This is a polished Amphibolite artifact with bilaterally, somewhat irregularly grooves on both sides found in the 1960ies at a LBK-site near Göttingen (Lower Saxony; Germany). The finder, suggested its use as an Arrow shaft polisher, but it has to be remembered, that arrow shaft polishers in the Central European Neolithic consist mostly of sandstone and usually have a have a flat and a curved area. On the flat side a U-shaped groove was made. It is believed that these stones were placed in pairs with the flat side against each other to grind on arrow shafts or other organic material, which was to be polished. In my view, the artifact displayed here is a semi-finished pair of  two flat adzes or shoe-last adzes and the grooves were made to separate the rough outs of the  two adzes from each other.

Amphibolite is a fine grained and hard matamorphic rock which played an eminent role in the raw material supply of Middle European Early and Middle Neolithic communities.

In 1996 isotopic data were published, that indicate that most of the amphibolite raw material used for flat-axes and adzes during the Early and Middle Neolithic throughout Germany point roughly to a Proterozoic age of the stone used; an age which can be reasonable matched to a single outcrop situated at Jistebsko within the Czech Republic.

Long distance transport (800-1000 km) of raw materials were not uncommon during the Neolithic of Europe. For example, a small group of shaft-hole axes found in northeastern Italy were made from amphibole originating from the southern thermal aureole of Tanvald granite in northern Bohemia.

 Suggested Reading:

http://www.jgeosci.org/content/jgeosci.042_2009_3_sida.pdf

http://www.geology.cz/bulletin/fulltext/63_klominsky.pdf

 http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_20.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00637.x/full

This a Shoe-last adze (18 cm long) from Vedrovice / Moravia, found in the 1950ies as a surface stray find.

Shoe-last adzes are typical long, thin, chisel-shaped implements of the LBK in Central Europe, but were in use until the early Middle Neolithic. They differ both in size (3-30 cm) and shape. It is suggested that their main function was for woodworking and ground digging but sometime they were used, at least occasionally, to kill people.

The mass grave found near Talheim in southern Germany dates to approximately 7000 years ago and contains the skeletal remains of 34 individuals from the LBK. These individuals appear to have been the victims of a massacre, based on the presence of numerous lethal head wounds most probably produced by Shoe-last adzes, several arrow wounds, and the placement of all of these individuals in the same burial pit. Regarding the age and sex profile of the cadavers a possible deficit of infants in the age group of below 4 yrs. was suggested by the excavators. One (very speculative) explanation was that they may have been kidnapped by the attackers (Wahl and König 1987).

Shoe-last adzes of the LBK are often associated with burials. Some male burials, for example the famous burial at Schwanfeld, contained a set of microlithic trapezes which seemingly were made solely for deposition in the graves as indicated by the absence of any use wear traces. The shoe-last adze from the Schwanfeld burial equally shows only slight indications of extensive use. The repeated combinations of goods, a shoe-last adze and a set of trapezes during the LBK are interpreted as standard symbols of members of a hunter/warrior association.

At Vedrovice, where this adze was found, some burials contain objects, notably spondylus armlets, which could be interpreted as indicators of a certain social status. It seems that the occurrence of such objects would also indicate a more diverse social differentiation during the LBK, than traditionally thought.

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. BP. New excavations indicate that not only an extensive Aurignacian level but also a substantial complex of Pavlovian layers are present at the site. It must be assumed that more than one cultural level was affected and destroyed by the historic loess quarrying during the early 20th century, and that the assemblage of Krems-Hundssteig artifacts, traditionally ascribed solely to the Aurignacian, might be interspersed with Gravettian pieces.

The Aurignacian from the Hundssteig is characterized by a large number of retouched bladelets including more than 1,500 Dufour bladelets with alternate retouch associated with unipolar bladelet cores of pyramidal morphology. This ensemble could be interpreted as a Protoaurignacian, both by typology and technology. In addition there are also many tools of an Aurignacien typique like carinated scrapers (cores), Aurignacian blades and strangulated blades. Actually it is unknown if this ensemble represents the effect of geological or curatory mixing of two technocomplexes, or if these artifacts were once the part of a single find horizon.

