Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog

Discussing paleolithic and neolithic

artefacts in their archaeological and
historical context

Clactonian or Mimicry ?
Posted on February 15, 2018 by Katzman

This is a large Flake from the

beaches of Le Havre (18 cm
long), that fits the definition of the Clactonian.

The Clactonian it is named after 400 k.a. -year-old finds made by Hazzledine Warren in a palaeochannel at
Clacton-on-Sea in Essex in 1911. The artefacts found there included flint chopping tools, flint flakes and the tip
of a worked wooden shaft along with the remains of a giant elephant and hippopotamus. The Clactonian
industry involves the detachment of thick, irregular flakes with a wide flaking angle (>90%) from flint cores.
The prominent bulb of percussion ( also seen on our example) on the flakes indicates use of a hammer-stone.
Retouch is uncommon and instead a minimal amount of further flaking was carried out to facilitate handling or
to form simple notched cutting-edges.

The beaches of Le Havre (Seine-Maritime) and and Sainte-Adresse yielded many artefacls from the end of the
last century onwards, for example series with many handaxes from the “Station Romain”. This series has been
almost completely destroyed during the Allied landing operations in theNormandy in 1944.

Other series are characterised by the abundancc of thick flakes with a wide flaking angle, that have been related
to the “Clactonian” according to Abbe Breuil. They include some crude bifaces, showing that such ensembles
could be interpreted as Acheulean flint knapping sites (Ohel and Lechevalier 1979).

Based on historical documents and regarding the fact that flint-stone was used since the 15th century as
building stone for cottages and public buildings, such as town halls in the Normandy especially at Sainte-
Adresse, the “Clactonian” of the beaches of Le Havre and Sainte-Adresse testify, above all, the historical
manufacturing of cobblestones and building stone during historic times, even though these series may have
occasionally delivered some Paleolithic pieces. Therefore the beaches of Le Havre and Sainte-Adresse can no
longer be considered as reference deposits for the “Clactonian (Watte 2013). Scepticism is always a good
attitude in what we call “science”- a good exaple can be found here: Handaxes from Denmark: Neandertal tools
or ‘vicious flints’?

Back to Briain, where The “Clactonian question” – the presence of Middle Pleistocene assemblages in England
that lack handaxes, has puzzled those concerned with the Palaeolithic of Britain for generations.

Today most archeologists may agree to H. Fluck, who writes: “The Clactonian assemblages present a regionally
consistent pattern. The assemblages are consistent in terms of chronology and geography, concentrated in the
Lower Thames valley in the early MIS 11 interglacial (HoIIb-c). As such it can be said to present a consistent
behavioral pattern of material culture” (Fluck 2011). Such statements became quite common after the
Monograph of the carefully excavated in situ paleosurface of the Ebbsfleet Elephant site.

Over the past century several explanations have been put forward to explain the Clactonian, most according to
prevailing theoretical trends, but none of them has gained general acceptance. The following notes are from:
Pettitt and White: The British Palaeolithic: Human Societies at the Edge of the Pleistocene World. Katzman
would never dare to discuss such a mined terrain in his own words!

Activity facies interpretations One common explanation for the Clactonian views it as the localised or
seasonal activity variant of the Acheulean, perhaps a special woodworking facies employed in heavily wooded
environments.

Raw material interpretations Most of the raw material selected for use in the Lower Palaeolithic was locally
available, often being situated directly at the knapping locality. Given this, the most obvious explanation for the
lack of handaxes in Clactonian sites is that the available raw materials were simply too small or of inadequate.

Habitats, hunting and social transmission In a heavily criticised review of the chronology and
environment of handaxe and nonhandaxe assemblages across Western Europe, Collins (1969 suggested that the
Clactonian and Acheulean represented contrasting subsistence adaptations predicated on different habitats.

Population dynamics and colonisation patterns The foregoing interpretations view the Clactonian as a
uniquely British phenomenon, ignoring the fact that for much of the past 500 ka Britain existed as a peninsula
of Atlantic Europe, with only short periods of insularity during each interglacial (Preece 1995; White and
Schreve 2000; cf. Dennell et al. 2011 and discussion above). White and Schreve (2000, and see revised model
above) suggested that the apparent temporal pattern of the Clactonian and Acheulean was related to phases of
abandonment and recolonisation of Britain during two successive glacial– interglacial cycles. The Clactonian is
seen as a signature of initial recolonisation with only the main, later occupation host to handaxe-making
populations. The absence of this pattern from subsequent interglacials is argued to relate to the introduction of
Levallois technique around MIS8.

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Clactonian, Early Paleolithic, Le Havre, Swanscombe | Leave a comment |

Human Migration and Pleistocene African Humid Periods

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Katzman

These are some MSA lithics from a larger surface scatter the Saharan Zone in Mauritania. The material is
characterized by a Levallois and Laminar approach About 50% of the tools are tanged while the other artifacts
have a more general MSA- aspect. They are all made made from a course quartzite.

It should be noted, that Stone tools are poor indicators of population changes. In the Levant, both Neanderthals
and Homo Sapiens produced Levallois-Mousterian stone-tool assemblages, and in East and North Africa, early
H. sapiens used similar lithic tool-kits as their predecessors.

It is obvious, that hominins could only survive in the Sahara during episodes that were considerably more
humid than today.

