« Aggsbachs Paleolithic Blog »

Blog Back Go to 1st Next Sort order: Newest

Search Status: 786 Treffer • Seite 1 von 79 • 10 Artikel pro Seite

About

2022-11-07 08:32:47 • ID: 2357

Impressum
Abbeville Menchecourt
Shop
This is thin, twisted, elongated and ovalaire, 17-cm long Biface from
Menchencourt / Abbeville in the Somme valley- see here: 2275 , here: 2107 ,
here: 1306 , here: 2059 , here: 1627 , here: 2335 and here: 1201 . According
to F. Bordes this Handaxe may be called a Limande by its rounded ends at both
sides and a certain elongation.

Menchecourt is located north of the town of Abbeville, at the confluence of the

Somme and one of its right bank tributaries, the Scardon. It is located on a
Figure 1 terrace of the Somme that was exploited as a source of sand, silt and gravel in
the 18th and 19th centuries. The Menchecourt sand pit has been scientifically
known since the end of the 18th century for its paleontological remains
collected by researchers from the Abbeville society of Emulation.

Menchecourt became one of the major prehistoric sites in Abbeville in the mid-nineteenth century
and was successively studied for its archaeological finds by Jacques Boucher de Perthes from 1837
and by Joseph Preswitch in 1859 , the site playing a fundamental role in the recognition of the
coexistence of Man and extinct animal species and the Prehistoric period.

After the death of Boucher de Perthes in 1868, Geoffroy d'Ault du Mesnil ensured the archaeological
follow-up until the end of the 19th century. In 1889, during the Paris World's Fair, he made
Menchecourt one of the eponymous sites that allowed him to define the cultures of the prehistoric
classification that he was proposing at the time, for a period, the Menchecourian, that d'Ault placed
chronologically between the Mousterian and Magdalenian and that was characterized by the presence
of "blades, points, scrapers and knives" (Bahain et al. 2019).

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the exploitation of the sand pit, which was no longer
economically profitable, was abandoned and the plots concerned were used for the construction of a
sugar factory and forgotten for a long time.

The Menchecourt historical survey, published in 2021, demonstrated that Pleistocene deposits, both
were still preserved and more important confirmed the presence of several archaeological and
paleontological levels within this sequence. The Menchecourt site is located on the +15 m nappe III
of Antoine's system (1990).The ESR-Ti-Li ages obtained gave mean age of 245 ± 21 k.a. , in good
aggrement with its chrono-climatic attribution (Bahain et al. 2019). Although new archaeological
material was not found during the new soundings, the site still offers excellent conditions for future
research.

The Handaxe shown here has almost exact counterparts in the Collection of Geoffroy d'Ault du Mesnil
(Bahain et al. 2019, Figure 3).

Both on geo-chronological grounds and results of an advanced dating program, the locality has a
high affinity to other sites in Northern France such as Montières. Here, Commont in 1912 described a
Middle Paleolithic assemblage, produced from Levallois flakes, which included numerous elongated
blades and (pointed) handaxes- see: 1627

Suggested Reading:

Mark J. White: A Global History of The Earlier Palaeolithic- Assembling the Acheulean World, 1673–
2020s; 2022.

Provenance:

Meller Family Collection

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-11-07_xside.jpg
Extern Link: journals.openedition.org…11711

2022-11-06 07:54:00 • ID: 2356

Acheulian at the Pas de Calais

This is thick and elongated Biface from Dury in the Pas de Calais. According to
Debenath and Dibble thick Handaxes may be classified into: Lanceolates,
Amygdaloids (with a cordiform aspect) and those pointed at both sides
(fusiform Biface).

The aspect of the 17 cm long example in this post resembles a subgroup of the
Lanceolate group with a concave edge-called Micoquian Bifaces. Regarding the
possibility of multiple re-working and re-sharping actions, this typology has
Figure 1 only a descriptive, but no explanatory power.

Intact Acheulean "living floors" were multi-activity places and included different classes of tools with
all possible transitions in typology resulting from the manufacturing practice and strategies of use.

Handaxes of the quality seen in this post need optimal raw material resources, accessible during the
Middle Pleistocene in Europe. This was the case in Northern France and central West-France, while
the aspect of Acheulian Handaxes from S/W-France was rather characterized by a lack of traditional
morphologies, a triangular faconnage, cortical remnants, backing and an irregular appearance
("Meridional Acheulian")- see 1345

The idea of a "Classical Acheulean" in the North of France and an "Atypical Acheulean" in the South-
West (for example in the Bergeracois) has not been confirmed by the excavations of the last
decades.

Depending on raw material resources, "classical typologies" were also found in the south-west and
"atypical Acheulean" ensembles also occurred in the north as recently demonstrated by the open-air
site of Revelles, west to Amiens (Somme).

However, due to the quality of the raw material and the huge selective collections of the past, which
resulted in a heavy bias, we are primed to suggest classical ensembles to be more frequent in the
north.