Several sites, usually detected and excavated before the WWI (with the exception of Krems Strazing and Alberndorf) are known in Lower Austria.

Krems Strazing, Layer 2 is dated to 31-29 k.a. BP. It is the layer of the anthropomorphic figurine (a dancing women??), found in 1988. A rich inventory with Aurignacian-endscrapers and burins, together with points and sidescrapers are present. Refitting sequences show that the lithic material, centered on several hearths, is contemporaneous. There are no bladelets, which may have removed from the site or displaced by taphonomic processes.

Senftenberg:  An Aurignacian site in the Krems valley, some 10 km north of the Hundssteig. The assemblage is a typical Aurignacian with Aurignacian endscrapers (bladelet cores), bladlets and laterally retouched blades.

 Willendorf II/3: The Willendorf site is situated 30 km upstream from Krems on the left side of the Danube. Dated between 39-34 k.a. BP, this layer shows a typical Aurignacian pattern (carinated and nosed scrapers, laterally retouched flakes and blades). Because Willendorf II/3 could be one of the oldest Aurignacian ensembles in Europe, the radiometric data of the 2007-2011 excavations are urgently awaited.

Willendorf II/4 containsa typical Aurignacian, dated to 32-31 K.a. BC, mainly focused towards the production of bladelets, which is indicated by the presence of lamelles and many carinated and nosed scrapers. Bone points and ivory implements are also present.

Getzersdorf is situated 10 km south east of Krems in the Traisen valley. A small Aurignacian ensemble was detected without much contextual information during the early 20^th century. Similar findings are known from Grosweikersdorf (32-31 k.a. BP).                   

Alberndorf, excavated 1990 to 1995 is situated on the southern slope of the river Pulkau, which flows from into the river Thaya ca 70 km north east from Krems,  The site probably represents just a single butchery episode in a cold steppe environment, as displayed by the small number of hunted individuals. Refitted lithics and the raw material procurement reflect the short term character of the primary site formation and its redeposition. Bladelets, most probably part of composite projectile implements are a significant component of the assemblage. Apart from laterally modified bladelets, artifacts of ivory are the most important finds. Alberndorf is suggested to be a late Aurignacian butchery site, dated to 28 k.a. BP.

Further North, the Moravian sites of Stranska Skala, Mladec, Vedrovice I, Milovice and Pod Hradem are relatively young (32-30 k.a. BP). If the Szeletian, the Bohunician and the Aurignacian timely overlap in this region is not so sure as sometimes suggested.

Suggested Reading: 

http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/08/krems-hundssteig/

http://www.landesmuseum.at/pdf_frei_remote/WM_19_0007-0018.pdf 

http://www.uf.uni-erlangen.de/publikationen/steguweit/2009_Acta_Arch_Carp.pdf 

http://www.landesmuseum.at/pdf_frei_remote/WM_19_0149-0165.pdf 

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3030

http://puvodni.mzm.cz/neruda/cz/Biblio_soubory/2008_09Neruda.pdf

Late- Neolithic shaft-hole axes are often found in a secondary context. Such a context has been calculated for 10-15% of all axes found in Northern Europe.

Findings in an early secondary context start from the Late Bronze Age. One example from a modern excavation comes from a late Iron Age stone grave in Finland, at Hämeenkyrö Mahnala Lehtiniemi. C. Holtorf recently documented findings of Neolithic stone axes and pottery from Iron Age fire-pits, as well as Bronze and Iron Age graves in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Northern Germany). All these customs seem to be a part of a tradition, where ancestors and genealogies were of high importance.

The later secondary context of the stone axes is connected with their medieval and modern use, namely, the recognizing of stone axes as thunderbolts/thunderstones. In Northern Europe the axes were kept on shelves, chests of drawers or in sacks, usually put away a somewhere special, e.g. bricked into the walls, placed under the sill or floor or attached into the ceiling above the bed.  At this time, numerous documents indicate that a strong magical function was ascribed to thunderbolts to make sure that lightning did not strike the houses or barns and kill people or animals.