As early as in 1857, Heinrich Barth, one of the first systematic European “explorers” of Africa noted petroglyphs
in the Erg Murzuk and discussed them in the context of past climate change.

The best known “Green Sahara” episode occurred during the early and mid-Holocene, and in some regions even
earlier with the onset of the Bølling/Allerød.
The term means that at this time parts of North Africa were much more humid than today. Perennial lakes were
abundant, and lake levels were much higher during this so-called African Humid Period (AHP). Pollen-based
reconstructions also demonstrated increased humidity.

The Sahara during these Holocene humid phase was covered by a dense palaeoriver network with many
channels containing very large alluvial fans where rivers divide into multiple branches in an inland area. Where
these fans are located on the boundary between two river catchments, their distributary channels can
temporarily link adjacent river systems, thus allowing water-dependant life to transfer from one basin to the
next. Forests were abundant in the vicinity of lakes and rivers, but much larger areas, showed a mosaic of semi-
arid adapted Saharan, Sahelian, and Sudanian plant groups.

The Holocene humid episode was not the only one, and a series of Pleistocene African Humid Periods are
currently known. This hold true for MIS5e at 130-120 k.a. One event is dated around 170 k.a. and another at 330
k.a. While the Sahara today acts as a barrier, during these humid events the Sahara received intermittent faunal
dispersals from Central and West Africa and more rarely from Eurasia along the southern Mediterranean coast.
One can imagine, that these events created large faunal (and hominin) refugia in North Africa throughout these
periods. But even during drier times there certainly were many econiches where Homo could survive. One
example is the MIS4 (TL and OSL dates) occupation at Uan Afuda and Uan Tabu (MSA / Aterian).

It seems that over the African continent MSA ensembles developed very early during the time span of 500-300
k.a, for example at the Kapthurin Formation in East Africa and the Kathu Pan 1 site in South Africa.The early
sites are certainly not associated with Homo Sapiens. Recently an archaic Homo Sapiens, associated with a rich
MSA industry, at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco was dated by several lines of evidence to 315 k.a. during a humid
phase at the site.

Such data lead to the possibility that Homo sp. may have entered Southwest Asia from either North or East
Africa, or both, but also that there may have been several dispersal events, involving different populations.

Middle Paleolithic Points and the Principle of

Elongation
These are two elongated Mousterian Points on non-Levallois blades from the
Calvados of unknown age. Non-Levallois and Levallois based Elongated Mousterian
points, similar to those displayed her, were infrequent found during several Middle
Paleolithic technocomplexes of France (mainly from OIS5-3 … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Aterian, Green Sahara, Homo Sapiens, MSA, Quartzite, Sahara | Leave a comment |

Crimean Middle Paleolithic Crescent Point

Posted on February 9, 2018 by Katzman
This is a crescent 5,5 cm long Middle Paleolithic Point (Fig 1: ventral, Fig 2: dorsal) with a left sided continuous
retouche on the ventral side and bilateral flat retouches on the dorsal side, creating a delicate pointed end. The
blank can be called a Pseudo Levallois Point from a discoidal core. There is some careless basal thinning on the
dorsal basis of the point and no indication for a Levallois chaine operatoire.

The Crimea is a peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe that is almost completely
surrounded by both the Black Sea and the smaller Sea of Azov to the northeast. The peninsula is connected on
the northwest to the mainland by the Perekop Isthmus, a 8 km wide wide strip of land. During the last
Interglacial Crimea was disconnected from the mainland. Although the numerous (>100) and thick
stratigraphic Middle Paleolithic sequences from caves and abris of the Crimean Mountains start with OIS5, first
people are suggested to have entered the Crimea at least during late MIS6.

Fig 3: By NASA – [1], Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47611517

Two technocomplexes, the Western Crimean Mousterian (WCM) and the Crimean Micoquian (CM)
have been identified during more that 100 yrs of Archaeological investigation. While the MIS3-WCM is
characterized by a strong Levallois component and a laminar trend, the CM started during MIS5e and lasted
until the MIS3/2 boundary.

Plano-convex Bifacial tools, convergent unifacial tools ( “scraper” and “points” and simple non Levallois
unifacial tools (scraper, denticulated tools) form the substratum of the CM. According to the relative frequency
of tool classes three to five “facies” of the CM are known (for example: Ak Kaya ensembles with the highest
frequency of bifacial tools, Staroselje ensembles and the Kiik-Koba toolkit) and may be understood as activity
specific expressions of this complex. How the WCM and the CM, which have been found interstratified at least
at one site (Kabazi V) , can be explained is a matter of debate, comparable to this issue in the discussions about
the Middle Paleolithic variability in West and Central Europe.

An isolated stray find of a Crimean Middle Paleolithic Crescent Point poses the problem to which complex it
should be assigned. Clearly non Levallois and made by discoid method it fits to the CM. Similar pieces are
known especially from Kiik-Koba. This facies is characterized by its high portion of convergent unifacial tools.
Bifaces were often used as cores for the unifacial toolkit, therefore the artifacts are often small , most of the time
not longer than 4-5 cm. In our case the point is at the upper limit for such an ensemble, because itwas made
from a large discoid core.

The abundance of reworked Bifaces serving as cores and convergent tools in the Kiik-Koba contexts may be
mainly explained by raw material shortness and not by cultural factors.

