- Paleolithic Archaeology, Flint Technology, Aurignacian, Levantine Archaeology, Levantine Aurignacian, Settlement Patterns, and 91 morePrehistoric Settlement, Upper Paleolithic, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Chaîne Opératoire, Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Mediterranean prehistory, Magdalenian, Lithic Refitting, Gravettian, Neanderthals (Palaeolithic Archaeology), Out Of Africa (Palaeolithic Archaeology), Howiesons Poort, Middle Stone Age (Archaeology), Ofer Bar Yosef, Middle Paleolithic, Anthropology, Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, African Archaeology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Near Eastern Archaeology, Human Evolution, Keilmessergruppe, Bifacial Tools, Handaxes, Migration (Anthropology), Lebanon, Sea Level, Mediterranean archaeology, Eastern Micoquian, Levantine prehistory, Human Ecology, Paleolithic, Hunter-Gatherers, Animal domestication, Zooarchaeology, Vertebrate taphonomy, Transitions In Prehistory: Essays In Honor of Ofer Bar Yosef, Shea, DE (Eds), Open Air Site, Lithic Technology, Lithic Worksop, Refitting, Taphonomy, Stone tools, Epigravettian, Radiocarbon Dating (Earth Sciences), Projectile Point, Lower Paleolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Acheulian (Archaeology), Small Game, Shellfish, Prehistory of Caucasus (Prehistoric Archaeology), South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) in Prehistory, Federmesser, Levallois, Chatelperronian, Philosophy of Science, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Flint (Archaeology), Cantabrian Palaeolithic, Arctic and Subarctic hunter-gatherers, South Africa, Strontium, carbon and oxygen isotope analysis, Neanderthal Extinction, Evolution and Human Behavior, Prehistoric weapons, Demography, Black Sea Region Archaeology, Wadi Sabra, Kebaran, Geometric Kebaran, Philosophy, Relativism, Peter Lang Publishing, Badegoulian, Wolf Domestication, Backed Points, Middle Stone Age, Mousterian, Levallois-Mousterian, Svante Pääbo, Clovis, Clovis stone tool technology, land use and lithic resources procurement, Lithic Technology-Clovis, Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, Keilmesser and Keilmessergruppen, Umberto Eco, and Chaine operatoireedit
This article focuses on the Nubian Levallois technology first recognized in northeastern Africa in the 1960s. Now, sites of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) Nubian Complex associated with Homo sapiens are known to occupy vast areas in... more
This article focuses on the Nubian Levallois technology first recognized in northeastern Africa in the 1960s. Now, sites of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) Nubian Complex associated with Homo sapiens are known to occupy vast areas in northeastern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Recently, proper Nubian Levallois technology has been recognized at sites in southern Africa and the southern part of the Eastern Mediterranean Levant as well. Here we report several sites with Nubian Levallois artefacts from central Syria, a Levantine region geographically closer to Arabia than Africa, where such technology had not been identified previously. The analyzed lithic assemblages share the same techno-typological characteristics. Technologically, they feature a newly recognized "developed Nubian Type 2-method, single-platform unidirectional convergent, Jerf Ajla/Qaltatype core" or shortly, "Jerf Ajla/Qalta-type Nubian" cores and method. This method was geared towards the serial production of pointed blades and Levallois points on blades in a single core reduction cycle. This differs from other Nubian core reduction methods, which tend to focus on producing a single pointed flake or Levallois point on a flake in each reduction cycle of a core. Typologically, the investigated Syrian assemblages are dominated by Upper Palaeolithic tool classes and types, especially endscrapers and burins. Besides the lithic data, these assemblages are assumed to be older than 33-36 uncal ka BP measured at the sites Jerf al-Ajla and Umm el-Tlel. We argue that central Syrian assemblages with Nubian methods can be dated to the transitional period between the Middle Palaeolithic or Middle Stone Age and the Upper Palaeolithic, more precisely, to the Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP). Thus, the developed character of the Jerf Ajla/Qalta-type Nubian cores does not only adds to the variability of the Nubian Levallois technology but also explains its absence in MSA locations in Africa and Arabia, and its presence in the IUP Levant. Accepting this, we propose the name "Jerf Ajla/Qalta industry" for these particular Nubian-related IUP assemblages and sites in central Syria. In doing so, a second IUP industry is now recognized by us in the Levant, in addition to the Early Emiran, known for its improved Nubian 1 method with opposed-platform cores and a new hunting projectile type, the Emireh point. Both IUP industries appeared in the Levant as a result of Homo sapiens migration with different Nubian-related knapping traditions from Africa and Arabia into the neighbouring Eastern Mediterranean Levant. The Early Emiran is considered to be a successful IUP industry in the Levant, as a predecessor of the IUP Late Emiran and Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) Early Ahmarian industries. Moreover, parts of the population carrying this industry even spread beyond southwestern Asia to other Eurasian regions, heralded by new IUP and EUP industries there. However, the Jerf Ajla/Qalta industry and its makers did not continue to survive in the Levant.