The Acheulian of the Pas de Calais: All the sites mentioned below, such as Quievy,
Bapaume, Beaumetz-les-Loges, Biache-Saint-Vaast, and Etricourt-Manancourt, are
located within a 40 km radius of Dury. For this reason, it is feasible to make
comparisons between our single piece and the known series. It has to be mentioned,
that there are usually no absolute dates for excavations, that took place during the
1970/80ies, but stratigraphic observations place them into the "Saalian" loess.

There is an enormous variability in these ensembles, that have been excavated with
modern methods, regarding the number of bifaces and the presence or absence of the
Figure 2 Levallois technique. While the beginnings of the technocomplex remain unknown, the
transition to the early Middle Paleolithic occurred around 250 k.a. (MIS 7e).

In the older literature, the undated site of Quievy was the only larger ensemble for comparison. The
selective series consists of mainly elongated bifaces, made from large flint nodules by hard hammer
technique, (Amygdaloids, Ficrons and Bifaces Miqoquian Bifaces; Tuffreau 1971). Unfortunately Flake
tools were not collected.

Flake tools were present in the ensemble from the Vimy brick factory, where an Acheulian of
Levalloisian facies was collected decennia ago (Tuffreau 1979). The varied flake tools include a high
percentage of natural-backed knives. Bifaces are particularly numerous.

The yellow series from Beaumetz-les-Loges, which come from the "last Saalian" loess is
stratigraphically more recent than that of Vimy. Its debitage is only weakly Levallois and Levallois
flakes not transformed into tools are quite rare. The bifaces are of Acheulean type.

Tuffreau described several Upper Acheulean localities poor in bifaces, the most interesting remains
the series from the Osiers deposit in Bapaume. Here a very advanced Levallois technique has been
oberserved and includes, in addition to numerous Levallois flakes a group with varied scrapers and
well-touched Mousterian points. Notches and and denticulates are common and clearly dominate the
Upper Paleolithic type tools. The 1972 excavation series has only one biface of the amygdaloid type.
Another Acheulean series poor in bifaces is known at Etaples.

The excavations of the multilayered open-air site of Etricourt-Manancourt finally offer a

clear evidence for the end of the Acheulean complex in north-western Europe. Five in situ
Palaeolithic occupations dating from 330 to 70 k.a. were excavated.

The Lithic industry of the archaeological layer HUD, dated to MIS 9a – ca 288 k.a. is
characterized by elongated Handaxes and a Clactonian method of flake production.
Anyhow a Levallois chaine operatoire is also present. The next two layers already belong
to the Early Middle Palaeolithic, between 190 and 240 k.a. (Herrison et al. 2016).

Figure 3
The early Middle Paleolithic at the Pas de Calais begann early during MIS7. MIS 7 was
a long and complex interglacial phase (spanning more than 50,000 years). In Northern
and Central continental Europe we observe the rise of the Levallois technology, although this
technique was present in Europe for the first time around the OIS9/8 boundary.

The most famous site from this period is Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de- Calais), where two Neanderthal
skulls were unearthed. We should not forget very similar material from the excavations of V.
Commont at Montiers at the Somme at the beginning of the last century.

The Biache-Saint-Vaast deposit, discovered in 1976, did not yield any bifaces associated with the
series archaeologically preserved in place. The varied flake tools include scrapers in medium
percentage, beautiful Mousterian points, and natural-backed knives in high percentage. (Tuffreau
1977).

In Summary: The Handaxe shown here fits well in the development of the final Lower Paleolithic in
the Pas de Calais and is most probably around 300 k.a. old.

Provenance:

Kühnel Collection (GER)

Suggested Reading:

Mark J. White: A Global History of The Earlier Palaeolithic- Assembling the Acheulean World, 1673–
2020s; 2022.

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-11-06_IMG_3263side.jpg
Image: 2022-11-06_IMG_3248.jpg
Image: 2022-11-06_IMG_3293.PNG
Extern Link: www.sciencedirect.com…S0003552119300664
Extern Link: www.persee.fr…htn_0018-439x_1972_num_1_1_3151_t1_0106_0000_1
Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…301222797_A_new_key-
site_for_the_end_of_Lower_Palaeolithic_and_the_onset_of_Middle_Palaeolithic_at_Etricourt-Manancourt_Somme_France
Extern Link: www.persee.fr…pica_0752-5656_2013_num_3_1_3597

2022-11-05 16:04:04 • ID: 2355

Along the tranquil River: A foliated Handaxe from Glisy at the Somme
The Somme River in northern France rises in the hills at Fonsommes, near
Saint-Quentin in the Aisne Département, and flows generally westward for 245
km to the English Channel, crossing the Somme Département and the ancient
province of Picardy.

From Amiens, near which its headstreams (including the Ancre and Avre)
converge, the Somme follows the floor of a trench across the chalk country.