Demidenko described the place of crescent points within the reduction process: It begins with simple straight
and convex sidescrapers further transformed into sub- triangular and/0r semi-crescent sidescrapers and points
and then into triangular / sub-crescent and crescent / leaf- shaped / hook-like side-scrapers and points.

Good informations about the Crimean Middle Paleolithic can be found here:

Excellent discussion about the Micoquian in the Caucasus can be found here:

Decorated Radius bone fragment of a raven from the Micoquian strata at from Zaskalnaya VI rock shelter,
Crimea. Dated to between 38 and 43 k.a. Cal BP.
Crescent Middle Paleolithic Points and other components of the eastern Micoquian were also found in West
Europe:

A “Point de Verrières” found near Briennon

This is a Middle Paleolithic “Point de Verrières” found in the Roannaise near the
river Loire, a single stray find 370 km south of the eponymous Verrières-le-Buisson
Paleolithic site. Fig.2 shows “common” Middle Paleolithic points from N and S/W-
France to clarify the difference … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

Bifacial Scraper from Montguillain / Goincourt (Oise)

This is a 9 cm long excellent bifacial scraper from Montguillain (Oise), found during
the 19th century. A very similar artifact can be found in F Bordes` Typologie du
Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Gabriel De Mortilletʼs 1873 described several
locations, that … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Black Sea, Crimea, Micoquian, Middle Paleolithic, Mousterian, Neanderthal, Steinzeit | Leave a comment |

The “Pope of Prehistory” L’abbe´ Breuil

Posted on February 3, 2018 by Katzman

The Master Thinker: L’abbé

Henri Breuil (Fig. 1) was a French L’abbé Henri Breuil en visite sur un chantier de fouilles près de Mons le 19 février 1954.

“master thinker” avant la

lettre, which played an eminent
role during the 20th century in the Archaeological discourse in France. As the “pope of Prehistory”- he spoke “ex
cathedra” – an apodictic stance that did not miss its effect.

Breuil’s accomplishments involve little excavation. He made his reputation by vanquishing the followers of
Gabriel de Mortillet—the materialist anticlerical radical who dominated the early years of prehistoric research in
France—in the “Battaille Aurignacienne,” where stratigraphic evidence was mobilized as the basis of Upper
Paleolithic chronology. He suggested the Aurignacian as a homogeneous and exogenous culture, coming from
the east. Anyhow, Garrod and others showed some decennia later, that it is neither a homogeneous
technocomplex nor can its origin localized.

Breuil never generated high-quality stratigraphic observations, instead he used biased observations made by
other to generate a framework, which in large parts was falsified by scientists of the next generation.

The works of Breuil stand as a somewhat confusing corpus of work, with different methods, theories and lines of
evidence. The roots of French Paleolithic archaeology lay in Geology and the Natural Sciences, and it comes as
no surprise to find that Breuil and others treated niveaux (levels) and couches (layers) as de facto proxies for
phases of occupation (and thus representing successions of different cultural entities).
He saw archaeological artifacts evolve like organisms in a Lamarckian way, ever striving for improvement.
Darwinian evolutionary thinking was clearly not in the focus of early French prehistorians, including L’abbe´
Breuil

„Cave Art“ : Without any question, the French priest and

archeologist was the dominant figure in the history of „cave
art“ Interpretation. He became interested in this topic in
1900, at the age of 23, and only one year later had already
discovered two previously unknown sites.

Appointed professor of archaeology at the College de France

in 1929, he was notified immediately when the cave at
Lascaux (Fig. 2 Breuil at Lascaux soon after the discovery;
Wikipedia open source) was discovered in 1940, and soon
became the world’s foremost authority concerning it. For 61
years, he studied painted caves all over the world, spending,
by his own calculation, a net total of seven years in field work underground. In 1952, he published the
extraordinary 400 Years of Cave Art, a definitive and beautifully illustrated treatment of the „art“ of 92 caves.

Considering Breuil’s dominant position in the field until his death in 1961, it is not surprising that his general
interpretation of the meaning of „cave art“ was widely adopted by experts and lay people alike. Breuil argued
that the origin of the paintings and engravings lay in sympathetic magic ensuring a successful kill. He suggested
that these magic practices and the cave art in general had religious roots and meaning.

Other aspects of parietal and mobile art were a priori not considered by him. It is a pity that after a short
structuralist phase of the interpretation of „cave art“ the discourse turned back again to explicite religious
explanations- now the shamanistic aspect became the master narrative in mainstream archaeology.

Politically he acted very defensively. Although Breuil had affinities to the “modernists” in the Catholic Church he
avoided any discussion with his church although faced by his profession with the obvious discrepancy between
faith and sience.

Global Prehistory: Breuil, and that is his greatest legacy, opened the local French Prehistory to a global
Approach by including other European countries (Austria, Interwar Czechoslovakia and Spain and Portugal),
China and Parts of Africa into a broader synthesis. His scholar Dorothy Garrod remains the most influential
scientist in the establishment of a broad and still valid framework of the Paleolithic in the Near east. Hi great
experience helped other archaeologists to bring their findings into a reference frame for a more adequate
interpretations (Fig 3: from H. Breuil: Notes de voyage paleolithique en Europe Centrale. L’Anthropologie.
XXXIV; “Aurignacian moyen” -today Gravettian- of Willendorf and Predmost).