Research Interests:
This study proposes a new look at the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) industry based on four recently excavated open-air sites in South Moravia, (Líšeň / Podolí I, Želešice III / Želešice-Hoynerhügel, Líšeň I / Líšeň-Čtvrtě and... more
This study proposes a new look at the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) industry based on four recently excavated open-air sites in South Moravia, (Líšeň / Podolí I, Želešice III / Želešice-Hoynerhügel, Líšeň I / Líšeň-Čtvrtě and Tvarožná X / Tvarožná, ‘Za školou’), and two cave sites in Bohemia (Nad Kačákem Cave) and South Moravia (Pekárna Cave), in the Czech Republic. We suggest considering the LRJ as a late Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) industry starting from the period right before Heinrich Event 4 (HE-4) and the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption event, ca. 42–40 ka cal BP. We propose that the LRJ was made by Homo sapiens as an 'industrial result' of a smooth, and mainly technological transition from Bohunician into LRJ. As a result, a place of origin for the LRJ industry is
seen in Moravia, in East-Central Europe, from where modern humans (Homo sapiens) spread all over the
vast northern altitude territory in Central and Western Europe. Thus the IUP “Bohunician package” did not disappear in Europe but did give rise to another IUP industry successfully adapted for the contemporary steppe-tundra belt in Northern Europe. Finally, to the long-lasting tripartite archaeological division of the IUP period (Bohunician, Szeletian, Proto-Aurignacian) with a duration of ca. 6–8,000 years in EastCentral Europe, the LRJ industry should be added. This is a late IUP industry geochronologically coeval with the Proto-Aurignacian, and post-dating both the Bohunician and the Szeletian
seen in Moravia, in East-Central Europe, from where modern humans (Homo sapiens) spread all over the
vast northern altitude territory in Central and Western Europe. Thus the IUP “Bohunician package” did not disappear in Europe but did give rise to another IUP industry successfully adapted for the contemporary steppe-tundra belt in Northern Europe. Finally, to the long-lasting tripartite archaeological division of the IUP period (Bohunician, Szeletian, Proto-Aurignacian) with a duration of ca. 6–8,000 years in EastCentral Europe, the LRJ industry should be added. This is a late IUP industry geochronologically coeval with the Proto-Aurignacian, and post-dating both the Bohunician and the Szeletian
Research Interests:
This article re-examines the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) industry, a well-known Early Upper Paleolithic complex in northern Europe. It is widely thought that the LRJ was produced by late Neanderthals and that its industrial... more
This article re-examines the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) industry, a well-known Early Upper Paleolithic complex in northern Europe. It is widely thought that the LRJ was produced by late Neanderthals and that its industrial roots are in late Middle Paleolithic industries with bifacial leaf points in northwestern Europe. On the basis of evidence from four recently excavated open-air sites in southern Moravia (Czech Republic) (Líšeň/Podolí I, Želešice III/ŽelešiceHoynerhügel, Líšeň I/Líšeň-Čtvrtě, and Tvarožná X/Tvarožná, “Za školou”), combined with fndings from two cave sites in Bohemia (Nad Kačákem Cave) and southern Moravia (Pekárna Cave) and critical re-examination of the LRJ sites and materials from other areas, we propose that the LRJ should actually be considered a late Initial Upper Paleolithic industry. Its initial dates are just before Heinrich Event
4 (HE-4) and the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption, c. 42–40 ka cal BP. We further propose that LRJ assemblages were produced by Homo sapiens, and that its roots are in the Bohunician industry. The LRJ originated as a result of a gradual technological transition, centering on the development of Levallois points into Jerzmanowice-type blade-points. It is also suggested that the LRJ industry first appeared in Moravia, in central Europe, and spread along with its makers (Homo sapiens) across the northern latitudes of central and western Europe. Accordingly, the IUP “Bohunician package” did not disappear in Europe but gave rise to another
IUP industry successfully adapted for the then steppe-tundra belts in northern Europe
4 (HE-4) and the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption, c. 42–40 ka cal BP. We further propose that LRJ assemblages were produced by Homo sapiens, and that its roots are in the Bohunician industry. The LRJ originated as a result of a gradual technological transition, centering on the development of Levallois points into Jerzmanowice-type blade-points. It is also suggested that the LRJ industry first appeared in Moravia, in central Europe, and spread along with its makers (Homo sapiens) across the northern latitudes of central and western Europe. Accordingly, the IUP “Bohunician package” did not disappear in Europe but gave rise to another
IUP industry successfully adapted for the then steppe-tundra belts in northern Europe
Research Interests:
In the article a series of Middle Aurignacian in situ sites and surface loci situated in the Carpathian Basin of the Eastern Central Europe is analysed using industrial and geochronological criteria recently developed for the respective... more
In the article a series of Middle Aurignacian in situ sites and surface loci situated in the Carpathian Basin of the Eastern Central Europe is analysed using industrial and geochronological criteria recently developed for the respective Middle Aurignacian materials in Southwestern France. As a result, there were not only recognized the respective materials for the Carpathian Basin but were also identified both common and specific techno-typological features for taken together Pan-European Middle Aurignacian materials. Geochronologically, the Carpathian Basin’s sites (starting from GI -8a, ca. 36,300 cal. BP) are a little younger of the French materials (GI -8c, ca. 37,900 – 37,500 cal. BP). The realized study also demonstrated a possible series of various site types for Middle Aurignacian settlement pattern observations in the Carpathian Basin. The resulting analyses also allowed us to see on the new data and knowledge levels a basic Middle Aurignacian human dispersal from Europe into the East Mediterranean Levant.
