report of L. Longo, C. Peretto and A. Minelli - Middle Pleistocene flake industries: a dilemma or a behavioural strategy? The case of Italy during the Research Workshop of ESF at Liege ‘Lower Palaeolithic small tools in Europe and the Levant’. According to main idea of this report small flakes

136

SMALLINSTRUMENTS INSTRUMENTS OF OF THE THE L OWER P SITE KULDARA SMALL LOWER PALAEOLITHIC ALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA THEIRGEOARCHAEOLOGICAL GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING ANDTHEIR AND MEANING

were simply more suitable for working, in particular, to cut meat. But this raised a question: If this is the case, why did man at other sites use flakes and tools of ‘normal size’ for the same function? Experimental analyses indicate that these tools were very effective (Matukhin 1983, 182-183). Obviously, in the case of use for functional tasks of small instruments their manufacturers should have any tendency make such tools, what means some habit or tradition. Such tradition was possibly characteristic for one human group, and not for another. b) The main counter-evidence in this case is that on several sites both small and large tools have been found together. In this situation, in particular as specified by S. Keates, who doubts in validity of the existence in northern China of two traditions of Palaeolithic cultural development large tools: Kehe, Lantian, Sanmenxia and Dingcun and small tools: Donggutuo, Zhoukoudian and Xujiayao (Keates 2000, 5). c) The existence of the so-called ‘microlithic complex’ in Europe supported K. Valoch (see Burdukiewicz et al. 1994, 39). In another work, issued in Novosibirsk devoted to complexes of small instruments from Kazakhstan, the idea of traditional basis of small tools production was carried out: ‘a conclusion can be tentatively made that during the period about 700-800 kyr to about 150-100 kyr ago, a major area of identical Lower Palaeolithic cultures characterized by a distinct microindustry existed in the whole territory of Eurasia stretching from Pacific Ocean on the east to the Atlantic Ocean on the west’. (Derevianko et al. 2000, 155). Although it is difficult to imagine the movement of a tradition of manufacturing small tools through territories, where Acheulean industries are known (in this period the Acheulean population was rather rare), and the preservation of these traditions in various palaeoecological conditions and the availability of various raw materials for manufacturing instruments, such hypothesis should be seriously considered. The opportunity of a counter movement of ancient people from east on west of Eurasia has got lastly new supporters (Rolland 1998).

Thus, it is still difficult to favour any of the possible hypotheses, and more data are needed to examine this problem further. It is quite possible that the occurrence of small tools was determined not by one but by several factors. Authors’ addresses: Vadim A. Ranov Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography 33 Rudaki Avenue Dushanbe 734025 Tajikistan E-mail: ranov@ac. tajik.net Andrey E. Dodonov Geological Institute 7 Pyzhevskii per. Moscow 109017 Russia Phone: +7 095 2308131 Fax: +7 095 9510443 E-mail: [email protected]

The instruments had other technical reasons. The argument of Y. Zaidner, who considered that besides possible technological tradition, the small tools from the Ruhama site are related to the superior quality of small flint pebbles compared to the larger pebbles, extracted from Pliocene sediments of an ancient sea coast is convincing (Zaidner, this volume). In Kuldara, for example, very small pebbles were really available. But entirely near, up to distance 2 kilometres, in a valley of the river Obi-Mazar were larger pebbles of the same raw material. On the other hand, in Kůlna Cave (Moravia) from the same hornfels, quartz and quartz rock were made both groups of tools, of the ‘normal’ size, and small one (Taubachian industry; Valoch 1988).

137

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV

Fig. 1. Main Palaeolithic sites of South Tajikistan: 1 - Obi-Mazar/Lakhuti, 2 – Kuldara, 3 – Khanako, 4 – Chashmanigar, 5 – Shugnou, 6 – Ogizkichlik, 7 – Karatau, 8 – Karamaidan, 9 – Khudji.

138

SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING

Fig. 2. Topographical survey of the area of Kuldara site. Inscriptions done by Russian: II/5 – paleosoils.

139

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV

Fig. 3. The loess-paleosols outcrop on the right flank of the Kuldara ravine. Soil numbers correspond the same on the figure 4 (see Fig. 4, B).

140

SMALL INSTRUMENTS SITEKK ULDARA SMALL INSTRUMENTSOF OFTHE THE L LOWER OWER PALAEOLITHIC ALAEOLITHIC SITE ULDARA AND THEIR MEANING THEIRGEOARCHAEOLOGICAL GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING AND

Fig. 4. The Kuldara loess-paleosols section. A - the plan-location of the sections I and II , and the archaeological site III; B - outcrops along the Kuldara ravine; C - paleomagnetic characteristic (by A.V. Pen'kov): 1 - loess, 2 - buried soil, 3 - carbonate crust, 4 - points of collected samples, 5 - soil number, polarity: 6 - normal, 7 - reversed; 8 - the Matuyama-Brunhes reversal, 9 - archaeological finds.

Fig. 5. Western wall of excavation unit: 1 – modern soil, 2 – intergumentary compositions – the aleurites (like loess) and clay, 3 – ancient buried brown colour soils (paleosoils), 4 – illuvial-carbonated layers of paleosoils, 5 – carbonate concretions, 6 – fractions of carbonate crusts, 7 – artefacts, 8 – indefinable bones, 9 – pollen samples, 10 – number of soils.

141

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV

Fig. 6. General view of Kuldara excavation.

Fig. 7. Kuldara site 1981-1983: A – the artefact' number for square metre: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. B – vertical distribution of finds. C – plan of 1983 excavation. There are in both cases not full number of artefacts because a part of them was dislocated during the excavation.

142

SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING

AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING

Fig. 8. Kuldara site. Artefacts: 1 – flake, 2, 7 – flake-blades, 3, 4 – spall-wedges, 5, 6 – cores, 8 – retouched flake, 9 – cortex dominant flake, 10 – retouched spall.

143

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV

Fig. 9. Kuldara site. Artefacts. 1, 13 – slice (quartier d'orange), 2, 10 – borers, 3-4,6 – retouched flakes, 5, 8 , 12 – retouched spalls, 7 – scraper, 9 – spall, 11 – flake, 14 – side scraper.

144

SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING

AND THEIR GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING

Fig. 10. The stratigraphy of loess palaeosoils (1-15) and Palaeolithic industries in Tajikistan (a – stone artefacts, b – bones).

145

VADIM A. RANOV AND ANDREY E. DODONOV Bibliography Burdukiewicz J.M., D. Mania, A. Kocoń and T. Weber 1979, Die Silex Artefakte von Bilzingsleben. Zu ihrer morphologischen Analyse, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 20, p. 682-703. Burdukiewicz J.M., Z. Śnieszko and J. Winnicki 1994, A Lower Palaeolithic settlement at Trzebnica (SW Poland), Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 35, p. 27-40. Derevianko A.P., V.T. Petrin and J.K. Taimagambetov 2000, The Phenomenon of Microindustrial Complexes in Eurasia, Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, No 4 (4), p. 2-18. Derevianko A.P., V.T. Petrin, J.K. Tajmagambetov, Z. K. Isabekov, A.G. Ribalko and M. Otte 2000, Lower Palaeolithic microindustrial complexes in travertines of Southern Kazakhstan, Izdatielstvo IAE SO RAN, Novosibirsk, 299 p. (in Russian). Dodonov A.E. and A.V. Pen'kov 1977, Some given on stratigraphy of watershed loess of the Tadjik depression (Southern Tajikistan), Bulletin of Commission for Study of the Quaternary, 47, p. 67 - 76 (in Russian). Dodonov A.E. and V.A. Ranov 1976a, New Palaeolithic finds in loess of basin Kisilsu river Southern Tadjikistan), Bulletin of Commission for Study of the Quaternary, 46, p. 99-106 (in Russian). Dodonov A.E. and V.A. Ranov 1976b, Palaeolithic find in ancient loess at Khovaling district, Archaeological discoveries of 1975, Moscow, p. 563 -564 (in Russian). Dodonov A.E., N. Shackleton, L.P. Zhou, S.P. Lomov and A.F. Finaev 1999, Quaternary Loess Paleosol Stratigraphy of Central Asia: Geochronology, Correlation and Evolution of Paleoenvironments, Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 7 (6), p. 581-593. Gilead D. 1977, Some metrical studies of Acheulian assemblages in Israel, Eretz Israel, 13, Jerusalem, p. 38 48. Isaac G. and J. Harris (eds.) 1978, Archaeology, Koobi Fora Research Project, Oxford University Press, Oxford, vol. 1, p. 64-85. Keates S.G. 2000, Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China, BAR International Series, 863, Oxford, 387 p. Lazarenko A.A. and V.I. Gromov 1970, A find of Palaeolithic flake in the sediments of the Tashkent complex in Pskent area, Transactions of the Intern. Symposium: On lithology and genesis of loess formation, Tashkent, 1, p. 233 - 237 (in Russian). Lazarenko A.A. and V.A. Ranov 1977, Karatau I - most ancient Palaeolithic site in loess of Central Asia, Bulletin of Commission for Study of the Quaternary, 47, p. 45 - 57 (in Russian). Leakey M. 1971, Olduvay Gorge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol. 3. 298 p.

Lomov S.P. and V.A. Ranov 1985, The Peculiarities of the Pleistocene Palaeosol Formations and Distribution of Embedded Palaeolithic Tools, Climate and geology of Kashmir and Central Asia, New Delhi, p. 227240. Mania D. and E. Vlček 1977, Altpaläolitische Funde mit Homo Erectus von Bilzingsleben (DDR), Archeologické rozhledy, 29, p. 603-616. Matukhin A.E. 1983, The tools of Early Palaeolithic. In: A.N. Rogatshev (ed.), Technology of production in Palaeolithic Epoch, Nauka Publisher, Leningrad, p. 134-187 (in Russian). Mavljanov N.G. and M.R. Kasimov 1984, A find of Palaeolithic tool in the Arkutsay section of the foothill part of Karjantau ridge, Uzbek Geological Journal, 3, p. 66 - 67 (in Russian). Nikiforova K.V. and E.A. Vangengeim (eds.) 1988, Biostratigraphy of the Late Pliocene - Early Pleistocene of Tajikistan, Moskva, 126 p. (in Russian). Prince G. 2001, Galets aménagés et occupation humaine de l'Ouest African. Découverte récente de galets aménagés en contexte stratigraphique en Mauritanie, XIVe Congres de l'Union Internationale des Sciences Prehistoriques Protohistoriques 2-8 septembre 2001, Pré-Actes, Liège. p. 338. Ranov V.A. 1980, Early Palaeolithic finds in loess of Southern Tajikistan, In: The Neogene-Quaternary boundary, Moskva, p. 202-207. Ranov V.A. 1987, Works of group on study of Stone Age in 1980, Archaeological work in Tajikistan, 20, p. 8695 (in Russian). Ranov V.A. 1988, Works of group on study of Stone Age in 1981, Archaeological work in Tajikistan, 21, p. 201233 (in Russian). Ranov V.A. 1991, Works of group on study of Stone Age in 1983, Archaeological work in Tajikistan, 23, p. 116142 (In Russian). Ranov V. A. 1995, The ‘Loessic Palaeolithic’ in South Tajikistan, Central Asia: its industries, chronology and correlation, Quaternary Science Reviews, 14, p. 731745. Ranov V.A. 2000, Loess - soil formation of Southern Tajikistan and Loessic Palaeolithic, Archaeological work in Tajikistan, 27, p. 21-49 (in Russian). Ranov V.A., E. Carbonell and X.P. Rodrigues 1992, Lahuti (Khovaling, Tadjikistan): A Singular Technical Operative Chain in Central Asia. In: Paleoecology and Early Man's Settling in North Asia and America, Krasnojarsk, p. 309-310. Ranov V.A., E. Carbonell and X.P. Rodrigues 1995, Kuldara: Earliest Human Occupation in Central Asia in its AfroAsian Context, Current Anthropology, 36 (2), p. 337346. Ranov V.A., A.E. Dodonov, S.P. Lomov, M.M. Pakhomov and A.V. Pen'kov 1987, Kuldara -a new Palaeolithic site of Southern Tajikistan, Bulletin of Commission

146

SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA SMALL INSTRUMENTS OF THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE KULDARA THEIRGEOARCHAEOLOGICAL GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL MEANING AND AND THEIR MEANING

for Study of the Quaternary, 56, p. 65-75, Novosibirsk (In Russian). Ranov V.A. and V.A. Jukov 1982, Works of group on study of Stone age in 1976, Archaeological work in Tadjikistan, 16, p. 9-30 (in Russian). Roche E. 1980, Premiers outils taillés d'Afrique, Société d'ethnographie, Mayenne, 264 p. Rolland N. 1998, The Lower Palaeolithic settlement of Eurasia with special reference to Europe, Early Human Behaviour in Global Context, London and New York, p. 187-220. Ronen A. 1991, The Lower Palaeolithic site Evron-Quarry in western Galilee, Israel, Sonderveröffentlichungen der Geologiches Institut der Universität zu Köln, 82, p. 187-212. Shackleton N.J. 1995, New data on the evolution of Pliocene climate variability, Paleoclimate and evolution with emphasis of human origins, Yale University Press, Yale, p. 242-248. Tyráček J., O. Fejfar, J. Fridrich, J. Kovanda, L. Smolíková, and I. Sýkorová 2001, Račiněves - a new Middle Pleistocene interglacial in the Czech Republic, Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey, 76 (2), p. 127-139. Valoch K. 1988, Die Erforschung der Kůlna - Hohle 19611976, Anthropos, 24, Brno, p. 1-200. Vértes L. 1970, “Zitrus” (epi-choppers) - Industrie in Ungarn. In: H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Frühe Menscheit und Umwelt, Fundamenta, Reihe A/2, Koln Graz, p. 28-33.