What remains unknown: Breuil remained a child of his time. He conserved eclectic theories that came from
the 19th century, which were already outdated after the Great war. He considered him self as the most
important expert in Paleolithic studies and rarely appreciated more evidence based theories beyond his culture
-historic approaches, that would only become important after his dead.

Was he wise not looking for trouble with his own church and avoiding any open discussions about Fascism and
Vichy France?- or was he only an opportunistic coward in this respect?

Although some Biographies about Breuil have been written we still wait for a work that allows a critical re-
evaluation of Breuil and his time within his scientific, political and historical context.

The Problem with analogies: Breuil loved analogies.According to him there was a continuous evolution of
backed tools: Abri Audit knives, Châtelperron Points, Gravette Points, followed by microlithic points. In reality
there is no such evolution and a clear break between Châtelperron Points (ca 40 k.a. Cal BP) and Gravette
Points (ca 30 k.a. Cal BP) first noted by D. Garrod. If there is an evolution of Abri Audit points toChâtelperron
Points remains dubious, although such a link is a current paradigm for most scientists.

Fig. 4 From my personal copy of: Breuil Les subdivisions du paléolithique supérieur et leur signification (1913).

Biographies about Henry

Breuil:

Broderick, Alan Houghton. Father of Prehistory, 1963

Hurel A: L’Abbé Breuil. Un préhistorien dans le siècle, 2014

Collective: Sur les chemins de la préhistoire : L’abbé Breuil du Périgord à l’Afrique du Sud, 2006

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Aurignacian, Breuil, Cave art, Chatelperonnian, De Mortillet, Gravettian, Steinzeit | Leave a comment |

Misliya Cave: It is Homo sapiens and not a passing stranger!

Posted on January 26, 2018 by Katzman
This is a large (ca 13 cm) , unretouched elongated Tabun-D Point, characterized by a chapeau de gendarme
(Fig.3) base found decennia ago in the Carmel region.

Normally this blog is not a blog on “ breaking news”, but the detection of AMH at the Middle Pleistocene site
Misliya Cave in Isreal is worth commenting….

Misliya Cave ,located on the western slopes of Mount-Carmel is a collapsed cave, consisting of three
terraces about slightly to the south of Nahal Sefunim, ca 12 km south of Haifa. While in the lower terrace,
Acheulo-Yabroudian artifacts were incorporated in abundance, the upper terrace is characterized by a Tabun-D
Ensemble. The middle terrace contains mixture of Acheulo – Yabrudian and Levallois-Mousterian.

Several lines of evidence date the upper terrace tp 180-200 k.a. BP in good accordance to a “Tabun-D”
ensemble.

Early specimens of Homo Sapiens in Africa and the Levant are notorious rare. Omo Kibish (Ethiopia), dates
by 40Ar/39Ar to 172-196 k.a, Herto (Ethiopia) by the same method to 150-154. k.a. Recently Jebel Irhoud in
Morocco was dated by several lines of evidence to 315 k.a. Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel are 90-100 k.a. old. Homo
sapiens at Manot cave may be ca 55 k.a. old. Now skull fragments with indisputable and specific clues of Homo
Sapiens were detected at Misliya within the tabun-D ensemble (177-194 k.a. old). In 2015, fossils of
anatomically modern humans were found in China that dated to as much as 120,000 years old. These new
findings are suggestive that members of the Homo sapiens clade left Africa earlier than previously thought.

Paradigms are steadily changing. While 10 years ago the cradle of Homo Sapiens was suggested to be in East
Africa- Jebel Irhoud, Manot and Misliya Cave show, that other regions could be of equal importance and that
the reconstruction of hypothetical ” Homo Sapiens waves” is a simplifed look on the genesis of our ancestors.

By the way- it is interesting to look on the artifacts: Omo Kibish is characterized by Levallois technology with a
strong and beautiful bifacial component, Jebel Irhoud would fit into the Ferrassie Mousterian
technocomplex, Misliya is Tabun-D Levallois Mousterian and Manot may be Levallois Mousterian or even an
Early Upper Paleolithic.
 Françoiz Breut - Everyone Kisses a Stranger

Early Middle Paleolithic (EMP) from the Mt. Carmel

Prehistoric Archaeology at the Mt. Carmel: When, in 1927, the British Mandatory
governmentʼs Public Works Department initiated the Haifa Harbor Project and
quarrying threatened to destroy the cavesʼ cliff, Mr. Charles Lambert, Assistant
Director of the Mandatory Department of … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

“Tabun D type” Ensembles in the Levant

The Levantine Levallois-Mousterian is quite variable. As the longest and most
complete stratigraphy, the Tabun sequence serves as a model for Middle
Paleolithic lithic technological variability, the 3 entities (Tabun B type, Tabun C type
and Tabun D type) representing different … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 2

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Carmel, Homo Sapiens, Israel, Levallois-Mousterian, Out of Africa | 3 Comments |

Isturitz: An important Paleolithic site in the Pyrénées

Posted on January 23, 2018 by Katzman

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

The Caves of Isturitz, Oxocelhaya and Erberua (Fig. 1) are part of a karstic ensemble, known as the The
Gaztelu hill. This ensemble is located in the Arbéroue Valley in the Department Pyrénées Atlantiques in S-
France. The Gaztelu hill has a privileged position within the foothills of the Western Pyrenees, with about thirty
kilometers distance from the present Atlantic Ocean shore line and near the first Pyrenean foothills (the first
peaks at more than 1000 m are only distant 20 km). Each of these caves has its specific significance:

The Isturitz Cave, the upper network, includes impressive Paleolithic resources: abundance of artifacts,
parietal art, portable art, and habitats with multiples activities. Especially during the Gravettian and the
middle Magdalenian the cave meets the definition for an major aggregation site.
The Oxocelhaya cave, the middle network, is primary known for its parietal art
The Erberua cave, on the valley level, has living floors and parietal art, simply inventoried but not
investigated in depth for the moment.