The finding of an axe in the walls of an old school is ambiguous. The fact stands for two traditions: A tradition of magic thinking and the tradition of enlightenment that aimed to overcome such mentalities.

Suggested Reading:

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/

http://eap.ee/public/va-arh/arch-2006-2-1.pdf

sophisticre

, sophistict-

sophists

The simple cleaver shown in this post could be 1 Million or only 200 ka yrs old. After the Middle Pleistocene Sophistication in flint knapping can not automatically being interpreted as a trait of an advanced and chronological late technocomplex. Handaxes from Boxgrove  are much more sophisticated than handaxes from later sites in the SommeValley. Still Bay points are as sophisticated as Laurel Leaf Points from the Solutrean. MSA Points from different complexes in Botswana, the Horn of Africa and South Africa are more sophisticated than Mousterian Points from the OIS3 in Europe. Quina scrapers look often “primitive” allthough  they are often produced by a sophisticated technique. Holocene Pics from Portugal and Spain (Asturian) look like pebble tools from the Oldowan. At Dolni Vestonice Choppers have been dokumented by B. Klima during the Pavlovian occupations. “Mousterian” like tools are common in the Mesolithic of Northern Germany.

Implicitly or explicitly, concepts  in Prehistoric research are are often biased towards an evolutionary linear schematism. In this thinking, sophistication is not awaited before the “Human Revolution”. We should be more openminded  for more complex histories, unforseen data and new concepts.

Posts of this blog will be regularly updated (please look at the “Updated Posts” section). This means that new pictures and/ or  ammendments to the texts are available.

I am allways happy about specific comments and discussion. I recommend to read the last comment of Tom Holck with many pictures of Type-D arrowheads  and the short contribution of Andrea, bringing the the role of German Archaeologists (Zotz, Bohmers, Schwabedissen)  in Tchechoslowakia during WW II to the point!

The artifact shown here is a Type-D arrowhead from Scane ( 7 cm long), most probably related to the Pitted Ware culture ( see also: http://www.aggsbach.de/2011/03/scandinavian-neolithic-type-d-arrow-point/).

Posts updated:

• Stockbridge, Hampshire: Lower Paleolithic in S/E-England (Update 25.01.2012)http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/07/stockbridge-hampshire-lower-paleolithic-handaxe-lower/
• Moravany Banka:  (Update 25.01.2012) http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/08/burination-2/
• Salzgitter Site: http://www.aggsbach.de/2011/02/salzgitter-lebenstedt-an-imprortant-paleolithic-site-in-n-germany/ (Update 28.01.2012) 
• Between the Raw Material Provinces: Handaxe from the Weser Valley: http://www.aggsbach.de/2011/11/handaxe-from-the-weser-valley/ (Update 28.01.2012) 
• Pigments in the MSA and Middle Paleolitic: http://www.aggsbach.de/2011/01/pigments-goethite-in-the-msa-and-middle-paleolithic/ (Update 31.01.2012) 
• Zinken: http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/07/hengistbury-head-a-zinken-from-the-final-paleolithic/ (Update 04.02.2012) 

During the beginning of OIS8 at about 300 k.a. BP, hand axe bearing industries appear in Central Europe which contain numerous Levallois forms (such as cores, flakes, blades and points). The operational sequences at these sites resemble other Levallois based ensembles without handaxes in Nothern France (Biache at 175 k.a.), the Netherlands (Maastricht-Belvedere at 250 k.a. BP) and in the German Lowlands further south (Rheindalen; IOS7), although this has not proven in detail till now. It is hotly debated if the “Paleolithic Microlithic Tradition” at sites such as Vertesszölös, Schöningen and Bilzingsleben is older (IOS 11) or contemporaneous.