147

148

LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SMALL TOOLS IN EUROPE AND THE LEVANT Edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen, BAR S1115, 2003, p.149-168

The role of raw material in explaining tool assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China Susan G. Keates

Introduction Variability of Palaeolithic tool assemblages in China has for almost three decades usually been interpreted in terms of cultural differences. Assemblages are recognised as representative of two different cultures or industries, the small and large tool traditions, placed within an ancestral-descendant framework (e.g., Chia et al. 1972; Jia and Huang 1985; Zhang 1990). The small tool tradition is characterised by flake tools (so-called ‘microlithic’ tools) and is also called (in chronological sequence) the Donggutuo - Zhoukoudian Locality 1 - Xujiayao - Sjarra-osso-gol (Salawusu) - Shiyu - Xiaonanhai Culture Tradition. The tools diagnostic of the large tool tradition are core tools, heavy triangular points and spheroids, and referred to as the Kehe and Lantian - Sanmenxia - Dingcun Culture Tradition (e.g., Jia and Huang 1985; Jia 1980:58-59; Chia et al. 1972; Chia and Wei 1976; Wei 1981; and see Aigner 1981, 277; Pope 1988; Yi and Clark 1983). These traditions were originally argued to have developed independently (Chia et al. 1972). The co-occurrence of both small and large tools at some Chinese sites has prompted consideration of partly inter-dependent cultures (e.g., Jia and Huang 1985; Jia 1980:59; Wei 1981; Zhang 1990) and other possible traditions (Jia and Huang 1985; Qiu 1985). More recently, other factors have been considered to explain the apparent small and large tool dichotomy, including palaeoenvironmental conditions, collector's bias, activity facies and raw material variation (e.g., Aigner 1981:e.g., p. 275-278; Tang and Gai 1986; Pope 1988). Studies of Chinese tool assemblages have indicated that raw material may be a significant factor in explaining assemblage variability, and in particular the informality of tools (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin and Licent 1924; Black et al. 1933; You et al. 1978). Movius (1978, 352) argued that tool morphology in Eastern Asia was significantly influenced by raw material ‘limitations and influences’. Research into the nature of raw materials used in the Palaeolithic of China is, however, still at a relatively early stage. In this paper, I will concentrate on the role of raw material in the manufacture of tool assemblages while realising that other factors, such as activity facies must also be considered in examinations

of assemblage variability. The emphasis here will be on studies of raw materials used in the manufacture of late Early Pleistocene small tool assemblages in northern China and a brief overview of some other Pleistocene small tool assemblages in China. For comparison, reference is made to assemblages, which include small and large tools. 1. Early assemblages and raw material use in the eastern Nihewan Basin, northern China 1.1 The assemblages and raw materials The sites of Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo are located in the eastern part of the Nihewan Basin, northwest of Beijing, in Hebei province (Figs. 1-3). These sites lie within approximately 1500 m of each other in an area known as the Donggutuo Platform. Stone tool assemblages from these sites were discovered in stratigraphic, faunal and palaeomagnetic contexts, which date to about 1 myr (e.g., You et al. 1978; Wei 1985; Pope et al. 1990; Schick et al. 1991; Pope and Keates 1994). Only parts of the Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo assemblages have been published. These assemblages comprise debitage (cores, unretouched chunks and flakes) and tools manufactured by direct hard hammer percussion, and used and discarded at the sites (e.g., Keates 2000a, 26-62; You et al. 1978; Wei 1985; Schick et al. 1991). A few artefacts derive from bipolar percussion (Keates 2000a, 32). The technology used by the Xioachangliang and Donggutuo hominids can be described as expedient: the ‘uneconomical’ use of raw materials, the low frequency of retouched core and flake platforms and of tools shaped by secondary retouch (Keates 1994; 2000a, 42). Another characteristic of these assemblages is small artefact size (e.g., Wei 1985; Keates 1994; 2000a; Schick et al. 1991), and Table 1 details the dimensions of the Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo artefacts (after Keates 2000a). The high incidence of step fractures (cores), step and hinge fractures (flakes), and chunky debitage are possibly associated with the frangible, heterogeneous nature of the materials exploited for tool manufacture (Keates 2000a, 40). Cores include single, double and multiplatform specimens. Figure 4 shows some of the more regular shaped cores. Figures 5 and 6 show

149

SUSAN G. KEATES unmodified flakes from Donggutuo and tools from Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo. (Tab.1) The frequency of chert use is similar at Xiaochangliang (98.3% of 804 artefacts; You et al. 1978; 95.3 % of 150 artefacts; Keates 2000a, 43) and Donggutuo (sublocalities T1-T5, 96.6% of 703 artefacts; Keates 2000a, 49). The major raw material used at Donggutuo, sublocality T1 (level A) has also been referred to as ‘chert/fine-grained quartzite’ (96.2% of 1,432 artefacts) and the chert in an outcrop near Donggutuo characterised as ‘low-quality’ stone; chert used in experiments is described as ‘excellent to poor’ Schick et al. 1991, 17, 21-22). Other raw materials used at Xiaochangliang were vein quartz, quartzite, and basalt (You et al. 1978) and indurated sandstone (n. 1; Keates 2000a, 43, 49). At Donggutuo sublocality T1, level A, artefacts in volcanic stone, limestone and other material total 54 specimens had been made (Schick et al. 1991). A few of the artefacts are in flint, and show a white coloured splintery fracture (personal observation; see also Keates 2000a, 28). Comparison of the materials in which the artefacts were made with those observed in the local outcrops indicates that most materials were collected from the largest or main outcrop. Figure 7 gives some idea of the large extent of the main outcrop. Chert and basalt occur in the form of angular, irregular blocks in this outcrop, and they are relatively easy to collect. The greatest dimensions of those blocks sampled were approximately 10-25 cm (Keates 2000a, 28). The abundance of chert and relative ease of extraction are possibly the main reasons why chert was so abundantly selected. One could also say, based on present knowledge of the raw materials occurring in the local outcrops, that the hominids were limited in their choice of material to chert. The close vicinity of the outcrops to the sites would mean that the Donggutuo and Xiaochangliang hominids had to spend relatively little time in exploiting stone. If the gorge now separating Xiaochangliang from the main outcrop formed through faulting and erosion and if this occurred after site occupation, the Xiaochangliang hominids may have had access to ‘only’ the surface of this outcrop (Keates 2000a, 22). Chert is not only the most abundant raw material occurring in several outcrops of the Donggutuo Platform area, it is also the most variable material found here, and occurs, based on preliminary studies, as fine, fine-coarse and coarse chert and in a variety of colours. Some of the chert has conglomeratic inclusions. The chert varieties can be found in most of the local outcrops (Keates 2000a, 27-28). The source of a multi-coloured, fine and shiny chert was found not far from Xiaochangliang, and vein quartz occurs in an outcrop to the west of Xiaochangliang (Li Yi pers. comm.). Flint was located in the main outcrop where it appears to be rare (pers. observation, and see Keates 2000a, 28). Most of the early Nihewan artefacts examined by this writer were made

in fine-grained chert (Keates 2000a, 30, 34). The materials of two tools from Donggutuo appear on present evidence to be very rare or unique in the assemblages. These tools are in a very fine-grained chocolate coloured chert (from sublocality T4, layer C; Fig. 8a) and in a fine-grained alabaster coloured chert (from sublocality T5, layer C; Fig. 8b). Neither of these cherts appear to have been identified in the local outcrops. Both specimens were shaped by secondary retouch, most pronounced on the chocolate coloured chert. In both texture and colour, the latter piece is very similar (if not identical) to a chert exploited at Xujiayao, a late Middle Pleistocene/early Late Pleistocene site in the Yangyuan Basin, about 50 km from the early Nihewan sites (Keates 2000a, 28). Where these tools manufactured elsewhere and introduced to Donggutuo? Are these curated tools? Mineralogical analysis (cf. Stiles 1991) may help to establish the exact place of derivation of these materials. In the general context of raw material studies in the Nihewan, a major objective of future research should be to map all outcrops in this area, to detail their raw materials as well as determining the source location of all materials used (including any occurring in the area and not used). This will include establishing, where possible, which of these sources were accessible at different times during the occupation history of the area. Furthermore, if the scope of studies of raw material variation (knapping experiments, mineralogical analysis) is extended, it could help to more substantially evaluate the processes of hominid selection of the materials for tool manufacture. 1.2 Raw material behaviour as deduced from knapping experiments The first excavators of Xiaochangliang suggested that the trend of the chert to develop fractures was the reason, why large cores unlike small cores were not further worked and abandoned (You et al. 1978). This difference in the tractability of the local chert has not been confirmed by subsequent knapping experiments (see below), but the scope of studies of raw material variation so far has been limited. You et al. (1978) also argue that the frangible nature of the chert can be correlated with the high frequency of debitage (98.1% of a total of 804 artefacts studied) and that the small size of tools can to some extent be explained by the disintegration of chert in the course of knapping. It was also suggested that the high debitage frequencies might reflect the poor technological ability of Lower Palaeolithic hominids (You et al. 1978). In an attempt to further examine the behaviour of the materials available to the early hominids, I conducted three knapping experiments (July 1990). For these experiments two blocks each of fine and fine-coarse chert and one fine grain basalt block, extracted from the main outcrop were knapped at the village of Guanting (about 1,500 m distance

150

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA from the outcrop). A relatively even surfaced pebble-sized stone and a block of chert were used as hammerstones, but a more manageable stone in terms of size and surface regularity was not found. The use of both hammerstones resulted in similar products that is irregular chunky fragments, whole and broken flakes as well as micro flakes (Fig. 9). In the course of the experiments it became apparent that the chert has a strong tendency to disintegrate after only a few strikes with a hammerstone, in other words, because of its frangibility the chert is difficult to control. It was also difficult to find a good angle. Both of the chert varieties and the basalt showed a similar quality in fracturing, although far less chips were generated from the basalt (Keates 2000a, 28). Similar results were produced by experiments previously carried out by Pope (Keates 2000a, 28; Pope and Keates 1994). In knapping experiments by Schick et al. (1991), less fine-grained chert was observed to disintegrate and shatter along blocky fracture planes and that more flakes than fragments were produced with the fine chert. The experiments indicate that more experience with working these materials may not necessarily improve knapping control. One indication that the Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo hominids tried to counter the material's frangibility is the occurrence of several cores with a flat or approximately flat platform area (Keates 2000a, 42). It was concluded that ‘Raw material, rather than core reduction technology, seems more likely to be responsible for the small size of the artefacts’ (Keates 2000a, 42). 2. Raw material and assemblage variability at some other Chinese sites 2.1 Small tool sites We know more about raw material exploitation at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 than for most other sites in China, partly because of the long history of research conducted at the complex. Locality 1 is the principal Palaeolithic site in China, a large cave complex located about 50 km southwest of Beijing (Fig. 1). This Middle Pleistocene site has yielded abundant fauna, artefacts and other evidence of hominid activity (e.g., Pei 1931; Black et al. 1933; Jia 1980; Aigner 1981; Keates 2001b). Stone artefacts number about 100,000 specimens (e.g., Jia and Huang 1990, 219; Wu and Lin 1985; there is also an estimate of 20,000 specimens, see I.V.P.P. (1980, 32). Stone artefacts were manufactured in 44 raw materials, and most of these materials appear to have been sourced from the nearby river (e.g. Teilhard and Pei 1932, 322), including stones for the predominant vein quartz artefacts (88.4%) (Pei and Zhang 1985). A small number of materials are from outcrops located from 2 to 5 km from the cave. These include (1) a source of chert, which is rare in the Zhoukoudian region (Aigner 1981, 146; and see, e.g., Teilhard and Pei 1932, 322; Jia 1989); chert

artefacts were mainly found in the later period (layers 3 and 4-5; e.g., Pei and Zhang 1985, 222); (2) rock crystal (Pei and Zhang 1985) and (3) and other materials (Zhang 1985, 1989; Table 2). The use of bipolar reduction at Locality 1 has been linked to the intractability (Breuil 1935) and small size of vein quartz nodules (Zhang 1985, 1989). Cores and flakes produced with the bipolar technique occur in smaller dimensions compared to direct percussion flakes and cores, with bipolar length ranges of 19-73 mm and 14-91 mm, and direct percussion length ranges of 29-198 mm and 11-124 mm (Pei and Zhang 1985). The small size of tools is also notable with more than 70% measuring less than 40 mm in length. Irregular shape is also a distinct feature of the Locality 1 tools (e.g. Pei and Zhang 1985, 274; Zhang 1989), and tools, which were shape retouched, are rare (Pei and Zhang 1985, 274; Teilhard and Pei 1932, e.g. p. 329, 354; Black et al. 1933, e.g. p. 131-132; Jia and Huang 1990, 122). Both early and late researchers of the Locality 1 collection argue that the poor quality of vein quartz (e.g. Teilhard and Pei 1932, 353; Black et al. 1933, 133; Zhang 1989) as well as its occurrence and close availability near the cave (Movius 1949, 402) could explain the informality of artefacts. Teilhard de Chardin (1941, 63, 62) argued that there was a “scarcity of good siliceous rocks” in ‘Lower Pleistocene’ China. At the nearby Locality 13, a chert biface and a few vein quartz artefacts were found with fossil fauna, including charred bones and also charcoal (e.g., Pei 1934); one artefact is in a another material (see I.V.P.P. 1980, 41). The materials from this cave/fissure site are younger than 690 kyr and predate most of the Locality 1 deposits (e.g. Qian et al. 1980). Measurements are not available for most of the artefacts. The chert tool measures 785 x 580 x 363 mm in length, width and thickness (e.g., Pei 1934; Movius 1944, 70-71; personal observation) and two other artefacts measure 61 mm and 76 mm in length, the larger one representing a pointed vein quartz specimen (I.V.P.P. 1980, 41). At Locality 15, a late Middle Pleistocene/early Late Pleistocene (140-120 kyr) cave site at Zhoukoudian, vein quartz is the most common raw material. Most artefacts are debitage. The tools are usually small and of irregular shape (Pei 1938; Gao 2001; personal observation). Of 1,281 tools recently studied, 93.4% are in vein quartz; other materials include mostly flint (4.2%) and rock crystal (1.1%) (Gao 2001). Vein quartz is common and of low quality, although some small quartz cores were intensively flaked and tools in this quartz more retouched than most tools (Gao 2000). Raw material sources exploited by the Locality 13 and 15 hominids were possibly the same as those used at Locality 1, with vein quartz sourced from the nearby river and chert, flint and rock crystal from a few kilometres distance (Table 2).