Like a string of pearls, Early and Middle Paleolithic sites are found between
Figure 1
Abbeville and Amiens.

The Somme basin occupies a privileged place in the history of prehistory with, in 1859, the
demonstration of the antiquity of the human species when Joseph Prestwich and John Evans
photographed a biface in situ in the gravels of Saint-Acheul, thus confirming the contemporaneity of
Man and extinct animal species, as Jacques Boucher de Perthes had already stated in 1847 (Cohen &
Hublin 1989).

The study of the stratigraphic context of flint tools found in the terraces of the Somme and their
interpretation by Victor Commont, Henri Breuil and François Bordes according to a phylogenetic
mode played a great role in the classification of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic (Tuffreau 2001).

Excavations carried out over the last thirty years in various deposits at Cagny, Saint-Acheul and
Gentelles have renewed the existing documentation, which consisted until then of pieces collected
during quarrying in the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century.

These excavations led to a concise absolute stratigraphy of the terraces system of Somme and a
better understanding of the technical evolution of the local Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic - further
information can be found here: 2275 , here: 2107 , here: 1306 , here: 2059 , here: 1627 and here:
1201 .

Figure 1 shows a whitish patinated 14 cm long foliated Biface from Glisy near Amiens. Glisy is
located in the Amiénois on the south bank of the Somme River, about eight kilometers east of
Amiens and eight kilometers southwest of Corbie.

Like everywhere on the Somme, large gravel pit works took place in Glisy during the late 19th and
early 20th century. The works led to the discovery of Early and Middle Paleolithic findings, which
were, however, far from being as numerous as those at Amiens.

In N-France foliated Handaxes appear at classic Acheulian and early Middle Paleolithic sites like
Presles-et-Boves (MIS 9-11; Aisne), within the Oise region, at Cagny (between MIS 9 and 11), at the
Somme at Mareuil, Saint Acheul (MIS 7-9) and Montières (MIS 7), but are uncommon within the so
called „Micoquian" sites during MIS 5 (c. 100 – 90 k.a. BP) within the Seine region-see here: 1532 .

The accumulation of foliated handaxes in the Aisne Valley may be due to the presence of platy raw
material, while activity-specific causes should be present on the Somme.

However, these specific instruments are only found at times when the Acheulian was well established
in the territory and never in very early inventories.

Provenance:

Collection Bigot (FR)

Suggested Reading:

Mark J. White: A Global History of The Earlier Palaeolithic- Assembling the Acheulean World, 1673–
2020s; 2022.

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-11-05_glis1side.png
Extern Link: www.sciencedirect.com…S1040618215008368?via%3Dihub
Extern Link: journals.openedition.org…1847?lang=en
Extern Link: www.tandfonline.com…00438243.1997.9980375?journalCode=rwar20
Extern Link: www.semanticscholar.org…8bdf6f06545d63ff68a079391c85cfbf75a5eef7
Extern Link: hal.archives-ouvertes.fr…Hérisson%20%26%20al%20Paléo%20Inf%20Moy%20Somme%20Abbeville.pdf

2022-10-16 09:21:05 • ID: 2354

The Jilatian: Big Arrowpoint before the PPNB

Figure 1-3 show a seven cm long Jilat Point from the Levantine Middle Epipaleolic,
found decennia ago on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River.

The Levantine Epipaleolithic is usually based on Microlithic tools. Therefore it comes

not as a surprise, that Jilat Points initially only known from surface findings at the
Jilat 22 site, located the Wadi el-Jilat (central Jordan), were suggested as a new
variant of the PPNB Big Arrowhead phenomenon (Garrard et al. 1985).

In situ sites, excavated since the 1980ies revealed their Epipaleolithic age,
Figure 1 substantiated by several consistent C-14 data and stratigraphies of multilayered
sites.

Such artifacts are preferentially known from what is today Central Jordan but are,
however, also known from the Sinai and from the el Kowm area in Syria (Cauvin
1998).

"Jilat Points" were indeed multifunctional and served both as Projectiles and Knifes.
They were always large sized and manufactured on blades (Garrard and Byrd 1992).
They are characterized by a distinct directly retouched and relatively long tang. Their
Figure 2 tip was commonly retouched or backed along one lateral / oblique edge as shown in
Figure 1 and 2.

Some of the Jilat knives have remnant microburin scars at the tip, indicating that
this technique was used to help fashion the shape of the point tip. Jilat Points /
Knifes are associated with single platform cores for the production of
blade/bladelets, although opposed platform cores are also known.

Jilat Points / Knifes often make up 50% of the total lithic ensemble of carefully
excavated in-situ sites. Beside the diagnostic "Fossile Directeur", burins,
strangulated tools, some endscrapers and a poorly developed microlithic component
Figure 3 consisting of non-geometric artifacts, mainly backed elements, are usually present in
the Jilatian Ensembles (Byrd and Garrard 2019).