Overall, the main geographical advantage of the Gaztelu hill is its location in the passage-zone between, on the
one hand, the Aquitaine plain and, on the other hand, the basco-cantabrian corniche and the Ebro valley, which
is accessible to the south by a series of passes.

The Isturitz cave is formed by two large parallel halls (Salle d’Isturiz and Salle Saint-Martin). The first
prehistoric objects were found at the end of the nineteenth century following phosphate extraction operations in
1896.

The first scientific excavations were performed by E Passemard between 1912-1922 in the center of the Salle
d’Isturiz, followed by R and S de Saint-Périer between 1928-1958. Since 1997 renewed excavations took place
with a focus on undisturbed sections of the Middle Paleolithic, the Protoaurignacian and the Aurignacian. These
excavations are still ongoing.

The stratigraphic section is composed of more than ten archaeological layers spread over the Middle Paleolithic
and the Upper Paleolithic (Mousterian, Proto-Aurignacian, Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, Middle, Upper
and Late Magdalenian).

The succession of Archaeological horizons begins in the Salle Saint-Martin with two layers of Mousterian,
separated by an Occupation by Cave Bears. The lower layer (MIS 4) shows small Bifaces, Cleavers and
Mousterian Points with some scrapers. Such ensemble meets the definition of the “Vasconian”, a term which
was first proposed by F. Bordes to designate the Mousterian of the Vasco-Cantabria (more about the
local Middle Paleolithic can be found here). Quina scrapers are the dominant feature during the upper
Mousterian layer (MIS3).

Cleavers, a high percentage of scrapers and denticulated pieces and the use of the Levallois technique are the
unifying elements of the Vasconian . Cleavers in Vasco-Cantabria had not been used since the end of Acheulean.
The recurrent local occurrence of cleavers at sites as Castillo, Morin and Isturitz during early late MIS4/MIS 3
points to a reinvention driven by functional needs.

The Upper Paleolithic starts in the Salle Saint-Martin with a Early / Proto
Aurignacian. The industry is composed of lamelles (“Font Yves, Dufour sub type Dufour, Krems”) from
unipolar prismatic cores, but carinated pieces and lames aurignaciennes also make their appearance soon after.

Results indicate that at Isturitz, the Protoaurignacian started at 42.8–41.3 k.a. cal BP (95% confidence interval)
and the Early Aurignacian at least at 41.6–39.7 k.a. cal. BP (95% confidence interval).

Armando (2016) recently proposed a new classification for the rich bladelet industry found in the so called
Protoaurignacian layers of Isturitz, Fumane, and les Cottes- an important issue for a concise typological
harmonization and better functional characterization of such tools, which were part of the hunting equipment,
but also used for domestic purposes (some Lamelles are seen in Fig.2; This issue was already part of my blog in
2014)

The Aurignacian of the Salle d’Isturiz is a classic early Aurignacian

(“Aurignacian I sensu Sonneville-Bordes)” with split-based antler points and bone retucheures (Fig. 3:
carinated core / scraper). More than 50% of the tools are Endscrapers, 10% are Burins (most diedre) and the
fauna was dominated by horse and reindeer. Later Aurignacian occupations were found both in the Salle
d’Isturiz and Salle Saint-Martin. The composition of lithic artifacts is similar, but the preservation of organic
artifacts was poor. These Strata seem to represent repetitive short duration activities.

In addition Isturitz is famous for the discovery of a series of important prehistoric flutes dating from the Upper
Paleolithic (Aurignacian to the Magdalenian). The oldest flute at the site dates t about 37 k.a. cal BP.

The Gravettian period accounts for two thirds of the discoveries (more than 11000 lithic artifacts from the
older excavations). Unfortunately there are no reliable absolute dates for this entity. It is characterized by
Noailles Burins (roughly 50% of all retouched tools). It has to be mentioned, that in general the Pyrenean
Gravettian is characterized by a technical homogeneity symbolized by the duration of the Noailles burin
throughout the Gravettian sequence.

There are wonderful and large Gravettes, (simple, Vachons forms, shouldered points) but in relative numbers
backed pieces account for only 5% of the assemblages (500 pieces which is a lot for a “Noaillien”). Bone tools
were collected in abundance, there are multiple fine sagaies and tools for domestic work. Among them are
many Pointes d’Isturitz.

The Solutrean has been found in low quantities in both halls. It is an evolved cantabrian Solutrean and Points a
cran are absent.

The Magdalenian (middle, upper, final) is extremely rich and found in

both halls. The middle Magdalenian (18-17,5 k.a.cal BP) IS characterized by Burins and Scraper. Baguettes demi
-rondes, often decorated make about 15% of all tools. They are specific to Isturitz because of the quality of the
decorations with spirals and their variants, from one stock to another. The interweaving of volutes and spirals is
complex and reflects a strong esthetic Ort symbolic thinking of the Magdalenian populations. They can be seen
on the MAN-page here.