151

SUSAN G. KEATES Here is a note on the terminology of flint and chert in the Chinese language. Flint and chert have an identical character (translated as ‘suishi’, firestone; also: beaconfire), which makes it impossible to know whether flint or chert was identified in an assemblage unless one has personally seen the artefacts concerned. There is also one character for flint only (translated as: ‘huoshi’, firestone), but even when this is used in the literature, the ‘flint’ can be chert (personal observation of various collections). Small tool assemblages have also been found at the Dali county sites, central Shaanxi province, in central China (Fig. 1). The Dali river terrace hominid locality yielded 851 artefacts associated with fossils of late (e.g., Wu and You 1979; Chen and Yuan 1988; Keates 2001a, b) or middle to late (Yin et al. 2001) Middle Pleistocene age. Quartzite (52%), chert and vein quartz artefacts predominate based on 670 artefacts (cores, chunks, flakes and tools) (Zhang and Zhou 1984; Zhou and Zhang 1986). Direct hard hammer percussion was the predominant technique, and a few artefacts were derived from bipolar percussion. Small artefact size is characteristic of the specimens, and mean flake length is 30 mm (Wu and You 1979; Zhang and Zhou 1984; Zhou and Zhang 1986). Most tools are unstandardised (Keates 2001a, b). The river terrace localities DT18 and DY15, located near the Ruohe river and dated biostratigraphically to the Early Pleistocene, have yielded vertebrate fossils and artefacts from DT18 (layers 2 (2.5 m thick) and 3 (1.8 m thick) and artefacts from DY15 (layers 1 (3.8 m thick) and 2 (5 m thick) (TIASP and CPAM 1996, 8-9 and Figs. 6 and 7). Most of the 2,291 stone artefacts were produced on flint (or chert?) with a frequency of 76.4%, and the balance on quartzite (21.3%) and vein quartz (2.3%) (Li and Wen 1986, 45-87). Direct hard hammer percussion with occasional bipolar reduction were used to manufacture the mostly small artefacts. Tools of small size (92.8%) and irregular morphology predominate in these assemblages (TIASP and CPAM 1996) and can be compared to those found at the Dali hominid locality. All materials may have been sourced locally; for example, the archaeological layers at the Dali hominid locality contain pebbles (Table 2). Detailed raw material sampling could further our understanding of sourcing strategies in Dali county. At the southern Chinese cave site of Guanyindong hominids sourced their chert from about 4 km from this cave (Leng 1992 in Schepartz et al. 2000; Fig. 1; Table 2). Stone artefacts and fossils dating to the late Middle Pleistocene and Late Pleistocene were found here in several layers (Li and Wen 1978, 1986; Keates 2001a). The studied artefacts found at Guanyindong Cave A (2,323 of a total of 3,000 specimens; Li and Wen 1978, 1986; Zhang 1985; Li 1989) include tools (65.9%), flakes (20.9%) and cores (13.2%).

These were manufactured using direct hard hammer percussion (Li 1989) and mostly silicified limestone (65%); other raw materials include silicified rock (10%), vein quartz (13%), chert (4%), chalcedony (3%), fine sandstone (2%), and mudstone. The chert was intensively worked (Leng 1992 in Schepartz et al. 2000). Tools are mostly unstandardised and small (unmodified flake and flake tool length range of 30-50 mm) (Li and Wen 1978; 1986; Li 1989; Zhang 1985). At the late Middle Pleistocene Panxian Dadong cave, western Guizhou province, southern China, chert (37%), basalt (30%), siliceous limestone (29%) are the major materials (Fig. 1). All materials used (including also sandstone, travertine, etc.) can be found locally: in the hill outcrops, the riverbed and the cave. Most of the chert is described as a stone of inferior quality. Chert, basalt and sandstone are interpreted as suitable for small tool manufacture in contrast to the limestone, the size of the blocks in the cave, which lends itself to the manufacture of larger tools (Huang et al. 1997). Rhinoceros tooth fragments were used to make tools (small scrapers) (Miller-Antonio et al. 2000; Schepartz et al. 2000). Excavation of Cave 2 of the central Guizhou province cave sites of Feihushan yielded terminal Pleistocene (14C dates of c. 13 kyr) stone artefacts, fossil fauna and burnt bones (Fig. 1). Most of these derive from trench 2, layer 2. Of the 532 Palaeolithic cores (38.7%), unmodified flakes (37.6%), and tools (23.7%), 70% were made in flint (or chert?); limestone, sandstone, quartz, basalt and rock crystal artefacts have also been identified. The raw materials occur in the local mountain range and on the riverbank. Tools are described as unstandardised and small. The smallest length and width range of flake tools (88.1%) is 32 x 17 mm and the largest length and width range is 94 x 64 mm. The lower number of core tools (11.9%) have minimum and maximum length and width ranges of 29 x 22 mm and 64 x 65 mm respectively (Li and Wan 1993; Table 2). The late Middle Pleistocene site of Xujiayao in the fluviolacustrine deposits of northern Shanxi province (Chia and Wei 1976; Chia et al. 1979; Fig. 1) has in its vicinity a river in which some or all of the raw materials occur which were exploited for tool manufacture (Wei Qi pers. comm.; Keates 2001a). Artefacts, fossil fauna and evidence for fire appear to have been deposited during two episodes of occupation (see Chia et al. 1979, Fig. 2; Keates 2001a). The tool assemblages have been only incompletely published. The 14,239 stone artefacts (Chia and Wei 1976; Chia et al. 1979) comprise cores, chunks, unmodified flakes and tools. Twelve materials have been identified with vein quartz prevalent (64%) followed by conglomerate rock (11%), flint or chert (8%) and other stones (Table 2). Direct hard hammer percussion was identified as the major technique, and some artefacts are anvil and bipolar products. The generally small tool size (Chia and Wei 1976; Chia et al. 1979; Qiu 1985; Keates 2001b) may be related to the available raw materi-

152

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA als (Aigner 1981, 233). The smallest artefacts weigh less than one gramme and the largest weighs 1,980 g (Chia et al. 1979). Large quartzite stones of cobble size were also exploited and used for spheroid manufacture. The spheroids are larger than most of the other artefacts, but metric information has not been published, except for the weight of the more flaked specimens (n. 344 of 1,059 found in 1976) from the 1976 excavation: small, 80-500 g; medium, 500-1500 g; large, 1500-2000 g (Chia et al. 1979). Incidentally, the function of spheroids remains enigmatic. Jia (1980) proposed that they were used for hunting. Another possibility is that spheroids functioned as hide processing tools (similar to spheroid use by the Cheyenne). Their large number would then identify Xujiayao as a major hide processing site. The predominance of cortical flake platforms (98.3%; Chia et al. 1979) and the rare shape retouch of tools (Aigner 1981, 233; but see Qiu 1985) may be related to the small size of the raw material exploited for tool manufacture, including thumbnail scrapers (Keates 1997). The latter tool type was common in the Late Palaeolithic of northern China (Tang and Gai 1986). The river terrace locality of Shiyu in the Datong Basin of northern Shanxi province dates to the later Late Pleistocene (Fig. 1). Artefacts, fossils and fire-modified fossils were recovered from the second terrace (layer 2, an 0.9-1.5 m thick sand and gravel layer with ash), and 14C dated to c. 28 kyr (Academia Sinica 1976 in Wang 1989). Shiyu has yielded one of the largest stone artefact collections from the Chinese Pleistocene with 15,000 specimens, but only 818 specimens have been published (Chia et al. 1972). Tang and Gai (1986) refer to 55,000 lithic artefacts. Small cores and flakes manufactured by direct hard hammer and bipolar percussion have been identified. The majority of artefacts are on pebbles and in vein quartz, and quartzite, siliceous limestone, agate and volcanic rock were also used, but no raw numbers are available (Chia et al. 1972; and see Jia and Huang 1985a). All materials may derive from local sources (Table 2). Shape retouched artefacts appear to be rare based on the illustrations (see Chia et al. 1972, Figs. 4 and 5, Plate; Aigner 1981, 227), but a more recent interpretation refers to standardisation as a significant component and also to projectile points and small blades (Jia and Huang 1985a). At a later locality called Xigou (Quwo county, Shanxi province), situated about 5 km south of Dingcun (see section 3) hornfels was also the predominant material utilised (Fig. 1). Artefacts (172 cores, flakes and tools) were recovered during a preliminary excavation of a sand gravel deposit on a river terrace located about 40 m above the Fenhe river. Most of the few tools are small and not comparable to those from Dingcun in terms of shape and retouch. These differ-

ences reflect temporal as well as manufacturing differences between these sites (I.V.P.P. 1980, 81). It is conceivable that the hornfels used at Xigou derives from the same outcrop used for the Dingcun artefacts (Table 2). Excavation of the river terrace locality Liujiacha in southeastern Gansu province (Huanxian county), where vertebrate fossils and lithic artefacts where found associated in clay layers (sublocalities A and B, layer 5 and 6, 0.5-1 m and 2 m thickness); an early Late Palaeolithic date is indicated by the fossils and artefacts (TGPM 1982; Fig. 1). Of the 1,022 stone artefacts (including 13 “pounded/smashed” cores and flakes), more than 90% are in quartzite and made on pebbles (a more precise estimate is not available (see TGPM 1982, 39; ‘nearly’ 90% according to Tang and Gai (1986, 344); Table 2). Flint, limestone and vein quartz artefacts have also been identified. Artefacts include: cores (39%), unmodified flakes (11.7%), scrapers (41%), points (3.6%), and also burins, choppers and bolas, and most tools are small (TGPM 1982). Tang and Gai (1986, 345) observe that few artefacts were modified by secondary retouch ‘irregular flakes were dominant possibly because it was not easy to obtain regular flakes from poor quartz material’. The small size of the tools from Sjara-osso-gol (Salawusu), a terminal Late Pleistocene locality (14C date of c. 35 kyr (Tang and Gai 1986); c. 44-52 kyr based on U-series determinations; approximate age of 37-50 kyr; Wu and Wang 1985), was explained by ‘the lack of a satisfactory material’ (Teilhard de Chardin and Licent 1924, 47, Fig. 1). As Teilhard de Chardin (1941, 76) noted, ‘Hard siliceous stones are extremely small and rare in the Sjara-osso-gol basin. As a natural consequence of this scarcity of good material, the lithic artefacts collected in the site represent a curious micro-industry: mostly micro-scratchers and micro-points, made either of an entire or of a broken quartzic (or quartzitic) minute pebble’. The materials are predominantly siliceous stone, quartzite and quartz pebbles of 20-40 mm diameter (Jia and Huang 1985a). The later Late Pleistocene Xiaonanhai cave in northern Henan province (Fig. 1) has yielded 7,078 stone artefacts mostly from layer 4 and associated with a range of vertebrate fossils (14C range of c. 22-11 kyr). The excavation results were first published by An (1965) and Chou (1965). Chert is with 90.1% the predominant material used for the manufacture of small flakes and a small frequency of core tools (Table 2). For example, there are approximately 6,360 chert flakes (unmodified specimens and tools) and 4 choppers. Other stone types are quartz (9.7%), flint, chalcedony and limestone (Table 2). An important characteristic of Xiaonanhai is that there is ‘little typological variety’ comparable to the Zhoukoudian localities pattern (Aigner 1981, 88-95).