At the type site (Jilat 22 Middle and Lower) the Jilatian is securely dated towards the end of the local
Middle Epipaleolithic between 16,3 and 14,9 cal BP.

The presence of a non-microlithic, blade dominated assemblage from the Epipalaeolithic is neither
unprecedented nor „exotic“.

The phenomenon has been mainly explained by functional factors like the development of new
hunting strategies and changes in settlement patterns during the advent of the late Levantine
Epipaleolithic.

Surf the Blog:

About the PPNB and Levantine Epipaleolithic -see here: 1147 , here: 2159 , and here: 1508

Suggested Reading:

Ezel and Bar-Yosef (Ed’s): Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans;
2017.

Provenance:

Levenstein Collection (ISR)

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-10-17_a.jpg
Image: 2022-10-17_b.jpg
Image: 2022-10-17_d.jpg
Extern Link: www.academia.edu…
My_Backed_and_Truncated_Bladelet_Your_Point_Terminology_and_Interpretation_in_Levantine_Epipaleolithic_Assemblages
Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Packaging_the_Levantine_Epipalaeolithic_a_view_from_the_Negev_and_Sinai

2022-10-07 16:48:04 • ID: 2352

The Solutrean People- An Outdated Fiction

Figure 1 shows a Point a Face plane from Laugerie Haute at Les Eyzies in the
Perigord, made of fine grained Bergeracois Flint.

While the Point in Figure 1 only shows a very limited retouch on the tip, Figure
2 shows a "classical" Pointe a Face Plane (Subtype A according to Smith), also
from Laugerie haute, exhibiting an unifacial covering retouch.

One might ask if the two examples really belong to the same class of artifacts
and if Smith has incorrectly lumped different tools into the same category.
Figure 1

In favor of Smith's classification stands the reality that in the Southwest French
Upper Paleolithic, leaf like points with minimally invasive retouch as shown in Figure 1, occur
exclusively in the Solutrean and that there are versatile transitions between all subtypes (A-E).
Comparable pieces are known only from the Early Ahmarian in the Levant and the Early Epigravettian
of the Ligurian coast and the Gargano- a clear convergence.

The high diversity among Pointes a face Plane may be explained by differnt functions: armature
point, knife or both (F. Bordes, 1974-b).

Pointes a face Plane subtype E are typical for Laugerie Haute Est Layer 31,
excavated by F. Bordes (F. Bordes et P. E. L. Smith; 1957-1959) which is part of
Peyrony's Stratum H′ (lower Solutrean; Solutréen à Pointes à face plane).

A Point a face Plane Type E is essentially a pointed blade, single or double tipped,
with flat retouch concentrated around the tip. More about these points-see: 1607
and 1268

It is important to mention that, since the point types do not replace one another
Figure 3 but are instead added on to existing types, the occurrence of a Pointe à face Plan
does not automatically indicate a Lower Solutrean.

At Laugerie this artifact is not restricted to the initial Solutrean but also present in layer Ha″ (middle
Solutrean; Solutréen à Feuilles de Laurier) as well and even co-occurs with shouldered points in the
Upper Solutrean occupations. The same holds true for the Solutrean layers at Badegoule and
Fourneau du Diable.

The French Solutrean is first known from P. Smith's great synthesis, published in 1966, which takes
up Peyrony's typological classification into Protosolutrean, Lower Solutrean, Middle Solutrean and
Upper Solutrean, to which P. Smith added a Final Solutrean.

Later, François Djindjian provided a statistical analysis of the Solutrean lithic industry, which shows a
break between, on the one hand, a Protosolutean and an early Solutrean (ex-lower) in a very cold
and dry environment, limited to Aquitaine and Ardèche and, on the other hand a recent Solutrean
with covering retouch (ex-middle and upper) in the very cold and humid environment of the Laugerie
episode. The recent Solutrean is not only found in S/W-France but also in the more Northern areas
(Poitou, Ile-de-France, Saône) (Djindjian et al. 2019).

The question increasingly arises whether historical taxonomy has any meaning at all. Does the
affiliation of an ensemble to the Early or Late Solutrean say anything about the subsidence strategies
and the behavioural repertoire of our ancestors or provide any contribution to Local Population
Genetics?

Bifacial foliates have been appearing and disappearing from time to time since the MSA at various
locations in Eurasia and Africa.

Their production may testify the need to achieve a maximum thinning of the artifacts, presumably to
achieve a better hafting - but even this assumption is tentative. However, no meaningful cultural
history can be practiced with such an approach.

As for the population genetics issue, I agree with Natasha Reynolds: "Given the known problems with
the cultural taxonomic framework as it currently exists, it is clearly inappropriate to equate cultural
taxonomic units with past populations. In some cases, there may have been population continuity
between chronologically or geographically distinct taxonomic units; in others, taxonomic units may
subsume multiple distinct prehistoric populations. Cultural taxonomic units, at whatever scale, should
not be treated as representing discrete, monolithic cultural phases; nor should they be correlated
with discrete, distinctive past populations" (Reynolds 2020).