The photos in Fig. 4 (from Dons Map) show two bisons, the left from the Grotte Elene (Ariege) , the second from
Isturitz- a nice example of the Middle Magdalenian unity in the Pyrénées! Similar parallels between the
Aquitaine and Franco-Cantabrea along the Pyrénées are found in the engraved rondells, and the themes of
certain contours decoupes

It has to be noted, that during recent years, increasing evidence from lithic and bone industries and from the
circulation of flint and shells has highlighted the long-distance exchange networks between the groups of
hunter-gatherers living in south-western Europe between 17,7 – 13, 4 k.a. cal BP. Most investigations, including
those dedicated to symbolic representations, have concluded that the principal regions of southern France and
northern Spain were closely connected during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian.

In the upper part of the Middle Magdalenian stratum some Proto-Harpunes were found. The wealth of
decorated batons, rondells, Contours decoupes and sandstone sculptures (about 180) can not described in detail
here, but there are good photos on the great Dons Map

In the Salle Salle d’Isturiz an upper Magdalenian follows the middle Magdalenian. Several representative dates
of 16-15 k.a. cal BP fit to these ensembles. The Lithics are very similar to the underlying industry. maybe by
sampling bias the number of lamelles is small, while there are many retouched blades. The organic artifacts
include eyed bone needles, points à base fourchue, poinçons and harpoons.

The next Magdalenian occupation in the Salle Salle d’Isturiz is a Magdalenian final and characterized by short
scrapers, burins and some burins of the bec de perroquet type. Especially the short scrapers may point to an
Azilian influence. This stratum is followed by a final Magdalenian with large lithic artifacts (mostly endscraper
and large retouched blades)

Fig 4&5: Noailles burins and large Gravettes from René de Saint-Périer: La grotte d’Isturitz, Vol. 3

Suggested Readings:

Middle Magdalenian on aggsbach.de

Emmanuel Passemard: La caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque. In: Prehistoire 9, 1944, 1–95.

René de Saint-Périer: La grotte d’Isturitz, 3 Volumes (Paris 1930, 1936, 1952)

about renewed excavations read the textes of Christian Normand (most are free in the net).

And about the Gravettes:

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged [Proto-] Aurignacian, Final Magdalenian, Gravettian, Middle Magdalenian, Noaillian, Steinzeit, stone age, Vasconian | Leave a
comment |

A Paleolithic Zinken
Posted on January 20, 2018 by Katzman
 This is a large (7
cm long), slightly curved classic Zinken, with abrupt retouches creating a long bec, made of Nordic Flint. As an
isolated stray-find from N-Germany it is suggestive of an Hamburgian background. The blank was made from
an unipolar core by soft hammer technique. It has to be remembered, that the standard Hamburgian
assemblages always contain blade blanks struck from single and opposed double cores shaped by soft hammer
techniques. Anyhow, the diagnostic clues of this culture are the association of Shouldered points and Zinken,
often double Zinken together with endcrapers manufactured exclusively on blades, often with lateral retouching,
as well as burins, predominantly on a truncation, truncated blades and combined tools.

Zinken per se are not specific for the Hamburgian. They are found in northern Germany within the context of
the Hamburgian but also in some Federmesser assemblages (“Rietberg facies”) and in Southern Scandinavia
within the context of Bromme assemblages. Rarely, even Mesolithic Zinken have also been recognized.

Further South-West Zinken are occasional components of the Magdalenian at Petersfels, Winznau/Käsloch and
of the “Facies Cepoy-Marsagny” in France. The last example shown here comes from the Magdalenian of
Laugerie haute. These examples show, that the concept of Zinken was widespread during the late Paleolithic
over Europe.
 Magdalenian Bec (Ofnet cave; Nördlinger Riess)
This is a Bec (“Zinken”) from the Bavarian Magdalenian, which is characterized by
backed lamelles, different subclasses of burins and endscrapers. Lacam burins,
Langbohrer and Zinken / Becs and harpoons are rare but always part of the larger
ensembles. It … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

A Zinken from the Hamburgian

This is a Hambourgian Zinken (6×2,8×1,2 cm). The Hamburgian culture is
characterized by the association of specialized stone tools (shouldered points,
Zinken, endscrapers with a lateral retouche) and by the presence of a mobile
lifestyle of hunter-gatherer communities following large … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 3

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Ahrensburgian, Cepoy-Marsagny, Final Magdalenian, Hambourgian, Late Paleolithic, Zinken | Leave a comment |
πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei)
Posted on January 13, 2018 by Katzman

Here we see prepared cores, most of them are discoidal and two in Figure 2 are Levallois. The Flint examples
come from South Italy (Fig.1), the Quartzite examples from Northern Hessen in Germany (Fig. 2).