153

SUSAN G. KEATES At the open air locality of Lingjing in central Honan province (Fig. 1), quartz is the major material. Of the 200 artefacts, which have been published, quartz occurs with a frequency of 69.6%; flint (20%) and quartzite (7.2%) make up the balance of materials. The inferred age for the 1,353 artefacts is late-terminal Late Pleistocene. They were found in sand deposits with fauna (including the extinct Struthio anderssoni) in non-primary contexts. The artefacts comprise small flakes, including flake tools, microcores, ‘microblades’, burins and core tools (see Aigner 1981, 96; Hsiao 1966). Flakes were manufactured from microcores (wedgeshaped, conical and semi-conical). Flake tools (n. 74) are more numerous than those made on pebbles (n. 5). The microlithic technique is described as crude compared to some other microlithic assemblages as, for example, seen in the irregular flake scars on the microcores, although microcores and some tools are of standardised morphology (Zhou 1974). The terminal Late Pleistocene Fulin assemblage from central Sichuan province (Fig. 1) includes more than 5,000 artefacts, including direct and bipolar percussion debitage and tools (Yang 1961; Zhang 1977; and see Chen and Olsen 1990). Small tool size is probably related to raw material size of the main material, black chert used with a frequency of 98% (Table 2). Mean dimensions of scrapers, for example, are 27.3 x 19.6 x 9.7 mm. Other stones exploited were quartz, rock crystal, quartzitic sandstone, granite, hornfels, andesite and siliceous stone. 3. Comparison to some large tool assemblages Parts of the eastern half of central China are known for archaeological localities which have yielded artefacts made on river cobbles, including picks and uni- and bifacially modified cobbles (e.g., Wang 2001). A valuable example of the influence on artefact size and morphology of what appear to have been large sized clasts/nodules can be studied at the Dingcun river terrace localities (southern Shanxi province; Fig. 1). The ten Dingcun localities, at which artefacts were initially found, date to the late Middle Pleistocene/early Late Pleistocene. Of the 2,005 Dingcun artefacts (most recovered in situ, others unprovenanced and surface discoveries) the majority were found at four localities (Pei and Chia 1958) and renewed excavations in the 1970's and 1980's recovered additional artefacts from new localities (Wang et al. 1994; Keates 2001a). Hornfels was the main material used for tool manufacture (94% according to Jia 1980, 44; Qiu 1985; Pei et al. 1958) or 56.9% (Liu 1988; and see Freeman 1977), and was sourced from about seven km (Liu 1988) or ten km (Pei 1955, in Movius 1956) away (Table 2). Thus, hominids at Dingcun specifically selected a raw material, which was not available in the vicinity of the places where tool manufacture occurred, in contrast to many other sites in China based on present evidence.

The artefacts include large flakes, heavy triangular points and bifaces (see especially, Pei et al. 1958; Wang et al. 1994), the latter uncommon in China. The mean tool length is between 57 and 121 mm (most are in the lower range). Retouched tools are infrequent and most were retouched unifacially (Liu 1988). This economy of retouch occurred despite the availability of a fine-grained material, i.e. hornfels. Dingcun is also an area were boulders (greater than 256 mm in diameter) were exploited for tool manufacture. These include two cores found at separate localities and in hornfels: one of these cores was worked around most of its periphery, the other core had a flat, prepared striking platform. I refer to these specimens as ‘stationary cores’, i.e. these heavy cores could be worked in a stable position without having to be handled much. Large sized cobbles were also selected by the Kehe hominids (Shanxi province; Fig. 1). The small collection of artefacts from 11 localities (n. 138) dates to approximately the terminal Middle Pleistocene/early Late Pleistocene (Wei 1992; and see Aigner 1981, 177; Keates 1995, 2000a, 2001a). The raw materials can be found on the local river banks (e.g. Jia 1980, 19) and possibly also from the ancient lake shores (Chia 1963; and see Aigner 1978a, 1981, 178). The artefacts (debitage: 86.2% and tools: 13.8%) were manufactured mostly in quartzite and some in quartz, predominantly employing direct hard hammer percussion (Table 2). There is some evidence for bipolar reduction and thrown/ dropped reduction (e.g., Chia et al. 1964), but the latter technique is less certain (Aigner 1987a; 1981, 178). Tools comprise core and flake tools, including a few scrapers and points; most specimens are unstandardised. Cores were generally not intensely exploited (e.g., Chia et al. 1964). The size range of artefacts is difficult to establish (the artefacts have not been studied in detail), but illustrations of some of the specimens (see Chia et al. 1964) give an idea of their size, for example, 102 mm length for one of the largest flakes; some tools have a greater length. A survey of the Kehe area in 1993 recovered a bifacially worked cobble made of medium grey vein quartz and measuring 83 x 82 x 84 mm (Keates 2000a, 98). Large clasts of raw material were exploited for the manufacture of cores, unifaces and bifaces, and flakes at the Bose river terrace localities in western Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Fig. 1). The age of the artefacts, deposited in laterised soil and clay, and at some localities associated with dated tektites is late Early Pleistocene (Hou et al. 2000; Guo et al. 1996), although doubts have been raised about this early date, including the primary context associations (Koeberl and Glass 2000; Keates 2000b, in press). Artefacts were manufactured by direct hard hammer percussion using mostly quartzite, sandstone, and quartz (Huang and Hou 1997; Table 2).

154

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA The Bose artefacts include ‘Acheulean-like tools’ (also called ‘Acheulean bifacial handaxes’), most of which are unifacial specimens made on cobbles; flakes were also utilised (Hou et al. 2000, 1622). Recent metrical analysis has shown the relatively large size of artefacts. For example, artefacts (n. 173) have a mean maximum dimension of 178 mm of which unifaces (n. 64) have the largest maximum mean (191 mm; Hou et al. 2000, 1622; and see Huang et al. 2001). The Quyanhekou river terrace locality in Yunxian county, northwestern Hubei province, is also known as the Yunxian locality (Fig. 1). It has yielded small and large core and flake tool assemblages associated with fossils from terrace 4 layers and dating to the Middle Pleistocene. Quartz cobbles (70.1%) were selected for most of the 207 excavated artefacts (cores n. 41, hammerstones n. 2, fragments n. 88, flakes n. 45, tools, including bifaces, n. 31), and other materials are sandstone (17.9%), limestone (10.1%) and volcanic rock (1.9%; Table 2). These materials can be found in the local riverbank gravels. Most tools are core tools. The majority were made by direct hard hammer percussion, and there is evidence for bipolar reduction as well (Li et al. 1998; and see Wang 2001). Also dating to the Middle Pleistocene are 1,500 artefacts from the open air site of Chenshan and nearby in the Shuiyangjiang valley of southern Anhui province (Fig. 1). The majority of artefacts are from surface collections. The raw materials for the tools, most of which were made on cores using direct hard hammer reduction, are predominantly quartz, sandstone and quartzite, cobbles of which occur in the terrace gravel (Wang 2001; Table 2). At the Longgangsi river terrace locality in the southeastern corner of Shaanxi province, central China, vein quartz (44.1%) was identified as the major material used for the manufacture of pebble/cobble (‘gravel’) tools (THAT 1986, 48; Fig. 1). Other materials exploited at Longgangsi for the 320 artefacts recovered are volcanic rock (31.3%) and quartzite (24.6%) (Table 2). Tools include small and large specimens; among these the number of stone balls (spheroids) is with 40 (THAT 1986) one of the highest frequencies in China from a single locality. At the Longyadong cave site, dated to c. 400-200 kyr in the mountainous Luonan Basin (the southern part of the Qinling mountain range) of southwestern Shaanxi province, 80% of the 70,000 artefacts found here were made using quartzite, nodules of which occur at the river a very short distance from the mouth of the cave (Fig. 1; Table 2). The anvil technique was used at this site based on the anvil stones and cores and possibly also direct hard hammer percussion with reference to the small and amorphous flakes; the latter are very numerous. A detailed analysis of the artefacts is in progress (Shen and Wang 2000).

Discussion Small tool assemblages are now being increasingly recognised in many regions of Eurasia (see, e.g., papers in this volume; Derevianko et al. 2000). Small tool assemblages appear early on in China in the Nihewan Basin at about 1 million years ago (see above) and also at the contemporaneous Gongwangling locality in central China (see, e.g., Tai 1966; Keates 2000a, 77-81, 106). In China, there is a general recognition that tool size decreases until microlithic technology appears in the latest Late Pleistocene (e.g., Chia et al. 1972; Wei 1981; Jia and Huang 1985b), although this needs to be further examined (see, e.g., Olsen and MillerAntonio 1992; Keates 2000a, 106). At the early Nihewan sites, small tool size was to some extent related to the frangible nature of the raw materials used for the manufacture of most of the tools. At sites like Fulin small tool size appears to have been related to small clast size. The size of raw material nodules or clasts available and the quality of materials in terms of mechanical weakness or strength are major factors governing tool size and, perhaps, to a somewhat lesser extent, the degree of secondary retouch of tools. Size also has an impact on the percussion technique used, the best known case being Zhoukoudian Locality 1 where the small vein quartz clasts were flaked by bipolar reduction. Vein quartz, often occurring only as small nodules, was, beside quartzite, one of the most extensively utilised material in China. Regional variations in raw material occurrence and characteristics are to be expected. A survey by Wang Shejiang in the region of the southern Qinling mountains and the upper Hanhe river valley (Shen Chen pers. comm.; Fig. 1) found that quartzite occurs in a variety of colours as “fine-grained and silica-cemented metamorphosed sandstone” and usually on river banks (Shen and Wang 2000, 85), Variations of quartzite based on preliminary studies have been noted in Hebei and Shandong provinces (Shen Chen pers. comm.). Detailed information is needed on many of the tool assemblages and collections in terms of raw material sources. The predominant use of relatively intractable materials like vein quartz at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 and chert in the Nihewan has been associated with the production of amorphous tools. At Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo the difference in raw materials between tools not shape modified and those, which where shaped is striking. This is one of the clearest examples from China where the use of very finegrained stone resulted in the manufacture of tools with standardised shapes. Even though the use of these materials appears to have been very limited, possibly because of limited availability, the chert was extensively exploited for tool manufacture, and thus appears to have been adequate for the kind of activities performed by the hominids.

155

SUSAN G. KEATES Olsen and Miller-Antonio (1992) suggest that the use of flint in the manufacture of the Late Pleistocene Maomaodong assemblage (Xingyi county, Guizhou province, southern China) resulted in ‘comparatively symmetrical tools’. In the pioneering days of Chinese Pleistocene archaeology, Teilhard de Chardin (1927, 203) referred to ‘the lack of good siliceous material in Eastern China’ and the irregular nature of chert and that this was significant when exploring the reasons for the usually unstandardised stone tool technology. A small number of lithic tool assemblages are characterised by extensively retouched tools, for example, at Guanyindong (see above) and the terminal Late Pleistocene Tongliang site (southern China), but there is a lack of greater standardisation through time for these assemblages (Olsen and Miller-Antonio 1992). It now appears that good quality materials such as flint are relatively abundant in northern China according to Olsen and Miller-Antonio (1992), although these occur more often as small rather than large nodules based on present knowledge (Chen Shen pers. comm.). Tang and Gai (1986) refer to quartz and chert as the most common raw materials exploited in the Late Palaeolithic of northern China. The greater utilisation of fine grained stones, such as flint, and the perhaps more frequent occurrence of small rather than large nodules in such materials, was exploited in the later Late Pleistocene for the production of microblades. Small nodules of fine grained stones are better suited for the production of the microlithic elements in later Late Pleistocene tool kits. At one of the earliest microlithic localities in China, Xiachuan in Shanxi province (e.g., Wang and Wang 1991), black flint (or very fine grained chert) was used for the production of 200 microcores (Figs. 1, 10).

fied a small component of ‘bipolar bladelet technology’, which ‘may reflect constraints imposed by the use of small chalcedony pebbles’ yet ‘small pebbles may have been intentionally selected’ for bladelet production (Madsen et al. 2001, 715). In a study of a Late Pleistocene assemblage from the Lower Grotto at the Tsagaan Cave in Mongolia, Brantingham et al. (2000) argue that the prepared cores, including 15 Levallois-like cores, were manufactured because of the poor quality of raw material available. The authors conclude from this that ‘raw material quality alone cannot explain the apparent technological simplicity of the North Chinese Middle and Upper Paleolithic’ (Brantingham et al. 2000, 255). What may explain the generally amorphous lithic technology of Pleistocene China (though less so after c. 30 kyr) is that hominids predominantly relied on non-lithic materials, such as the ubiquitous bamboo, for tool production in Eastern Asia (e.g., Gorman 1970; van Heekeren 1972, 77, 82; Hutterer 1977; White 1977; Pope 1988, 1989; Keates 2001b). The more abundant occurrence of large core tools, such as unifacially modified cobbles and pointed bifaces (some of which conform to Acheulean morphology), generally characterised by limited shape retouch, in the central and southern regions of China and the more abundant growth and variety of such plants as bamboo here (see, e.g., Shi 1980), may indicate that non-lithic tools were more important in these regions than in the floristically less diverse and drier northern and especially western regions of China. The potential of bamboo as a material for tools, perhaps especially for cutting functions, may have been discovered when a hominid was injured by the sharp edges of bamboo, which had been damaged by trampling elephants. Acknowledgments

One of the earliest sites to be investigated in China is Shuidonggou in the Ordos, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of northern China (Boule et al. 1928; Fig. 1). There are four localities at Shuidonggou, of which Locality 2 has been dated to c. 27-25 kyr (Madsen et al. 2001). The tools were thought to be comparable to the late Mousterian/early Aurignacian (e.g., Teilhard and Licent 1924; Breuil 1927, 108, 110; Bordes 1978; Jia and Huang 1985a). More recent analysis does not support this interpretation (e.g., Tang and Gai 1986), including Locality 1, which Madsen et al. (2001) describe as Initial Upper Palaeolithic. Nevertheless, Brantingham et al. (2001, 744) find that ‘Shuidonggou [Locality 1] has a strong Middle Paleolithic signature.’ The majority of the Shuidonggou artefacts were made in two locally common materials. Silicified limestone (finegrained, usually homogeneous) and quartzite occur in the stream gravels, while chert/chalcedony pebbles are not abundant (Table 2). Large blade tools are characteristic of the Locality 2 industry. Recent sampling at Locality 2 identi-

To Jan Burdukiewicz and Avraham Ronen my thanks and sincere appreciation for their invitation to the highly interesting and motivating small tool workshop at the XIVe UISPP in Liège. My gratitude to the following for their kind permission to study artefact samples: Professor Wei Qi (I.V.P.P., Beijing): Nihewan; Professor Huang Weiwen (I.V.P.P., Beijing): Bose; Professor Wang Jian (Institute of Archaeology, Taiyuan, Shanxi): Dingcun and Xiachuan. Author's address: Susan G. Keates Institute of Biological Anthropology University of Oxford 58 Banbury Road OX2 6QS Oxford, England Tel. +44 1865 274696 Fax. +44 1865 274699 E-mail: [email protected]

156

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA

Fig. 1. Chinese Pleistocene localities mentioned in the text: 1 – Xiaochangliang; Donggutuo , 2 – Xujiayao, 3 – Zhoukoudian, 4 – Shiyu, 5 – Sjara-osso-gol, 6 – Shuidonggou, 7 – Dingcun Xigou, 8 – Xiachuan, 9 – Liujiacha, 10 – Kehe, 11 – Dali, 12 – Xiaonanhai, 13 – Longyadong, 14 – Lingjing, 15 – Quyanhekou (Yunxian), 16 – Longgangsi, 17 – Chenshan, 18 – Fulin, 19 – Guanyindong, 20 – Feihushan, 21 – Panxian Dadong, 22 – Bose.