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-10-08_LAUGERIEFACEPLANE815x10242.jpg
Extern Link: hal.archives-ouvertes.fr…document

2022-09-29 12:07:33 • ID: 2351

Handaxes from Croisilles – Les Fours à Chaux in the Normandie

These are two representative Handaxes from the surface, found in 1974 at
Croisilles in the Orne Valley (Normandie / France)- a small town with about 200
inhabitants today.

When I visited the north of France for the first time in 1974 I visited a lot of
historical and prehistoric landmarks in the area.

Not only did I learn a lot about the liberation of West Europe by the Western
Allied Forces in 1944, but had also the opportunity to visit some of the rich
Figure 1 Palaeolithic surface sites.

Such sites were not interesting for archeologists at that time. Their value was
only recognised during the last decennia.

Abundant prehistoric lithic material on the surface near the old lime kilns in the
commune of Croisilles was known to local collectors since the 1940s. The kilns in
this part of the countryside were built since the beginning of the Second Empire
to produce lime for the amendment of agricultural land.

Figure 2 The deposit at Croisilles is located at the upstream end of a valley tributary of
the right bank of the Orne, a coastal river that is deeply embedded in the
Precambrian shale and sandstone bedrock.

Beside predominant Neolithic material, Handaxes and Middle Paleolithic debitage is

known from the locality.

The Paleolithic artefacts are characterized by medium sized Handaxes (10-17 cm

long in my small collection), made from local bluish Flint with a thick white Patina.
Many of the Handaxes have a globular ("massifom") appearance.

Figure 3 Typologically and from a French perspective, the Bifaces are more reminiscent of
the Acheulian than the Middle Paleolithic but in my opinion they are also very similar
to the Handaxes of the German Micoquian of the North European Plain (Salzgitter
and Lichtenberg for example) -see: 1599

The cores illustrate different concepts of raw material processing, with surface
management debitage, often centripetal, conducted according to Discoid and
Levallois Methods. The tools on the flakes include a few simple scrapers.

Collectors drew the attention of professional archaeologists to the locality, a few

Figure 4 years ago, and a survey of the site, was carried out. On geological grounds the
Middle Paleolithic at Croisilles was quite securely placed around 50-55 k.a., at the
end of the Lower Pleniglacial, MIS 4, and the beginning of the Middle Pleniglacial, MIS 3, before the
arrival of the great cold (Cliquet et al. 2015).

The artifacts shown in this post are clearly different from other Middle Paleolithic findings from the
area, which predominantly belong to the Bifacial Mousterian of N/W-France- see here: 1179 , 1501 ,
here 1665 , here: 1250 , 1585 , and here: 1077

Provenance: Collection Perez

Resources and images in full resolution:

PDF: 2022-10-02_Croisilles__Les_Fours__Chaux.pdf
Image: 2022-10-12_a.jpg
Image: 2022-10-12_c.jpg
Image: 2022-10-12_f.jpg
Image: 2022-10-12_as.jpg
Extern Link: journals.openedition.org…24132

2022-09-17 18:12:45 • ID: 2350

The Early Upper Paleolithic at Shanidar / Iraqi Kurdistan

Figure1 ; Shanidar Cave Wikimedia Commons - Public Domain

Figure 2

The Zagros mountains in Kurdistan are a complex chain of mountains and ridges dividing the region
between the fertile plains of Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf lowlands to the west and Iran's dry
inland plateau to the east. Today the Zagros begins in what is now northwestern Iran and roughly
follows Iran's western border while covering much of southeastern Turkey and northeastern Iraq.

The highest point in the range is Mount Dena, elevation (4409 meters), located in the middle Zagros.
Important Passes through the mountains are used for reaching the fertile intermontane plains, which
lie at elevations above 1500 meters. The rivers draining the range’s western face are strong and
perennial, flowing through enclosed plains or ravines.

Kurdistan is home to some of the most important archaeological sites in the world, ranging from the
Stone Age to the most recent past. Shanidar Cave is one of the most impressive localities for
Paleolithic Archaeology in the Region, mainly known for its Neanderthal remains and the discussions
around their social significance - see here: Flower People and their Graves?

According to Varoujan (2019), the Shanidar Cave in the Zagros (Iraqi Kurdistan) is situated at an
elevation of 737 m (a.s.l.), is capped by very rugged cliffs about 400 m in height, whereas the slope
along which the entrance is located has a gradient of 44%. These topographic characters served as
an excellent defense / observatory site for people living in the cave. The maximum height of the
entrance of the cave is about 12 m, with one large chamber almost of a dome shape (Varoujan and
Sissakian 2019; Figure 1).