The phrase πάντα ῥ εῖῖ (panta rhei) “everything flows” either was spoken by Heraclitus or survived as a
quotation of his. “No man ever steps in the same river twice”. This means that we are changing and the river is
changing. Hominins have the ability to change and adapt to a dynamic environment. After 300 k.a. they created
several prepared core techniques and changed them according to their needs. The Archeological record in Africa
and Eurasia is very similar in this respect

The classic Levallois reduction is clearly geared towards removing large flakes from a surface rather than a
volume (Boeda 1995), controlling the size of the product and the productivity of the core. This Concept is
defined by several features

The volume of the piece is conceived as two surfaces separated by a plane of intersection
These surfaces are hierarchically related, one being a striking platform surface and the other a flaking
surface.
The flaking surface show the maintenance of distal and lateral convexities
The fracture plane for the removal is broadly parallel to the plane of intersection
the junction between the flaking surface and the striking platform (the hinge) is perpendicular to the axis of
percussion and oriented to allow the removal of flakes from the flaking surface
Flaking is exclusively done with a hard hammer

It remains unclear if one or more of these principles is absent, can the technology still be considered Levallois?
Some researchers maintain that you can still call a technique Levallois if only one essential is present: two
hierarchically related surfaces separated by a plane of intersection.

Another open question is the issue of predetermination or intentionality. Although it is popularly to perceive
intentionality to be inherent in the Levallois strategy, it has been disputed by some writers, particularly in
questioning the Levallois method as a means of producing “privileged flakes.” Davidson (2002) uses Van Peer’s
refitting work, which showed that many preparatory flakes were absent from knapping floors at several MSA
sites in Upper Egypt, suggesting that Levallois flakes were not necessarily the desired end product.

In this view even the most famous product of the Levallois technique, the Levallois point may be non-
intentional under certain circumstances.

In 1995 Boeda defined the Discoid concept:

“The core volume, conceived as two oblique asymmetric convex surfaces marked by one theoretical plane of
intersection
The non-existence of hierarchization between the two surfaces of a core. One is conceived as a flaking
surface, and the other as striking platform, but with the possibility of role inversion during one operational
sequence.
The flaking surface is prepared in order to predetermine certain products obtained this way. The technical
cri- terion for predetermination consists of more or less pro- nounced peripherical convexity, with the aim of
 con- trolling lateral and distal detachment of each prede- termined removal.
In order to bring the predeterminant and predetermined detachments in correspondence with the conceived
aims, the preparation of the core surface for striking platforms emplacement is undertaken. In spite of its
particularity, all these preparations share the same criteria: the flaking axis of predetermined removals is
perpendicular to the striking platform employed to obtain it.
The detachment plane of predeterminant and predetermined removals is oblique with respect to the theo-
retical plane on intersection of the two core surfaces.
The sole flaking technique employed during the discoid operational scheme is direct percussion by a hard
stone hammer”.

While the knapper can change between several modes within one of the basic concepts (Levallois: “preferential”
and “recurrent” methods; by unidirectional, bidirectional, or centripetal flaking); (Discoidal: unifacial
(pyramidal section), bifacial (bipyramidal section) and multifacial (globular section) exploitation, with a
different grade of hierarchization of its surfaces {Xavier Terradas}, there seems no way, that a Levallois core is
transformed into a discoidal core and vice versa. Anyhow the steadily flow and change within the concepts
shows the enormous flexibility of early stone knappers.

Levallois Blade Core

Levallois Blade Core (a field finding from Meyrals, a wonderful small town between
Sarlat and Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne) During the last 30 years it became clear, that
the production and use of blades in West and Middle Europe … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 4

Standing on the shoulders of giants: Refitting

Strategies and the Levallois Concept
This picture comes from an encyclopedic manuscript containing allegorical and
medical drawings (South Germany, ca. 1410);this work is in the public domain in the
United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus
100 … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

The Story of Levallois Points

This is a perfect, razor sharp Levallois Point made from Quartzite , found in 1988
near Lenderscheid; Hesse; Germany (http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/07/middle-
levallois-point-from-lenderscheid/). Within the Levallois concept, an important
variability exists in the implementation of knapping operations. Production objectives
can also be varied and getting … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 3

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Discoid technology, Levallois Technique, Mousterien, MSA | 2 Comments |
A short journey through the early Aurignacian of Central and South Europe
Posted on December 30, 2017 by Katzman

This are some artifacts from a

the European (Proto)-Aurignacian. Overall the geochronology of the (Proto) Aurignacian ensembles in Central
and South Europe is complex and during the last years several broad phases have been proposed: An early
phase including the “Protoaurignacian” / Aurignacian 0 and an Early “Classic” Aurignacian dating before HE-4,
followed by an evolved phase of the technocomplex.

Starting in Central Europe, some indisputable Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian site clusters with reliably dated
findings are now known: Sites in the Swabian Jura: Geißenklösterle, AH III dated to ca. 43–to 40 k.a. cal
BP and Stadel Cave ca 40 k.a. cal BP and Willendorf II, AH 3 at the Wachau Gate ca. 43,5 k.a. cal BP. All
this sites ante- date the HE–4 / CI eruption.

It has always suggested that Krems Hundssteig has a strong early /

Protoaurignacian component but unfortunately modern excavations of this complex are missing. Finding
remnants of the Aurignacian stratum at the Hundssteig site remain an important dissertate of Austrian
Paleolithic research.

Krems Hundssteig was investigated not by regular excavation but during loess quarrying for the Danube high
dam construction at the end of the 19th century and the very beginning of the 20th century (Strobl & Obermaier
1909). Its abundant lithic assemblage was analyzed and published in the 1960s- 1970s by G. Laplace, A. Broglio
and J. Hahn.