XIAOCHANGLIANG

Length

Width

Thickness

Cores (n. 15)

91

71

57

Chunks (n. 17)

32

27

18

Unmodified flakes (n. 71)

27

24

10

Tools (n. 47)

32

27

18

Cores (n. 69)

62

55

43

Chunks (n. 114)

40

31

19

Unmodified flakes (n. 439)

30

27

11

Tools (n. 117)

36

28

14

DONGGUTUO

Tab. 1. Mean length, width and thickness dimensions of the Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo artefacts (in mm).

157

SUSAN G. KEATES Locality

Raw material

Distance to source

Donggutuo (s)

chert

most or all local, several sources

Xiaochangliang (s)

chert

most or all local, several sources

Zhoukoudian Locality1 (s)

vein quartz

most from local river

s.a.

chert

c. 2 km

s.a.

rock crystal

2 km east and/or c. 3-4 km northeast of cave

s.a.

other

5 km

Locality 13 (s)

vein quartz chert

most from local river c. 2 km?

Dali (s)

quartzite

all local?

DT18 and DY15 (s)

flint or chert

all local river/stream?

Zhoukoudian Locality 15 (s)

vein quartz

most from local river

Xigou (s)

hornfels

local?

Chenshan

quartz, sandstone and quartzite

local cobbles

Quyanhekou (s/l)

quartz

all local riverbank

Guanyindong (s)

chert

4 km

Panxian Dadong (s)

chert, basalt, limestone

local

Longyadong (s/l)

quartzite

all local?

Xujiayao (s)

vein quartz

local river; all?

Dingcun (s/l)

hornfels

7/10 km

Kehe (s/l)

quartzite

local riverbanks/lakeshore; all?

Shuidonggou (s/l)

silicified limestone and quartzite

local stream gravels

Shiyu (s)

vein quartz

local

Fulin (s)

chert

all local?

Longgansi (s/l)

vein quartz

local?

Bose (s/l)

Quartzite and sandstone

all local

Xiaonanhai (s)

chert

most local?

Liujiachia (s)

quartzite

most local?

Lingjing (s)

quartz

most or all local

Feihushan (s)

flint or chert

local mountain and riverbank

Sjara-osso-gol (s)

quartzite and quartz

local

Tab. 2. Major raw materials and distance of sources of raw materials of selected Chinese Pleistocene small tool (s) and small/large tool (s/ l) sites (with supplementary data for Zhoukoudian Locality 1).

158

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA

Fig. 2. The Xiaochangliang promontory.

Fig. 3. Donggutuo site, sublocality T1.

159

SUSAN G. KEATES

Fig. 4. Selected cores from Xiaochangliang: a – single-platform core (chert), b – double-platform core (chert), c – double-platform core, two views (chert). Selected cores from Donggutuo: d – single-platform core (quartz), e – multi-platform core (chert).

160

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA

Fig. 5. A sample of chunks and unmodified flakes from Donggutuo.

161

SUSAN G. KEATES

Fig. 6. Selected tools from Xiaochangliang: a – side utilised flake (chert), b – side end utilised flake (flint), c – end denticulate flak (chert), d – notch flake (chert). Selected tools from Donggutuo: e – side denticulate flake (chert), f – end denticulate flake (basalt), g – side utilised flake (quartz), h – bifaces, side utilised (chert), i – denticulate point (chert).

162

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA

Fig. 7. a – Part of the main outcrop (Xiaochangliang is located outside of this photograph in the far left corner), b – Part of the northern end of the main outcrop (viewed from Xiaochangliang), c – Part of the western side of the main outcrop.

163

SUSAN G. KEATES

Fig. 8. a - Side denticulated flake from Donggutuo (chert; sublocality T4, layer C), b - Side utilised flake from Donggutuo (chert; sublocality T5, layer C).

Fig. 9. Some of the chert specimens produced during the knapping experiments at Guanting village, Nihewan Basin.

164

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA Bibliography Aigner J.S. 1978a, Important archaeological remains from North China. In: F. Ikawa-Smith (ed.), Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia, Mouton, The Hague, p. 163-232. Aigner J.S. 1978b, Pleistocene faunal and cultural stations in south China. In: F. Ikawa-Smith (ed.), Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia, Mouton, The Hague, p. 129-162. Aigner J.S. 1981, Archaeological Remains in Pleistocene China, C.H. Beck, München. An Z. 1965, Trial excavations of the Palaeolithic cave of Hsiao-nan-hai in Anyang, Honan, Acta Archaeologica Sinica, 1, p. 1-28. Black D., P. Teilhard de Chardin, CC. Young and WC. Pei 1933, Fossil Man in China: The Chou Kou Tien cave deposits with a synopsis of our present knowledge of the late Cenozoic in China. In: D. Black (ed.), Memoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A, 11, p. 1-166. Brantingham P.J., J.W. Olsen, J.A. Rech and A.I. Krivoshapkin 2000, Raw material quality and prepared core technologies in Northeast Asia, Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, p. 255-271. Brantingham P.J., A.I. Krivoshapkin, J. Li and Ya Tserendagva 2001, The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia, Current Anthropology, 42 (5), p. 735-747. Chen TM. and SX. Yuan 1988, Uranium-Series dating of bones and teeth from Chinese Palaeolithic sites, Archaeometry, 30 (1), p. 59-76. Chen C. and J.W. Olsen 1990, China at the Last Glacial Maxiimum. In: O. Soffer and C. Gamble (eds.), The World at 18000 BP, Unwin Hyman, London, p. 276295. Chia LP. 1963, Cultural sites over 500,000 years old, China Reconstructs, 12 (1), p. 32-34. Chia LP., TY. Wang and C. Wang 1964, K'oho: An Early Palaeolithic site in south-western Shansi Province, Arctic Anthropology, 2 (1), p. 105-117. Chia LP. and Q. Wei 1976, A Palaeolithic site at Hsue-chiayao in Yangkao County, Shansi Province, Acta Archaeologica Sinica, 2, p. 97-114. (in Chinese). Chia LP., Q. Wei and C. Li 1979, Report on the excavation of Hsuchiayao man site in 1976, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 17 (4), p. 277-293. Chia LP., P. Kai and Y. You 1972, Report of excavation in Shi Yu, Shanxi - a Palaeolithic site, Kaogu Xuebao, 1, p. 39-60 (in Chinese). Chou P. 1965, Vertebrate remains from the Palaeolithic cave site of Hsiaonanhai, Anyang, Honan, K'ao-ku hsuehpao, 1, 29-50 (in Chinese). Derevianko A.P., V.Y. Petrin and J.K. Taimagambetov, 2000, The phenomenon of microindustrial complexes in Eurasia, Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 4 (4), p. 2-18.

Gao X. 2000, Interpretation of lithic technology at Zhoukoudian Locality 15, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 19, Supplement, p. 144-153. Gao X. 2001, A study of stone tool typology and retouch technology at Zhoukoudian Locality 15, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 20, p. 1-18 (in Chinese with English abstract). Gorman C.F. 1970, Excavations at Spirit Cave, North Thailand: Some interim interpretations, Asian Perspectives, 13, p. 79-107. Guo SL., XH. Hao, BL. Chen and WW. Huang 1996, Fission track dating of Paleolithic site at Bose in Guangxi, South China, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 15 (4), 347-350 (in Chinese with English abstract). Heekeren H.R. van, 1972, The Stone Age of Indonesia, Verhandelingen Kon. Inst. Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 61, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague (2nd edn.). Hou YM., R. Potts, BY. Yuan, ZT. Guo, A. Deino, W. Wang, J. Clark, GM. Xie and WW. Huang 2000, Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China, Science, 287, p. 1622-1626. Huang WW., J. Leng, X. Yuan and G. Xie 1990, Advanced opinions on the stratigraphy and chronology of Baise stone industry, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 9 (2), p. 105-112 (in Chinese with English abstract). Huang WW., Y. Liu, CR. Li and XF. Yuan 1988, Tentative opinions on the age of Baise stone industry. In: Treatises in Commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of Maba Human Cranium, Guandong Provincial Museum and the Museum of the Qujiang County. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, p. 95-101 (in Chinese with English abstract). Huang WW. and YM. Hou 1997, Archaeological evidence for the first human colonisation of East Asia, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 16, p. 3-12. Huang WW., N. He and M. Sagawa (eds.) 2001, Comparative Studies on Handaxes found at the Bose sites in Guangxi, China, Sendai: Sagawa Masatoshi, Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Tohoku Gakuin University. Hutterer K.L. 1977, Reinterpreting the Southeast Asian Palaeolithic, In: J. Allen, J. Golson and R. Jones (eds.), Sunda and Sahul, Academic Press, London, p. 3171. I.V.P.P. (Compiling Group of the Atlas, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) 1980, Atlas of Primitive Man in China, Science Press, Beijing. Jia LP. 1980, Early Man in China, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing. Jia LP. and WW. Huang 1985a, The Late Palaeolithic of China. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 211-223.

165

SUSAN G. KEATES Jia LP. and WW. Huang 1985b, On the recognition of China's Palaeolithic cultural traditions. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 259-265. Jia LP. and WW. Huang 1990, The Story of Peking Man, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, and Oxford University Press, Hong Kong. Keates S.G. 2000a, Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China. BAR International Series, 863, BAR Publishing, Oxford. Keates S.G. 2000b, Tektites and the age paradox in MidPleistocene China. Technical Comments, Science, 289, p. 503. Keates S.G. 2001a, Perspectives on “Middle Palaeolithic” settlement patterns in China. In: N.J. Conard (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, p. 153175. Keates S.G. 2001b, An examination of culture and evolution of Middle Pleistocene Chinese hominids. In: L. Barham and K. Robson Brown (eds.), Human Roots - Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene, Western Academic & Specialist Press, Bristol, p. 159-185. Keates S.G., in press, The Movius line: fact or fiction?, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association - The Melaka Papers, 22. Koeberl C. and B.P. Glass 2000, Tektites and the age paradox in Mid-Pleistocene China. Technical Comments, Science, 289, p. 503. Li Y. and Y. Wan 1993, Preliminary research of the relics from the test excavation at the Feihushan Caves. In: Forty Years of Fieldwork in Guizhou (1953-93), Institute of Archaeology, Museum of Guizhou Province, Guizhou, p. 1-16 (in Chinese). Li Y., H. Ji, T. Li, X. Feng and W. Li 1998, The stone artifacts from the Yunxian man site, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 17 (2), p. 94-120. Leng J. 1992, Early Paleolithic Technology in China and India, Washington University, St. Louis. Liu Y. 1988, The reobservation of stone artefacts in Dingcun, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 7 (4), p. 306-313. Madsen D.B., J. Li, J. Brantingham, X. Gao, R.G. Elston and R.L. Bettinger 2001, Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China, Antiquity, 75, p. 706-716. Miller-Antonio S., L.A. Schepartz and D.A. Bakken 2000, Raw material selection and evidence for rhinoceros teeth tools at Dadong Cave, southern China, Antiquity, 74, p. 372-379. Movius H.L. 1944, Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in southern and eastern Asia, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 19 (3), p. 1-125. Movius H.L. 1978, Southern and Eastern Asia: Conclusions. In: F. Ikawa-Smith (ed.), Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia,. Mouton, The Hague, p. 351-355.