At Shanidar Cave Solecki during the 1950ies uncovered a sequence that included Middle Paleolithic
(Layer D), Upper Paleolithic (Layer C) and Epipaleolithic (Layer B) industries, as well as a recent to
Neolithic deposit (Layer A) (Solecki 1958).

It was Dorothy Garrod who suggested the term: Baradostian for the Layer C-ensemble, after the
Baradost Mountain overlooking the Shanidar Valley.

The tools shown in this post are from Shanidar / Level C and consist of a small
sample on up to 9 cm long blades.

Among these tools we notice an endscraper with partial lateral retouch, a

nearly geometric Aurignacian blade and a carinated blade (Figure 2,3 and 4) as
well as a long blade with an inverse notch (Figure 5). These tools are
Figure 3
characteristic for the Early Upper Paleolithic (Baradostian) at the site (Dibble
and Olszewski 1989).

Kurdistan is rich in stratified Paleolithic sites, found mostly in caves and rock shelters, while many
open air localities may have been destroyed by erosion. Cave and Rock-shelters were usually
occupied over a considerable period of time, during the Middle Paleolithic, Early and Late Upper
Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic.

Excavations started already during D.E.A. Garrod's times and were repeatedly and intermittent
conducted at Shanidar, Warwasi, Wartain, Miaibvera, Bisotun, Ghar-e Khar,Ghār-e Boof, Yafteh, Pa
Sangar, Kunji and Gar Arjeneh.

Assemblages that may broadly be assigned to the Early Baradostian technocomplex overlie (non-
Levallois)- Mousterian deposits at Shanidar Cave and Warwasi Rock-shelter (Tsanova 2013).

At Shanidar Cave, Solecki noted relatively frequent Mousterian tools in the Early Upper Paleolithic,
most probably the consequence of the excavation technique and due to secondary mixing from the
Mousterian layers.

However, some authors still suggest, that the local development of the Zagros
Aurignacian reflects the reality of a local autochthonous Middle- to Upper-
Paleolithic transition.

The Baradostian of the Zagros has Affinities to both the Ahmarian of the Levant
and the Aurignacian (sensu stricto). According to recent excavations, the main
typological categories of the Baradostian show, together with a clear
Figure 4
abundance of bladelet tools, the so called Arjeneh points. These are defined as
bladelets with a nearly rectilinear section, with short direct retouch limited to
the edges to produce a fusiform contour, very similar to the original Font-Yves points.

At Yafteh cave, bladelets were obtained in different ways: from bladelet cores, from flake edges and
from the proximal ends of carinated burins. Classic Dufour bladelets are also present.

Beside the typical Points, the Baradostian toolkit also includes Aurignacian blades, sometimes
pointed, numerous burins of different types, endscrapers on blades and splintered pieces. In addition
to bladelet tools, tools unique to the Aurignacian sensu stricto – carinated endscrapers and burins -
are also present.

The age of the Baradostian is still not well established. The calibrated C-14
dates, using pretreatment protocols and secondary modeling by Bayesian
statistics, show chronological signals only after the H-4 event. Therefore the
Baradostian is possibly more recent than the Ahmarian and (Proto)-
(Aurignacian).
Figure 5
Suggested Readings:

E. Ghasidian. The Early Upper Paleolithic Occupation of Ghār-e Boof Cave. Kerns Verlag Tübingen
2019.

Shidrang, S., 2018. The middle to upper paleolithic in the Zagros. The appearance and evolution of
the Baradostian. In: Nishisaki, Y., Akazawa, T. (Eds.), The middle and upper paleolithic of the levant
and beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 133–156.

Solecki, R.S., 1958. The Baradostian industry and the upper palaeolithic in the near East. Columbia
University, [Unpublished PhD thesis].

Provenance:

Henri-Martin Collection

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-09-18_b1.jpg
Image: 2022-09-18_b3.jpg
Image: 2022-09-18_b5.jpg
Image: 2022-09-19_shanidarcave.jpg
Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…326008298_Shanidar_Cave_and_the_Baradostian_a_Zagros_Aurignacian_industry
Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…338205868_Shanidar_Cave_-
_An_Interesting_Archaeological_Site_in_the_Kurdistan_Region_Iraq
Extern Link: www.donsmaps.com…clancave.html

2022-09-14 15:18:15 • ID: 2349

Explaining Stone Tool Modifications

Figure 1 and 2 show a 6 cm long Jerzmanowice point from Kleinheppach in
Baden-Würtenberg / Germany with a typical dorsal and baso-ventral flat
retouch.

Figure 3 displays two thick and partial cortical typical Quina scrapers from the
classic Quina-Aval site.

Figure 4 and 5 show a 5 cm long MSA point from Eyden Ubari / Libya with
secondary thinning in the apical and ventral / dorsal basal parts.
Figure 1
Conventionally, it is argued that the retouche of the Quina scraper is indicative
of a re-sharpening process and that the thinning in the other artifacts was
executed to facilitate hafting.