Two sites, known since the early 20th century and re-excavated later are of major interest, because they are securely dated: Hundisburg near Neuhaldensleben, northwest of Magdeburg, and Markkleeberg near Leipzig. Both sites are geologically assigned to early OIS8. Handaxes are rare (90 examples out of 10000 artifacts at Markleeberg; 2 handaxes /270 artifacts at Hundisburg) and a sophisticated Levallois technology is present. Renewed excavations at Hundisburg since 2005 recovered mostly sharp edged artifacts combined with the remains of large mammals and rich microfauna, while such contextual information is not available for Markkleeberg.

Other findings most probably from the time period between OIS8 – OIS5 are only indirectly dated. The most important sites in Germany are situated in Leine gravels around Hannover (Döhren, Rethen, Arnum and Henningen), from other sites in the Leine valley near Alfeld, from the Weser valley, from the Pleisse gravels near Leipzig (Cröbern, Zehmen, Eythra, Cospuden, Zwochau ), Gravels near Magdeburg (Magdeburg-Rothensee, Magdeburg-Neustadt, Gerwitsch) and from the Maas region at Rhenen (NL), while the handaxe ensembles from the Emscher and Ruhr valleys may have been produced after OIS5e. Unfortunately the extraordinary rich findings in Northern Hessen, were essentially all found on the surface without any stratigraphically or contextual information just indicating that our ancestors were there using purposefully the high quality quartzite resources of the region.

Quaternary Stratigraphy:

http://www.quaternary.stratigraphy.org.uk/charts/chartversions/quaternarychart2009a.pdf

The appearance of Levallois technology (named after a suburb of Paris where it was first described) in Africa and Europe c. 300–250 ka years ago (OIS8) is commonly used to define the Lower-to-Middle Palaleolithic and ESA/MSA boundary (as first proposed by Bosinski in Ronen 1982) and arguably represents a major innovation in lithic practices during the Middle Pleistocene.

I was always fascinated by the razor sharp Levallois Flakes from Kebara, made by Neanderthals c 50 ka BP. They are thin, but not so thin that they are ineffective. They are not so thick that they could not be re-sharpened effectively and exibit a balanced centre of gravity.

Intuitively they look like desired endproducts of a subtle and planned core reduction strategy. They are sharper than many blades from the European Aurignacien in my collection. But-I always was aware that this impression could be incorrect and could be biased by my suggestions of a certain unity of early humans (Neanderthals, Archaic H. Sapiens and H. Sapiens sensu strictu). In the archaeological literature, there are many suspicions regarding the “preferred” and “planned” nature of Levallois technology, coming especially from the “hypersceptical camp”.

Several examinations of archaeological material on the issue of Levallois predetermination and planning and they have produced mixed results. Dibble focused on the issue of predetermination in Levallois flakes by evaluation of flakes from 27 different assemblages in southern France. Regarding his esults from incomplete reconstructions of the chaine opératoire he argued that their manufacture could not be linked to “the presence of linguistic rules, structures, or categories”. A study by Schlanger, however, used flakes from a refitted Levallois core from the early Middle Palaleolithic site of Maastricht-Belvédère (Netherlands) and reached a different conclusion. Here, he found that length; widths and thicknesses of the nine Levallois flakes were, as a group, more standardized than the 32 non-Levallois (debitage) flakes.

Lycett and Eren recently adopted an experimental approach to this issue. They focused on the production of “preferential” Levallois cores and their products and found that their results strongly support the view that Levallois reduction strategies were  indeed a organized process and a deliberate, engineered strategy orientated toward specific goals. Levallois knapping from these experiments may seen as an indication of an advanced cognitive competence of their makers and therefore for long-term working memory.

Suggesting Reading:

http://www.mendeley.com/research/understanding-levallois-lithic-technology-cognitive-archaeology/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029273

The Aterian is certainly much older than previously assumed and dates back at least to OIS6. The technocomplex is defined by the presence of ‘tanged’ or tools, which have been widely assumed to be among the earliest projectile weapon tips. This hypothesis has never been explored in detail before, despite the fact, that many Aterian Artifacts rather resemble “scrapers” and that the “points” are better described as stemmed convergent tools with two retouched edges.