Olsen J.W. and S. Miller-Antonio 1992, The Palaeolithic in southern China, Asian Perspectives, 31 (2), p. 129160. Pei WC. 1931, Notice of the discovery of quartz and other stone artifacts in the Lower Pleistocene hominid-bearing sediments of the Choukoutien cave deposit, Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 11 (1), p. 109-146. Pei WC. 1938, A preliminary study on a new Palaeolithic station known as Locality 15 within the Choukoutien region, Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 19 (2), p. 147-187. Pei WC. and LP. Chia 1958, Studies of Tingtsun palaeoliths. In: Pei, WC., JK. Wu, LP. Chia, MC. Chou, H. Liu and CY. Wang (eds.), Report on the excavation of Palaeolithic sites at Ting-ts'un Hsiang-fen-hsien, Shansi Province,. Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology Memoir, 2, p. 75-111. Pei WC. and SS. Zhang 1985, A study on the lithic artifacts of Sinanthropus. In: Palaeontologia Sinica D 168, New Series D, No. 12, eds. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese with English abstract). Pope G.G. 1988, Recent advances in Far Eastern Paleoanthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, p. 43-77. Pope G.G. 1989, Bamboo and human evolution, Natural History, 10, p. 48-57. Pope G.G., Z. An, S. Keates and D. Bakken 1990, New discoveries in the Nihewan Basin, northern China, The East Asian Tertiary/Quaternary Newsletter, 11, p. 68-73. Pope G.G. and S.G. Keates 1994, The evolution of human cognition and cultural capacity: A view from the Far East. In: R.S. Corruccini and R.L. Ciochon (eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 531-567. Qiu ZL. 1985, The Middle Palaeolithic of China. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 187-210. Schepartz L.A., S. Miller-Antonio and D. Bakken 2000, Early Paleolithic occupation of southwestern China and adjacent areas of Vietnam and Thailand, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 19, Supplement, p. 122-127. Schick K., N. Toth, Q. Wei, J.D. Clark and D. Etler 1991, Archaeological perspectives in the Nihewan Basin, China, Journal of Human Evolution, 21, p. 13-26. Shen C. and S. Wang 2000, A preliminary study of the anvilchipping technique: experiments and evaluations, Lithic Technology, 25 (2), p. 81-100. Shi Q. 1980, China. In: G. Lessard and A. Chouinard (eds.), Bamboo Research in Asia, Proceedings of a workshop held in Singapore, 28-30 May 1980, International Development Research Centre and International

166

THE ROLE OF RAW MATERIAL IN EXPLAINING TOOL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN PALAEOLITHIC CHINA Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Singapore, p. 57-62. Stiles D. 1991, Early hominid behaviour and culture tradition: raw material studies in Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, The African Archaeological Review, 9, p. 1-19. Tai EC. 1966, The Paleoliths found at Lantian man locality of Gongwangling and its vicinity, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 10 (1), p. 30-34 (in Chinese with English abstract). Tang C. and P. Gai 1986, Upper Paleolithic cultural traditions in North China, Advances in World Archaeology, 5, p. 339-364. Teilhard de Chardin P. 1927, How and where to search the oldest man in China, Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 5 (3-4), p. 201-206. Teilhard de Chardin P. and E. Licent 1924, On the discovery of a Palaeolithic industry in Northern China, Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 3 (1), p. 4550. TGPM (The Gansu Provincial Museum) 1982, The Palaeolithic site at Liujiacha, Huanxian county, Gansu province, Kaogu Xuebao, 1, p. 35-48 (in Chinese with English abstract). THAT (The Hanshui Archaeological Team, the Institute of Archaeology of Shaanxi Province) 1986, Paleoliths and animal fossils newly unearthed at Longgangsi, Nanzheng, Shaanxi, Shiqian Yanjiu, 3-4, p. 46-56 (in Chinese). TIASP (The Institute of Archaeology of Shaanxi Province) & CPAM (The CPAM of Dali County), 1996, The Palaeoliths in Dali and Pucheng District, Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang J., FH. Tao and YR. Wang 1994, Preliminary report on investigation and excavation of Dingcun Palaeolithic sites, Journal of Chinese Antiquity, 3, p. 1-75 (in Chinese). Wang J. and Y. Wang 1991, Study on the forms of microcores from Xiachuan sites, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 10 (1), p. 1-8 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wang LH. 1989, Chronology in Chinese palaeoanthropology. In: RK. Wu, XZ. Wu and SS. Zhang (eds.), Early Humankind in China, Science Press, Beijing, p. 392409 (in Chinese). Wang Y. 2001, The Middle Pleistocene archaeology of the valley of the Yangtze river. In: L. Barham and K. Robson Brown (eds.), Human Roots - Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene, Western Academic & Specialist Press, Bristol, p. 149-157. Wei Q. 1981, On the features and the development of Palaeolithic culture in China. In: A.K. Ghosh (ed.), Cultura y Medio Ambiente del Hombre Fosil en Asia, Union Internacional De Ciencias Prehistoricas Y Protohistoricas, X Congreso, Mexico, D.F. Octubre 19-24, 1981, p. 27-34.

Wei Q. 1985, Paleoliths from the lower Pleistocene of the Nihewan beds in the Donggutuo site, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 4 (4), p. 289-300 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wei Q. 1992, The new view of the Early Paleolithic of North China, International Symposium of Environment and Culture in the Yellow Sea Region, Seoul, Korea, July 1 and 2, 1992, p. 7. White J.P. 1977, Crude, colourless and unenterprising: Prehistorians and their views on the stone age of Sunda and Sahul. In: J. Allen, J. Golson and R. Jones (eds.), Sunda and Sahul, Academic Press, London, p. 1330. Wu RK. and S. Lin 1985, Chinese palaeoanthropology: Retrospect and prospect. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 1-27. Wu XZ. and YZ. You 1979, A preliminary observation of Dali man site, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 17, p. 294-303 (in Chinese with English abstract). Wu XZ. and LH. Wang 1985, Chronology in Chinese palaeoanthropology. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 29-51. Yang L. 1961, Discovery of the Palaeoliths from Fulingchen, Hanyuan, Szechuan, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 12 (4), p. 353-359 (in Chinese with English abstract). Yi S.B. and G.A. Clark 1983, Observations on the Lower Paleolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology, 24 (2), p. 181-202. Yin G., C. Falguères, G. Shen and Y. Lu 2001, The age of Dali man, China. In: F. Sémah and C. Falgučres (eds.), Chronology of southeast Asian Palaeolithic since the late Homo erectus period, Abstracts, XIVe Congres de l'Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Liège 2-8 septembre 2001. You Y., Y. Tang and Y. Li 1978, Paleolithic discoveries in the Nihewan formation, Chinese Quaternary Research, 1 (5), p. 1-13 (in Chinese). Zhang SS. 1977, On Fulin Culture, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 5 (1), p. 14-27 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhang SS. 1985, The Early Palaeolithic of China. In: RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen (eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, Academic Press, London, p. 147-186. Zhang SS. 1989, The Early Palaeolithic of North China. In: RK. Wu, XZ. Wu and SS. Zhang (eds.), Early Humankind in China, Science Press, Beijing, p. 97-158 (in Chinese). Zhang SS. 1990, Regional industrial gradual advance and cultural exchange of Paleolithic in North China, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 9 (4), p. 322-333 (in Chinese with English abstract).

167

SUSAN G. KEATES Zhang SS. and CM. Zhou 1984, A preliminary study of the second excavations in the Dali Man locality, Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 3 (1), p. 19-29 (in Chinese with English abstract). Zhou CM. and QS. Zhang 1986, Dali site ancient artefacts archaeological survey investigation summary, Shiqian Yanjiu, 1-2, p. 98-110 (in Chinese). Zhou GX. 1974, Palaeolithic remains from Lingjing, Xuchang, Henan, Kaogu, 2, p. 91-108 (in Chinese).

168

LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SMALL TOOLS IN EUROPE AND THE LEVANT Edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen, BAR S1115, 2003, p.169-187

Some Observation on Microlithic Assemblages in Central Europe during Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Kůlna and Předmostí II (Czech Republic), Vértesszőlős and Tata (Hungary) Marie-Hélène Moncel Introduction What humans left behind them at a site is evidence of the mixing of traditions and activities according to the site's location and environmental conditions. To recognize relationships to each other, a lithic assemblage must be studied in a conjoined fashion: raw material collecting, tool types, flaking systems and, when feasible, micro-wear analysis. During the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic, humans collected the raw materials for tool manufacture in the vicinity of the sites, making a choice, which is not always linked to the qualities of the rocks but also to the technological ability. The micro-wear analysis shows that every blank could be used for every action, but to produce the same kind of flake, various flaking methods could be employed. Without taking these facts into account, it seems to be difficult to compare the assemblages and, above all, to detect the different types of human groups living in a specific area. Because of the small size of the artefacts, and consequently, of this ‘extra-ordinary’ status, the analysis of microlithic assemblages seems to be one way to examine what are traditional, activity and raw material influences on the aspects of an assemblage. Are they explained by a lack of large rock blocks in the environment? Do they record a specific tradition in regard to the raw material types and the technical behaviour? Is there a relation to the activities, which took place at a site? Many assemblages in Europe and the Near East include small flakes, and these flakes are never retouched. In some sites, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, in all of the assemblages flake and pebble tools are small. The microlithic assemblages in Europe Large phenomena in time and space Microlithic industries existed in the Middle Pleistocene period and the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene in Central Europe but they are rare (Vértesszőlős, Bilzingsleben, Trzebnica; Dobosi 1983, 1988; Mania et al. 1980; Burdukiewicz 1993; Burdukiewicz et al. 1979), even further east in Central Asia (Derevianko et al. 1998; Ranov 2001) or

the Near East (Ronen et al. 1998; Merder et al. 1998). The greatest frequencies of such assemblages during the last interglacial, beginning around 125 kyr BP (dates of Tata Brørup -are actually older, Schwarcz et al. 1982), which suggested to D. Collins in 1969, and then to K. Valoch, the idea of creating a cultural unit named the Taubachian (Valoch 1977; 1984). The unit includes of the numerous assemblages dated to isotopic stages 5 and 4 (more than 40 listed sites). Different cultural names are used by researchers for that unit, like the Kiik-Koba Micromousterian, Micoquian Micromousterian or Pontinian. These microlithic assemblages appear to reflect various traditions, perhaps related to regional trends (Gabori 1976; Stepanchuk 1994; Kuhn 1995; Lioubine 1998). The ‘Taubachian’ group Because of the large number of Taubachian assemblages, it was decided first to work on three collections either belonging to this complex or related to it. Secondly, a comparison with an older assemblage located in the same area, Vértesszőlős, was conducted, eventually to find some technological roots to the Taubachian (Fig. 1). The Taubachian industry is characterized by the use of small pebbles of various raw materials, contributing to a microlithic assemblage. The technology is ‘non-Levallois’ (Schäfer 1981; Valoch 1984). The average size of the flakes is 3 cm or less. Many of the flakes are broken. There is no flat retouch, as by bifacial tools. Side scrapers, denticulates and notches are prevalent, associated with micro-choppers. Bones often show numerous retouches of compressors (Valoch, 1984, 1988, 1995). The rare human remains, like the brain endocast from Gánovce and teeth from Taubach, show that these original industries were made by Neanderthals (Ložek 1954; Prošek 1958; Valoch 1996). The Taubachian complex is present at a few sites in Central Europe. Many of these assemblages are contemporaneous and were deposited in travertine (warm water springs): Taubach, Weimar and Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt in Germany; Gánovce, Bojnice III, Kůlna (layer 11), Hôrka, Tata, in the

169

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, in the Carpathian Basin (Vertés et al. 1964; Gabori-Csank 1968; Valoch 1967; 1977; 1984; 1996; Banesz 1991; Wagner 1982; Kaminska et al. 1993). These locations are also frequently associated with an abundant vegetation, above all during a forest period like the Eemian s.s. or the beginning of the isotopic stage 4. Moreover, the environmental patterns of some assemblages show that this microlithic industry is not always linked to a temperate and wide forest environment. In this case, more or less vegetation could not have contributed to the pattern of small pebble collecting. Some ancient microlithic industries, for example, at Bilzingsleben and Vértesszőlős, are also located in travertine. The question of an association with a specific location, linked to a specific way of life, requiring a specific technology, has been consequently discussed, even a better conservation of the archaeological remains inside travertine deposits give without doubt a distorted light on this type of location. The animal species from the Taubachian sites are always big species, associated with smaller animals like Cervus elaphus, Dicerorhinus mercki (70% young) and Bison priscus in Taubach in a mixed forest context (116110 kyr BP by U/Th; Brunnacker et al. 1983; Mania 1988) Dicerorhinus mercki and Elephas antiquus in Gánovce. On the other hand, the mammoth is the dominant species at Tata (Hungary). Hunting or scavenging of dead or injured animals near water points could explain why humans occupied these places. But why did they make such small flakes? The question of a specific tradition has then to be raised, the small flakes, hafted or not, being used alone (Neanderthals were able to use them; Villemeur 1994), associated together on wooden blanks or to work wooden tools. In this case we will be in a different world, with another tool conception. Three microlithic assemblages from isotopic stage 5 Kůlna, Předmostí II and Tata (Tab. 1) The Kůlna cave (layer 11) Kůlna cave is located in the Moravian Karst of the Czech Republic. It was excavated by Karel Valoch from 1961 to 1976 (Valoch 1988). Several layers have been identified here. In the upper part of the sequence, we can see four Micoquian layers (6a, 7a, 7b and 7c). Below these layers, the excavations recovered another Middle Palaeolithic layer, number 11, subdivided into four sub-layers (11a to 11d).

glacial. The Micoquian layers belong to the beginning of the last cold period (50 to 69 kyr BP), according to ESR dating (Rink et al. 1996). The Kůlna Micoquian assemblages show numerous Reindeer bones (Rangifer sp.), while temperate species (forest and steppic forest environment) were found in layer 11 (Alces alces, Equus taubachensis, Cervus elaphus, Bos sp., Rhinoceros sp. (Zelinová 1998). Předmostí II (layers 9 and 8) In Moravia, the eastern part of Czech Republic, near Brno and Dolní Věstonice, the open air site of Předmostí (Fig. 1) has yielded Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic layers. This site has been known for its Gravettian layers since the end of the last century (Svoboda 1994; Svoboda et al. 1994; Svoboda et al. 1996). During new excavations of zone II conducted from 1989 to 1992 two Middle Palaeolithic layers were discovered (Svoboda 1991; 1994; Svoboda et al. 1994). These layers belong to the middle unit (layers 10 to 5), composed of an Eemian soil. Middle Palaeolithic artefacts have been collected from the brown-red layer and black lenses at the top of the sequence (layer 9 at the base, layer 8 above). Thermoluminescence (TL) and ISRL determinations date the Middle Palaeolithic layers to probably older than 90 kyr BP (Frechen in Svoboda et al. 1996). Palynological studies show an interglacial stage for the middle unit (Abies alba, cf. Betula, cf. Fraxinus, Pinus sp., Tilia sp.) with large forests (Svobodová in Svoboda et al. 1996). Tata This open air site is located near Budapest in Hungary (Fig. 1) and was excavated by Laszlo Vértes in 1958 and 1959 (Vértes et al. 1964). A main human settlement was discovered in the travertine. The faunal remains are poor, and above all composed of Ursus arctos and mammoths. In contrast, the rich lithic assemblage can be a remains of flaking areas. In 1964, L. Vértes dated the settlement from an interstadial period belonging to the beginning of Würm (Brorup). A 14C dating on a charcoal sample confirmed the first age hypothesis with a date of 55 ± 2.5 kyr BP. However, the palaeontological and malacological studies put the layer at the end of the last interglacial. These distorted results have been explained by L. Vértes by the water springs related to the site. The first U/Th dating more agree with the palaeontological hypothesis. The human occupation would be dated from 70 ± 2 kyr BP. to 116 ± 1.6 kyr BP, from the end of the last interglacial to the beginning of the last glacial period (Schwarcz and Skoflek 1982).