However such explanations are often based on shaky ground....

In Paleolithic Archaeology, tool maintenance involves secondary modification of

a tool, mainly by retouch.

Figure 2 Functionally, a stone tool can be retouched for a variety of reasons, such as
reshaping, resharpening, recycling and facilitation of prehension and hafting
(Odell 1996, Inizan et al. 1999).

Reshaping is restoring the original design or redesigning an artifact with a

different function

Figure 3
Resharpening describes the restoration of a sharp cutting or scraping edge by
retouching, resulting in the aspect of a "retouch scalariform ecaleuse" as shown in
Figure 3.

It should be noted that the functional significance of such a retouch is usually

assumed a priori in the literature but often not proven

Recycling, mainly defined by double patinas, is interestingly a common

phenomenon starting during the late Acheulean and early MSA in Africa and the
Figure 4 Middle Paleolithic in Europe and the Middle East, while it is nearly absent during early
ESA and Upper Paleolithic times. This observation may have multiple causes
including environmental conditions, cognitive competence, raw material
characteristic and settlement patterns

An important secondary modification of flakes since the Middle Pleistocene consists

of blank thinning, including the one used for by bulb removal, basal or apical
thinning and medial thinning applied in fixing of the profile curvature, edge flattening
and flattening of cross-sections of the angles between the working edges on déjeté-
type artifacts (Derevianko 1992, 2009).
Figure 5

Why does artifact thinning occur? The most common answer, which is also often
claimed a priori, relates to facilitate hafting of the artifact.

Microtraceology may allow a confirmation of this assumption in certain cases (Rots 2011). However
the proof of a specific functional gain by morphology alone is not possible. Form does not always
follow function.

The earliest claims for hafting come from the Acheulean site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (GBY) in the
Jordan valley, dated to ca. 800 k.a. at the boundary between the Lower and Middle Pleistocene.
However this statement is not based on Microtraceology but on more speculative assumptions
(Alperson-Afil & Goren-Inbar, 2016).

There is virtually no literature that proves that thinning Stone Tools really contributes to improved
hafting or that Quina-retouch is due to a reshaping process. As in any science, one sometimes
encounters fundamental problems that have never really been settled or even worked out.

Suggested Readings:

V. Rots: Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools. A methodology (2010)

D.S Amick: The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic.Quaternary
International 361 (2015) 4-20

Povenance: Collection Reinhard Family (1,2); Halm (3) and Wagner (4,5) GER
Resources and images in full resolution:
Image: 2022-09-14_1a.jpg
Image: 2022-09-14_1.jpg
Image: 2022-09-14_IMG_1254_2.jpg
Image: 2022-10-10_IMG_2366a.jpg

2022-09-10 17:14:50 • ID: 2348

An early Masterwork: Keilmesser from Murzuq / Lybia

Figure1 ; Keilmesser

Today the Erg Murzuk covers an area of 71000 km² and lies almost entirely in the southern Libyan
municipality of Murzuk. The provincial capital of Murzuk lies on the northern edge of the erg. To the
north, a small part extends into the municipality of Wadi al-Haya. In the southwest, individual small
foothills of the sand desert extend into Algeria (Djanet province) and Niger (Agadez region).

Figure 1 and 2 display a thin and partially backed 10 cm long classic Keilmesser / Prodnik from
Murzuk/ Lybia, a highly sophisticated stone tool already introduced into the Blog- see here: 1270 ,
1631 , 2016 and here: 1726 .

According to the actual Nomenclature the tool is called: Keilmesser of the Königsaue Type, referring
to the lower stratum of the Type-site in Central Germany - see here: Königsaue .

Such tools are highly curated artifacts used by mobile foragers for different
tasks.

According to microtraceological studies they were used for a variety of activities

(cutting, sawing, draping..).

After several cycles of rejuvenation (up to seven cycles), the tool shown here, is
only 4 mm thick at the thinnest point. Whether it was hafted or used freehand
can no longer be determined due to a thick „desert patina“. In any case,
Figure 2 freehand use is possible without any problems.

Such pieces are very rare in the African MSA but they do occur. In this context I would like to remind
the site ET-72 (Dakleh Oasis; Figure 3) published by R. Schild and F. Wendorf in 1977, which belongs
at a minimum age to MIS7 (or MIS9).

During the 1960ies Schild and Wendorf conducted fieldwork in the Western Desert, especially at the
Oasis of Dakhla, where a number of Late Acheulean spring vent localities were excavated and yielded
a huge – far the largest in Egypt – assemblage of various bifaces, debitage, cores and light tools.
Especially backed and double backed handaxes were clearly outside from the known typology,
established by F. Bordes.

The important Polish Archaeologist Schild immediately recognized such items being very similar to
Prodniks (Keilmesser) from his Motherland, which he discussed in depth in the Monograph - still one
publicatory highlight of the Combined Prehistoric Expedition in Egypt (Figure 3).