Radu Iovita (RGZM, Schloss Monrepos, Neuwied, Germany) recently demonstrated in a large sample of Aterian tools that the variation in shape within that the sample exhibits size-dependent patterns consistent with a reduction of the tools from the tip down, with the tang remaining intact. This pattern supports a functional hypothesis of Aterian artifacts as hafted knives or scrapers with alternating active edges, rather than as weapon tips. Anyhow the use of (spear) tips of some of these tools cannot be ruled out.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029029

About upper Pleistocene discpersals of the genus homo:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/cta/

This is a small Bone Harpoon from the Canadian Arctic, (12 cm long) probably from the early Thule complex.

Barbed bone and antler points have been found in all major regions of the Old World with the exception of Australia. Likewise they occur widely in the New World, absent only in Middle America and the north-western portion of South America. They can be as small as 4 cm and as large as 50 cm and are and were used for different tasks: hunting game (for example at the Maiendorf site) but also for fishing (even in the Sahara during  the early Holocene!). Barbed points may be classified either as “fixed,” when permanently attached to a spear or arrow shaft, or as “harpoons” (sensu strictu) when they separate from a shaft on impact and remain attached to it by line. Barbs ensured that the point stayed embedded in the flesh of the animal once it was harpooned.

 The earliest harpoons so far  were found at three archaeological sites at Katanda on the Upper Semliki River (Democratic Republic of Congo). Dating by both direct and indirect means indicate an age of ~90 ka or older.. Such weapons could were obviously used to hunt catfish; those remains were abundant at the site. One exemplar may weight as much as 68 kg (enough to feed 80 people for two days). Because no other barbed points from the MSA have been found, some researchers suggest, that these findings are coming from a disturbed context. Anyhow, published data from the site so far indicate that there are only minor taphonomic disturbances and that the barbed points are not from a later LSA occupation. It remains an enigma, why this invention was not transferred to /or accepted by other foragers.

The earliest well-dated non-African specimens are associated with the 13,5 ka BP Magdalenian levels at Tito Bustillo cave in northern Spain. Unilaterally and bilaterally barbed harpoons are both hallmarks of the upper Magdalenian and often found together. The succession of a “ Magdalenien V” with unilaterally barbed harpoons, followed by a “Magdalenien VI” with bilaterally barbed harpoons is a theoretical construct of the early 20th century and a good example how unreflected evolutionary thinking may bias the data. Unilateral barbed points and harpoons are common in the European Mesolithic.  Such items are very rare in the Natufian; the largest sample, seven specimens, from Kebara Cave, Israel, is dated to ca. 11 ka BP.

During the early Holocene barbed points are common in Africa; It seems that these tools were selctively used for fishing.  African sites wherewith barbed bone points always show an abundance of fish bone, if the fauna is preserved. This is especially evident in sites of the “Khartoum Neolithic”.

It appears that the expansion of aquatic resources in the Holocene made the “green” Sahara attractive to populations with existing fishing and riverine hunting skills. Their ability to hunt hippopotamus and crocodiles and to catch a wide variety of deepwater fish species would have propelled a rapid dispersal from east to west and into the central Sahara, to judge by the numerous branches of Nilo-Saharan in the east. The archeological remains of this “aqualatic complex” are barbed bone points and a fish hook technology.

Our ancestors did not simply drift northward from their African origins as their abilities to cope with cooler climates evolved. After the initial settlement of the lower Eurasian latitudes, they actively moved into the Arctic and the Americas, in relatively rapid bursts of expansion about 15-10 ka BP.

The Inuit have the most complex pre-industrial forms of harpoons ever developed. The primary use of the Inuit harpoon was for hunting sea mammals, both at breathing holes in the sea ice and in open water; although in some arctic areas the harpoon was used for fish as well. The inhabitants of the circumpolar region  used harpoons with fixed foreshafts after 3500 BC . During the Thule complex (after 900-until now), the inhabitants added  loose foreshafts to their repertoire. This may indicate that the earliest inhabitants of the area hunted only at breathing holes and that open water hunting was a later innovation, or it may simply reflect a development from an all-purpose form to specialized harpoons for particular hunting conditions.