Layer 11 corresponds, at the present state of knowledge, to the second half of the Eemian Interglacial. The upper part of layer 11 (a and b) and layer 10 could be related to a steppe period belonging to the end of the late Eemian Inter-

170

SOME OBSERVATION ON MICROLITHIC ASSEMBLAGES IN CENTRAL EUROPEDURING LOWER AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHICKŮLNA AND PŘEDMOSTÍ II (CZECH REPUBLIC), VÉRTESSZŐLŐS AND TATA (HUNGARY) What are the technological behaviours? Raw material collecting: a preference for small pebbles and for various raw material types The analysis of the artefacts from Kůlna layer 11 involved classifying the raw materials into three main groups, according to their debitage aptitude: different kinds of silicates (radiolarite, rock crystal, siliceous stones), quartz and others, and brown quartzite. All of them were available near the cave (Valoch 1987; 1988; Moncel and Neruda, 2000). According to the geological study made by P. Neruda, some rare stones, like the porcelanite and rock crystal, are the only stones, which come from a long distance (50 to 100 km). They may have arrived as tools at the site (Neruda, in press). Otherwise, the raw material choice does not seem to exactly reflect the stone possibilities in the environment. In Předmostí II, men also collected pebbles from the Bečva river, near the site (Svoboda et al. 1996). The most frequent material used is quartz. As time goes, flint and radiolarite (good quality stones) seem to be less used to the benefit of quartz and quartzite. At Tata, humans collected a great quantity of fine-grained stones, the most numerous rocks nearby the site, associated with some quartzites (Vértes et al. 1964; Dobosi 1983; Table 2). The pebble tools, the entire pebbles and the cortical flakes show a selection of a large number of small pebbles, from 15 to 60 mm long for the most numerous, but also some larger cobbles (most up to 80-100 mm long). The smallest pebbles can be grouped in two categories: 20-30 mm and 40-60 mm long. The thickness divides the globular pebbles (15-30 mm) from the flat pebbles (5-10 mm). The pebble tools stay within the same values. Some of them are however the smallest pieces in the assemblages. The abandoned cores sometimes measure more than the choppers (from 40 to 70 mm). The total number of the collected pebbles is very high and difficult to estimate for the numerous series. As example, in the small collections from Předmostí II, the aspects of the artefacts lead to estimate a minimum number of 30 (layer 9) and 25 (layer 8) pebbles carried to the site, entire or in the form of flakes, only for quartz. The possible number of quartzite pebbles is higher, 70-80 for the layer 9 and 40 for the layer 8 (Moncel et Svoboda 1998; Moncel 1997-1998). The microlithic world really seems to be a voluntary world. The presence of some rare big pebbles may be a proof of a voluntary selection of numerous small blanks, as well than the size of the removals on the biggest cores, size that is small. Otherwise, pebbles were chosen according to their shapes, for flaking or shaping. The collecting of a large num-

ber of pebbles was perhaps necessary to produce all the blanks and to answer to the daily needs of humans. Humans preferred to have a large variety of rock types, even if finegrained stones and high quality stones were available in the environment. This fact could be another characteristic of these human groups (Table 2). The men's needs: pebble tools, rough or retouched debitage products, retouched cores In the three assemblages, several functional blanks (utilised products) were used by humans (table III). Most of them are, however, flakes. Men obtained what they needed using different methods: by a shaping system, which however stays on a very small scale and not easy to distinguish from flaking, and by a main debitage system, which gives flakes and even cores like blanks. The debitage operational schema seems to take place on each site (flakes, cores). It is not proved only for flint and radiolarite in Předmostí II, the raw materials which are less numerous. Whole pebbles in quartz and quartzite: hammers or raw material stocks? In each collection, some pebbles are entire or broken. They all belong to quartz and quartzite, never fine-grained stones. Most of them are globular and percussion marks on the edges could indicate hammerstones. Two size groups can be distinguished: small size pebbles (less than 30-40 mm long and an oval shape) and big size pebbles (80-90 mm long). While only a few pebbles are flat, in Předmostí II, 24 flat pebbles in layer 9 and 4 in layer 8 have been dug out from the excavations. All are in quartzite. The morphology is oval or rectangular. Only two of them carry percussion marks or a small removal on an edge. The dimensions vary from 30 mm to 110 mm for one of the greatest. However, the majority lead between 30 and 60 mm. The thickness is always lower or equal to 10 mm. The thickness and the flat morphology seem to be the first element of choice of these pebbles by men. Their use is still unknown. The pebble tools: a shaping system? The pebble tools join together a small number of artefacts (25 in Kůlna, 16 in Předmostí and 100 in Tata). The shaping activity was secondary, regarding the debitage. These tools are, for the most part, in quartz and quartzite, the strongest stones, except for Tata with pebble tools in fine-grained stones. Was it a human choice or an adaptation to the stone abilities? The size study of the pebble tools shows a large range of measurements from 15 mm to 240 mm. The most numerous artefacts are, however, between 15 and 60 mm length and 15-40 mm thick. It is evident that even though men required various tools from very small (micro-choppers) to large ones, the smallest ones were preferred. An analysis of the microscopic marks would perhaps explain if

171

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL some of the smallest pebble tools were attached to a wooden element, or used simply by hand. The flat parts of the pebbles are used like a striking platform for shaping. The narrowest edge is preferred, explaining why the pebble tools are often short. One removals set is made in the great majority of cases. The shaping seems to be short and quick, and actually does not affect the pebble morphology. Unifacial shaping is as common as bifacial shaping. According to the removal deepness and the freshness of some edges, some of these artefacts could be cores, while use marks on the cutting edge of these tools leads to believe in the reality of tools. A real distinction in the men spirit between shaping and debitage is not certain. The activity could be organized to obtain together some micro-choppers (same function than the flake tools because on very small pebbles), cores giving flakes for tools, and secondary used as pebble tools. Sometimes, percussion marks on the cortical faces of the chopper also suggest that the pebble had two different functions during its life. The debitage products Some specific types of flakes were produced by the toolmakers. However, they were less demanding on the shape of the flakes (use of the available cutting edge). Numerous broken flakes were used as tools. This low degree of demand probably depended on the kinds of stones used like quartzite or quartz which can easily break. The debitage products are very small and most are less than 30 mm in length (more than 80% are smaller than 10-15 mm), but there are also large flakes with a maximum length of 80 mm. The fine-grained stone flakes seem to be for the most part small (perhaps because of the good stone quality, or of the kind of activities carried out (Fig. 2). Flakes are short, wide and thick, irrespective of the raw material they were manufactured from. These specimens occur in a variety of shapes; rectangular and triangular morphologies (parallel edges) are more numerous for finegrained stones than for quartzite and quartz. Some laminar flakes are also present, especially in silicates in Kůlna and Tata (bladelets). Between 25 and 35% of the flakes are backed (cortical or non-cortical), and some specimens have two opposite backs. A debitage break could have been perceived like a debitage back (these flakes were used or retouched like whole flakes). It is possible that the wide and thick platforms could also have been perceived like a back.

The retouched flakes Retouched artefacts make up less than 10% of the each assemblage. Most of the tools are side scrapers and partially retouched points. The equipment is thus limited in diversity. Flakes of all sizes were retouched. However, humans used the shape diversity of the flakes for the retouch. Triangular flakes or blanks with two convergent edges were used primary for making points. The edges are either entirely retouched or partially retouched. Quartzite and fine-grained stone flakes are more often retouched on a long part of the available sharp side. The longest edge was chosen first for the side scrapers. The retouches are, in general, opposite to the back, when it exists, or even on the platform. A back can be retouched or used, especially when they are two backs on a piece. The retouch does not, therefore, change the flake shape in most of the cases. The retouch is simple and thin in general, and more invasive on orthoquartzite at Kůlna. It is often small and steep on silicates, radiolarites and flint. Some silicate tools seem to have been used for a long time or the work is more careful on this kind of stone. Several series of retouches are indeed visible (perhaps associated with a greater degree of utilisation or a resharpening linked to the quality of the raw material). Bifacial retouches are less numerous. A few bifacial tools at Kůlna look similar to those in Micoquian and Szeletian cultures. The small bifacial points made on flakes are more frequent at Tata than at Kůlna and Předmostí II. Sometimes, flat retouches are located at the base of a point or on the inferior face of the flake (retouch for hafting), often on silicate artefacts or long distance stones like porcelanite stone (precious stones, curiosity, tool collecting?). The retouched cores Some cores were used as tools, especially those in silicates and radiolarites at Kůlna and Předmostí II (about 20% of the Kůlna cores studied so far). Retouch is located on at least one edge. Some cores were even retouched after breakage, as we can see in the use of the broken flakes. In other cases, some quartzite cores with several orthogonal faces have percussion marks along some edges. This crushing can result from a debitage, a retouch or intense use (like pebble tools or hammerstones) on large blanks (for cores longer than 60 mm). The choice of cores as blanks does not depend on the technical system used on the debitage surface. Instead, it seems to be linked to the size and perhaps the shape or the thickness of the core (frequent cores with a cortical back). Retouched core length varies from 30 to 60 mm, which is among the larger size of the debitage products. Thickness ranges

172

SOME OBSERVATION ON MICROLITHIC ASSEMBLAGES IN CENTRAL EUROPEDURING LOWER AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHICKŮLNA AND PŘEDMOSTÍ II (CZECH REPUBLIC), VÉRTESSZŐLŐS AND TATA (HUNGARY) between 10 to 30 mm, classifying these blanks as some of the thickest ones.

Cores with two opposite faces Cores with a cortical face

These artefacts could be perceived like useful blanks, that is, large blanks, for domestic needs, and recuperated for a quick retouch. If cores were used as tools, there is the possibility that they were used because raw material was scarce. However, these retouched cores are not always exhausted artefacts. Consequently, raw materials were not lacking. Otherwise, some latest removals could be considered as shaping removals as the end of the flaking processing system. This behaviour could be an originality of the toolmakers, as a stage of the processing sequence. The cores would not just be recycled at random. The operational schemas for the debitage in a microlithic industry

Cortical face of core is a part of natural surface of quadrangular pebble or of a cortical flake. It was used like a striking platform, occasionally with few small removals. The debitage axes never converge in the centre of the core, which in some cases could explain the asymmetric section of the debitage surface. The removals are crossed or centripetal, unipolar or bipolar. The debitage uses the arris and the core edges to guide removals that are often deep. Men abandoned the cores in all kinds of reduction states for size reasons and/or because of the impossibility of producing some types of flakes, which were the aims of the debitage. This category is frequent among quartz cores. Core size is very varied, ranging from 25 to 90 mm.

The debitage rules based on the flakes

Cores with two opposite flaking faces

The flakes described above show that men used the arris to enable the removals on a pyramidal or trapezoidal surface. The removals do not always penetrate to the centre of the debitage surface and crossed removals are, for this reason, frequent.

These cores are similar to the previous ones with a size of between 20 and 70 mm for most. Some residual cortex remains on one or two faces or on a core edge. The core sections are not symmetric. One of the faces is often more pyramidal than the other one. The number of removals on each face varies, and is less numerous on the flattest surface, especially when they were executed on the core edges (‘orange slices’). In this last case, the removals are invasive, explaining the small number of removals on the core surface and the flat shape. When the removals are more centripetal, even not convergent, the flaked surface becomes more and more pyramidal. The removals are often small and deep in this case and, finally, it is difficult to retain an appropriate angle for further removal of flakes.

Cortex was identified on 35% to more than 50% of the flakes, according to the site. The cores are not prepared and the cortex removal action seems to be very slow. Men used both the pebble shape and the natural faces (‘pebble slices’, backed flakes). Quadrangular pebble faces with natural striking platforms were used first. On some flakes, we can see two backs. The cores have to have been small and cut on entire a face. It must have been deliberate as the break of some cores. The flat platform is the most frequently by found for each stone, but cortical platforms are numerous on quartz and quartzite flakes. In contrary, the facetted platforms are more frequent on the fine-grained stone flakes (more sophisticated flaking or depends on the pebble shape). The angles are open. When the platform is large and thick, the flakes are often short and thick. When the platform is small, the flakes are longer and the impact point always uses a main arris. Finally, bulbs are not very prominent (soft hammers or kinds of men's gestures?). The cores: elements of technical behaviour in a microlithic assemblage Some differences are visible between each stone type, but these are small differences rather than a specific technical behaviour. It is possible that the tool manufacturers adapted their technology according to the different stone qualities (Figs. 3-5).