While "Keilmesser" are attested at Dakhla in large quantities, they are

otherwise rare outside the sphere of the Central and Eastern European
Micoquian (MIS5-3).

In Europe they were found in intact stratigraphy at La Cotte de Saint Brelade

(MIS 7/6) and Mesvin IV (MIS 8) within an early Middle Paleolithic context, and
in Africa they are recognized from the Sahara - either within a late Acheulian or
Figure 3
early MSA enviroment - for example from Kharga Oasis and Lybia. A famous
published example is known from the Yabrud rock shelter in the Antilibanon in
Syria.

Apart from the spatial separation between North Africa and Europe, the rarity of such artifacts in
Africa already shows that "Keilmesser" in the MSA are a classical convergence phenomenon
regarding their later common appearance during the Micoquian in Central and East Europe.

Suggested Reading:

G. Caton-Thompson:The Kharga Oasis in Prehistory (London, 1952).

R. Schild and F. Wendorf: The Prehistory of Dakhla Oasis and Adjacent Desert. (Wroclaw, 1977).

F. Wendorf and R. Schild: Prehistory of the Nile Valley. (New York and London, 1976).

F. Wendorf, Schild, A. Close, et al, Egypt during the Last Interglacial: The Middle Paleolithic of Bir
Tafawi and Bir Sahara East . (New York, 1993).

Proveniance: Collection Wagner (GER)

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-09-10_IMG_1368.jpg
Image: 2022-09-12_1.jpg
Image: 2022-09-12_murzuq_kmgdown.jpg

2022-09-09 09:27:37 • ID: 2347

MSA Large Blades from the Edeyen Ubari

Figure1 ; Wikimedia Commons - Public Domain

Figure 1 displays the Mandara Lakes, located in Gaberoun, an oasis in the eastern zone
of the Ubari Desert in Western Lybia.

It is one of the oases that were already present, along with a network of habitable
watercourses, during wet phases of the Middle Pleistocene - see: 2002

The long pointed and bilaterally retouched blade in Figure 2-4 was found along with MSA
/ Aterian tools decennia ago. With 17 cm it is oversized, a rare but not uncommon
phenomenon of the local MSA in this part of the Libyan Sahara.
Figure 2
It is unlikely that it was selectively introduced from the Holocene surface into a pure MSA
ensemble. In addition the Blade was made from quarzit, the most common material
during the late Middle Pleistocene, while during the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic such
artifacts were usually made from Flint.

Similar MSA implements were reported from Tit Mellil (Morocco) by Vaufrey in 1935. He
called these tools: "Racloir double en Lame". Obviously he couldn't imagine an MSA with
real blades....

Figure 3 Breuil in 1956 showed several examples of large (> 10 cm) blades from the Bir el-Ater
Type locality in Algeria and several other Maghrebinian sites, housed in the Bardo
Museum in Tunis, with almost identical morphologies (Figure 5).

Kleindienst et al. described such tools from the Kharga Aterian Unit in fresh
condition, radiometrically dated around 100 k. BP (see attached files).

In short, Aterian artifact assemblages have been described as having a strong

Levallois component, bifacial and unifacial points, high frequency of blades, a high
proportion of sidescrapers made on blades, and pieces typical of the (European)
Upper Paleolithic (Tixier, 1959, 1967) - see here: 1273 , here 1052 , and here: 1272
Figure 4
Even more interesting in terms of an Evolutionary and Cognitive approach is the non-
lithic element of the Aterian which includes worked bone, shell beads, use of pigment and structured
fireplaces (Scerri 2021).

The blade phenomena of the Aterian has never been studied in depth. Especially we lack of any
details about their technological characteristics. From the illustrations, that can be found in literature,
both a Levallois and unipolar semitounant production seems to be demonstrable...

However - regarding our example a Levallois Chaîne opératoire-approach in it’s production can be
ruled out. The blank was detached from an unipolar prismatic core.

About Early Blades:

Until very recently Blades were suggested to be one important hallmark of a

"Modern Behavior", - part of the already outdated „Human Revolution“ - approach -
but Blades appeared early in Human Evolution and already during the late African
ESA / Early MSA transition- See here: 1522 , 1091 , 2334 , and here: 1622 .

Suggested Reading:

Figure 5 Musée d'éthnographie et de Préhistoire du Bardo. Collections préhistoriques.

Planches. Album no 1. Préface de l'Abbé H. Breuil. Museum - Bardo (Tunis) 1956.

Provenance:: Wagner Collection (GER)

Resources and images in full resolution:

Image: 2022-09-09_44.jpg
Image: 2022-09-09_44a.jpg
Image: 2022-09-09_44b.jpg
Image: 2022-09-09_Oasis_in_Libya.jpg
Image: 2022-09-09_constatine.jpg
Extern Link: static1.squarespace.com…Nyame+Akuma+Issue+071-Kleindienst.pdf