Thanks to these researchers, all basic and unique industrial features are thus quite clearly described. The
Krems-Hundssteig complex is techno-typologically within the the Western “Aurignacian 0/ Protoaurignacian”
group, with numerous alternatively retouched Dufour bladelets (Dufour sub-type) and Font-Yves/ Krems
points, including the Krems alternatively retouched vari- ant of the latter. Many “non-geometric microliths”
(about 60% of all tools, or about 1900 items and a variety of both carinated and prismatic cores are the most
prominent characteristics of the assemblage. The fint artifacts were also accompanied by 128 Mediterranean
shell beads and two bone awls.

The Aurignacian in Moravia is extraordinary rich (several hundred sites) but when reliable dated in general
younger than the sites in Swabia and Lower Austria : Mladeč caves, Stránská skála open-air site complex,
Vedrovice Ia Milovice I, Líšeň I / Líšeň – Čtvrtě, Líšeň VIII / Líšeň – Nad výhonem and Napajedla III /
Napajedla – Zámoraví. Absolute dates for these sites ranging from ca. 37–36 ka to 33–32 k.a. cal BP and post-
date the HE–4 event. In Moravia there is only a short-time geochronological coexistence with the Bohunician
and Szeletian

Result of the kernel density estimation point to four centres of high site-density of early and late
Aurignacian sites in descending order: the region of Moravia, the Swabian Jura and Lower Austria, the western
Carpathians and the area around the Iron Gate. A small concentration of sites is also visible east of the
Carpathians.

Româneşti- Dumbrăviţa I, GH 3 (Romania) has recently been TL

dated and represents according to several researchers another Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian site
in Central/South Europe. The cores are commonly unidirectional but there are also bi-/multidirectional ones.
They are carinated, prismatic, and narrow-faced (including burin-like cores- on-flakes). Dufour bladelets, on
alternatively retouched bladelets, Font-Yves points and bladelets with oblique proximal truncation are known
from this horizon from older excavations. The average absolute dates for Româneşti- Dumbrăviţa I, GH 3 is
40,6 ± 1,5 k.a. cal BP and it correlates geochronologically with GIS-10 and GIS-9 and thus to the older group of
the Aurignacian in Europe. Indeed the findings indicate a possible contemporaneity of the Româneşti-
Dumbrăviţa I, GH 3 with the Oase AMH finds.

In addition to Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, another central European Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian site,

located in the neighboring Balkans, in northwestern Bulgaria is Kozarnika Cave, layer VII. This site is
located in in the Danube River valley. It has been dated slightly older than Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I ca. 43–41
k.a. cal BP .

Much has been achieved, and research has made considerable progress on our way towards more sustainable
understanding in the last 20 years. While our recognition of the Aurignacian as an early Upper Paleolithic
technocomplex along the Danube corridor has been shaped and broadened, we have learned that the
Aurignacian maybe a genuine European invention.

Suggested Reading:

Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) – Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early
Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.

hindi zahra - at the same time

At the same time?

Fig 1: Ahmarian bladelets from Kebara; Israel (EUP) Carbon-14 (C-14) dating was
presented by Willard Libby in 1949, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry. By the 1980s, with significant developments in the instrumentation used
in radiocarbon … Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

 New Data from Willendorf and the Beginning of the
classic Aurignacian in central Europe
This is a classic Aurignacian core for the detachment of bladelets. The question of
the beginning of this technocomplex and its origin is intensively discussed. It can be
assumed with sufficient certainty that the Aurignacian and the Protoaurignacian …
Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

The Aurignacian in Lower Austria revisited

This is a Burin from the Krems Hundssteig site, made from Radiolarite and dating
either to the Aurignacian or Gravettian. The Krems Hundssteig site is one of several
sites in the Krems valley with Aurignacian material, dated between 41-31 k.a. …
Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged [Proto-] Aurignacian, Danube, Early Upper Paleolithic, Steinzeit | 1 Comment |

Popular Paleolithic: Is there anything new for the interested German speaking public?
Posted on December 28, 2017 by Katzman

Books about Prehistory written in German for an interested non-professional public are notorious rare. Some
days ago one important overview about Paleolithic Archeology (mainly of Middle Europe) was published, that is
recommended to everyone interested in this issue.

Jürgen Richter Altsteinzeit: Der Weg der frühen Menschen von Afrika bis in die Mitte Europas

After six caves holding the oldest figurative artworks made by humans in the Swabian Alp region have declared
a UNESCO World Heritage site there are some excellent publications about the Paleolithic of this region,
published by the Conard Group:

Eiszeitarchäologie auf der Schwäbischen Alb: Die Fundstellen im Ach- und Lonetal und in ihrer
Umgebung (Tübingen Publications in Prehistory)

and for advanced readers:

Harald Meller (Herausgeber),​ Dietrich Mania et al. Bilzingsleben VII: Homo erectus – seine
Kultur und Umwelt: Befund und Silexartefakte der mittelpleistozänen Fundstelle
(Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Vorgeschichte Sachsen-Anhalt)

Enjoy!
 Popular Prehistory: Is there anything new for the
interested German speaking public?
Archeological objects can only be understood by knowing their exact context and
by careful interpretation using modest middle-range theoretical approaches
emphasizing their material, social and ideological meaning. Books about Prehistory
written in German for an interested non-professional public are notorious rare. …
Continue reading

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog 0

Posted in Plaeolithics and Neolithics | Tagged Popular Archaeology, Steinzeit, stone age | Leave a comment |

Aggsbach's Paleolithic Blog

Proudly powered by WordPress.