The angles vary all along the core periphery and are more or less obtuse. At the end of a core's history, the angles are often equal or bigger than 90°, and the debitage process is, therefore, impossible and ceases. Cores with two main opposite surfaces and several striking platforms On a strongly pyramidal or trapezoidal debitage surface, some removals are used as a striking platform. The debitage was conducted according to the shape of the core. A second behaviour is the setting up of a third debitage surface, perpendicular to the two other ones. The peripheral ridge is removed. Some particular shapes were perhaps intended (thickness, backs, core slices). This behaviour doesn't only affect exhausted debitage faces and doesn't always seem to be a last chance to obtain further blanks.

173

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL Cores with several orthogonal debitage faces and polyhedral cores Each flat part of the pebble, especially a quadrangular pebble, was used as flaked surface. Every removal was also used as striking platform and, during the exploitation, the core was turned several times to maintain a good ridge angle. The exploitation was alternate and alternating. The number of removals was generally low. Cortex remains on a majority of the pebbles, and extends to at least one face, showing the flat parts of pebble, reserved as striking platform. Therefore, the cores look like balls, with a cubic or an irregular section, according to the pebble shape that was used without shaping out. Some of them are exhausted. The cores had a size close to the pebble size. ‘Taubachian’ technical behaviour The small pebble debitage The core analysis enables us to distinguish several kinds of managing. These belong to the same set, especially the ‘discoid’ cores, with the exception of some other cores (unibipolar method, prismatic or polyhedral cores). A pebble shape or the use of flakes should be responsible the variations within the flaking system, especially for the cores with two opposite surfaces. Most of the selected pebbles were quadrangular ones in various size range. The pebble volume was reduced from the start of flaking (Fig. 6). First choice: men preserved a part of a pebble or a flake as a potential striking platform. Second choice: two opposite surfaces were used for flaking from different striking platforms. Third choice: pebble edges were used as flaked surfaces (small pebbles yielding few flakes). The core was turned several times to maintain appropriate angles as long as possible. The removal arrangement is similar on each debitage face: crossed, centripetal or uni-bipolar, involving different kinds of flakes (small and flat, thick with a back and some elongated flakes). In other cases, the arris and the core edges given the removals on the trapezoidal or pyramidal surfaces. Each debitage face shape reflects, therefore, a specific story, according to the debitage choice. The use of the core edges and of flakes leads to a flat debitage surface (as experimental reconstruction has shown). The exploitation of two surfaces, on the contrary, results either in wider and wider angles or it retains good angles, and therefore results in a pyramidal abandoned core. The kinds of cores resulting from these processes could be a intentional targeted variation in the debitage in order to produce the most numerous and the most different kinds of flakes and for the longest time possible. Flint tends to produce smaller and thinner flakes (associated with good quality raw material or men's needs?).

The size comparison of the cores shows that, regardless of the raw material, the values are similar. The manufacturers preferred the smallest pebbles (between 30-40 to 60 mm) or the flakes. The polyhedral cores are smaller than the other cores. The few cores with a cortical surface are the largest ones. If we compare core size and removal size, we can infer that the manufacturers aimed to produce many small flakes. The largest cores exhibit also a high frequency of small removals. Therefore, the microlithic character of the assemblage cannot only be explained by small pebble size but also by a definite choice on the part of the manufacturers (Table VI). ‘Taubachian’ and ‘Micoquian’: two technological worlds Because of its long sequence, the Kůlna cave brings much more ‘Taubachian’ features to light. The main difference between the upper Micoquian layers and Taubachian layer 11 is, of course, artefact size. However, raw material choice is also very different, with a preference of flint as the main material (Valoch 1988). Two different processing systems stay: a shaping system, which is frequent and produced bifacial tools and a flaking system. Regarding the latter, Micoquian people produced different kinds of flakes that were intended for use as specific tools: points on ‘pseudo-Levallois’ flakes or triangular flakes and side scrapers on short flakes (Böeda 1995). In the Taubachian settlements, blank choice appears to have been quite similar, although thick and wide flakes and flakes with one or two backs are more common. The demand for it was otherwise low. Broken flakes were in effect used, not only because of the poor quality of the quartz and quartzite debitage. The debitage operational schema shows both similar aims and specific behaviours of the two complexes. The debitage belongs to the ‘discoid’ family. The pebble was exploited, in the great majority of cases, on two opposite flaked faces and the core has a pyramidal or a trapezoidal section. The use of the core edges and non-convergent removals is also common to the assemblages. But in the Taubachian assemblage, humans seem to have wanted to maintain a mostly flat the flaked surface and the cores are more technologically diversified. Was it a question of need, custom or a technical necessity linked to small pebbles? Cores with a flat section could give the illusion of a debitage in a ‘Levallois’ system and explain the existence of some thin flakes. However, in fact, all the cores of this Taubachian assemblage reflect the variability of a debitage processing system that belongs to the same family.

174

SOME OBSERVATION ON MICROLITHIC ASSEMBLAGES IN CENTRAL EUROPEDURING LOWER AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHICKŮLNA AND PŘEDMOSTÍ II (CZECH REPUBLIC), VÉRTESSZŐLŐS AND TATA (HUNGARY) The isotopic stage 5 microlithic assemblages: a similar microlithic world with variations related to activities and traditions? The technological analysis of the three collections has revealed many similarities. Raw material collecting was always conducted to gather local and different rock types. The geological studies of the local outcrops and the presence of some large cobbles, and flakes for the debitage, which also come from cobbles regarding their size, in the assemblages indicate that the large number of small pebbles was a human choice and not imposed by the environment. The various stones could be employed like complementary raw materials, each one having its proper purpose (stone hardness, stone ability or pebble shape for each kind of raw material). The flaking system is dominant, mainly cores with two debitage surfaces that could belong to a same processing system. The flake types are diverse. In contrast, there are only a small number of tools and the tool types are limited to side scrapers and points. Bifacial retouch is rare, except for the small points at Tata. Shaping and flaking were certainly successively practiced on some cores to obtain more blanks. We are in a ‘voluntary’ microlithic world and a specific technological world, quite different from the Micoquian world observed at Kůlna (Fig. 7). How to explain the differences between the three assemblages?: function, kind of sites, traditions? Specific environmental conditions could involve the most frequent production of small artefacts. The forest context, the temperate climate, good living conditions in terms of proximity to water springs (the archaeological layers in travertine), river beaches, or caves (Kůlna) could explain an original behaviour adapted to the particular climatic conditions. The availability of wood in this type of environment may have increased manufacture of wooden tools compared to wood-poor environments. Remains of wood are indeed present in travertine sites in Germany. At most of these sites, mammals are large sized species. Sometimes there are only few species: Rhinoceros, Elephant, Bison, Mammoth (Tata), Deer, Horse, (Gabori-Csank 1968; Patou-Mathis 1993). Specialised butchery activity, related to water springs with a rich animal life, could explain the technical patterns. However, this function cannot be a cause of the small size of lithic industry. Small pebbles and cobbles were available in the outcrops of the sites. Small flakes may of course, have been as suitable as other kinds of flakes for all kinds of activities. Wooden tools could also have been well adapted to a diversified system of exploitation of the environment in association with these small products. It is possible indeed that during a temperate period and a large forest context, the meat supply was different for Neander-

thals than in colder periods. The human groups may have developed a specialized food subsistence behaviour, explaining the kinds of lithic blanks, and even other kinds of lithic assemblages used during the same period in the same area. In this context, various traditions may explain the variations better than activities may. The more abundant bifacial points at Tata and the few bifacial tools at Kůlna may be interpreted as signs of regional trends within a vast technological circle. Human behaviour in their choice of small tool making cannot simply be explained by only one factor like environment, food needs, site locations, physical characteristics and availability of raw materials. Customs have to be considered too. Vértesszőlős and the isotopic stages 5 microlithic assemblages: a ‘genetic link’ The site of Vértesszőlős This site is located in Hungary, in the same geographical area as other sites, and was mainly excavated by L. Vértes from 1963 to 1968. Vértesszőlős comprises several localities (more than 100 m for each one). Several travertine layers yielded artefacts, fossil fauna, plant remains, fireplaces and human remains. The human remains are suggested to belong to Homo erectus (Kretzoi and Dobosi 1990). The palaeoenvironmental data and radiometric dating suggest that human occupation occurred in isotopic stage 9, about 350 kyr BP. Mammalian species are numerous: Bison priscus suessenbornensis, Bison schoetensacki, Cervus elaphus and Stephanorrhinus etruscus (Krtezoi and Dobosi 1990). The lithic raw materials The raw materials are varied and most could have been collected from the alluvial deposits of the Átáler stream or on the Pleistocene terraces near the site (Kretzoi and Dobosi 1990). The rock types belong to sedimentary stones (radiolarites, jasper, opal, flint, chert, lydites, spongilites, marl, limestone) and to metamorphic stones (quartz, quartzite). The stone collecting behaviour was thus very similar to that identified at the ‘Taubachian’ sites. A large number of small pebbles were also brought to the site. The average size of pebbles at the site is between 15 and 40 mm. A similar technological world? Almost 6000 artefacts were discovered in the different layers of the sites (Dobosi 1983; 1988; Kretzoi and Dobosi 1990). Most of these appear to relate to the flaking of very small pebbles. However, many pebbles with only a few re-

175

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL movals invite discussion about the border between flaking and shaping, especially in ancient collections. This one could not exist for the toolmakers. Comparison of the technological behaviour between the Vértesszõlõs assemblages and the three sites previously studied (see above) shows numerous common points. They are perhaps evidence of a similar tradition, which is also related to the exploitation of very small pebbles for tool manufacture. Another similar features are: presence of cores with two opposite debitage surfaces (pyramidal section), polyhedral cores, flaking of particular shape pebbles, frequent crossed removals on debitage surfaces, flaking on flake surfaces, and cores with a cortical back. Such similarity cannot just be explained technically (Fig. 8). On the other hand, the artefact analysis has provided evidence of specific treatments and a more diversified debitage system: abundant broken pebbles (pebble quarter, half pebble, pebble slice), numerous cores with one debitage surface on the smallest edge or the largest surface of the pebble. The most frequent kind of flaking is organized from one striking platform that is a natural face of the pebble. The angle between the striking platform and the flaking surface is more or less 80-90°. The removals are unipolar or crossed. Sometimes, from this unique platform, the flaking used a large part of the periphery of the pebble. Mostly, we can still observe the pebble shape on the cores. The removals are consequently less numerous and the flaking sequence seems to be short. Humans had access to a great quantity of available pebbles. In this case, most of the flakes are cortical flakes, thick and with either a cortical back or an oval section (pebble cortical face). The retouch on the tools is thick and often denticulate.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Professors Karel Valoch, Jiří Svoboda and Viola Dobosi for their help and advice to realise this work. This research was supported by the National Natural History Museum and the CNRS in France. Author s address: Marie-Helene Moncel Instut de Paleontologie Humaine 1 Rue Rene-Panhard 75013 Paris France Tel. +33 1 43316291 Fax. +33 1 43312279 E-mail: [email protected]

The study of the Vértesszőlős assemblages enabled recognition of technological rules of flaking but also an opportunistic use of pebble shape. Numerous pebble faces were quickly worked to generate some blanks and then abandoned after a break. Other pebbles were just broken, without preliminary preparation, and the pebble fragments were used as blanks. The technological behaviour observed at Vértesszőlős is partly similar to that at Kůlna, Předmostí II and Tata. The kind of site location or pebble size cannot be the only explanations for these similarities. Do we have evidence of a ‘genetic link’ between ancient and later microlithic assemblages, between human groups who lived in the same area? These technological behaviours are totally different from those observed at Pontinian sites in Italy (Kuhn 1995). On the other hand, they are closely related to some assemblages located in the same area and using large pebbles for the debitage (cf. Erd in Hungary; Gabori-Csank 1968). Do we then have evidence of large regional trends within various traditions in regard to raw material collecting and flaking rules?

176

SOME OBSERVATION ON MICROLITHIC ASSEMBLAGES IN CENTRAL EUROPEDURING LOWER AND MIDDLE PALAEOLITHICKŮLNA AND PŘEDMOSTÍ II (CZECH REPUBLIC), VÉRTESSZŐLŐS AND TATA (HUNGARY)

entire pebbles

site

pebble tools

flakes and fragments

cores

tools %

total

Kůlna layer 11

8

35

150

10362

714*/10555 (6%)

10555

Př edmostí II layer 8 layer 9

23 56

11 6

17 7

284 196

19/265 18/335

265 335

Tata

?

100

268

20 000

Tab. 1. The lithic assemblages from Kůlna, Předmostí II and Tata (*use wear marks on 295 tools).

Kůlna layer 11

Př edmostí II layers 8-9

Tata

silicites-radiolarites >50% quartz 33% quartzite 15% others

silicites-radiolarites 35% quartz 50% quartzite 15%

silicites-radiolarites 88% quartzite 11% others

local collecting (5 km) some long distance stones (tools) (porcelanite, rock crystal)

local collecting

local collecting

Tab. 2. The raw materials at Kůlna, Předmostí II and Tata.

177

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL

Kůlna layer 11

Př edmostí II layers 8-9

Tata

pebble tools 1. n=35/10 000 2. quartz, quartzite 3. uni-bifac. some removals 4. 15-240 mm 5. (15-60mm)

n= 17/800 quartz, quartzite tools=cores 25-70 mm (25-50mm)

100/20 000 silicates, quartzite tools=cores 20-50 mm

flaking products 10-30 mm

6. short, wide 7. rectang., triang. 8. thick or thin 9. 30% dos 10. wide and thick platform

rectang., triang. back thick or thin wide and thick platform

triang., rectang. bladelets 50% with a back wide and thick platform

tools on flaking products

11. 6% 12. side-scrapers, points, denticulates, notches 13. thin retouches 14. a few bifacial and flat retouches (porcelanite)

15% fine-grained stones > side-scrapers, points thin retouches a few bifacial retouches