Research Interests:
Our study discusses the industrial-chronological status of the Szeletian and Kostenki-Streletskaya industries in Central and Eastern Europe based on our present knowledge and using exclusively in situ excavated materials. The study... more
Our study discusses the industrial-chronological status of the Szeletian and Kostenki-Streletskaya industries in Central and Eastern Europe based on our present knowledge and using exclusively in situ excavated materials. The study resulted in the following main observations. The two industries geochronologically are associated with the Initial Upper Palaeolithic preceding Heinrich Event 4 (HE4) and the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption at ca. 40 ka cal BP. For now, absolute dates of the Szeletian are older than of the Kostenki-Streletskaya but the geochronological contemporarity of the two industries cannot be ruled out. At the same time, no archaeological data support a developed or final stage for them. Techno-typological data of the lithic artefacts show basic similarities, and certain typological diff erences based on which the Eastern European industry seems more developed than the Central European one. We consider two equally possible hypotheses about the Kostenki-Streletskaya industry’s origin. We suggest that Szeletian human groups moved from Central to Eastern Europe, but a much earlier claim (Gladilin & Demidenko 1990) of an Asian origin for the industry is also plausible. True Szeletian and Kostenki-Streletskaya assemblages do not contain any proper Aurignacian core or tool types, apart from palimpsest situations and artefact classifi cation issues. Presently, Hlinsko-Kouty I is the only in situ site in Central and Eastern Europe where bifacial triangular points and carinated burin-cores were found in real association, as part of one lithic assemblage confi rmed by refi tting (Demidenko et al. 2018). This Moravian site represents the probably late Early Upper Palaeolithic “Morava-type Aurignacian”, which almost certainly was not connected genetically to the Szeletian industry. More studies are needed for the evaluation of potentially similar sites in both Central and Eastern Europe.
Research Interests:
Nubian Levallois technology has recently risen to the forefront of debates surrounding Late Pleistocene human technological behavior, cultural traditions, and demographic histories. Named after the region where it was first identified,... more
Nubian Levallois technology has recently risen to the forefront of debates surrounding Late Pleistocene human technological behavior, cultural traditions, and demographic histories. Named after the region where it was first identified, Nubian Levallois describes a specific method of lithic point production that occurs in Middle Palaeolithic (or Middle Stone Age) assemblages across arid North Africa, the Levant and Arabia. However, the recent identification of Nubian technology in separate, disconnected regions, such as South Africa and possibly India suggests there are more diverse scenarios of its emergence and spread than the original model of a broad Nubian technocomplex related to a single, expanding population from its north‐east African heartland. While few assemblages containing Nubian technology are directly dated, its proposed MIS 5 timing coincides with early modern human dispersals out of Africa, adding a further dimension of whether certain lithic technologies can be linked to specific geographic populations.
Currently, advancing this debate is hindered by having neither an accepted definition of what constitutes Nubian technology, nor a consensus on its role in modern human cultural evolution and population dynamics. To address this, 22 archaeologists met for an international workshop with two aims: (1) refining the definition of the Nubian technological method and how it can be identified in assemblages; and (2) re‐evaluating the relation- ship between Nubian technology as a reduction strategy and the Nubian Complex as a cultural entity in the context of current evidence. The specialist group of lithic analysts brought expertise in relevant assemblages—particularly those where Nubian technology forms a prominent component—from across Africa, the Levant and Arabia, contributing a diverse range of approaches and perspectives to this salient debate.
Currently, advancing this debate is hindered by having neither an accepted definition of what constitutes Nubian technology, nor a consensus on its role in modern human cultural evolution and population dynamics. To address this, 22 archaeologists met for an international workshop with two aims: (1) refining the definition of the Nubian technological method and how it can be identified in assemblages; and (2) re‐evaluating the relation- ship between Nubian technology as a reduction strategy and the Nubian Complex as a cultural entity in the context of current evidence. The specialist group of lithic analysts brought expertise in relevant assemblages—particularly those where Nubian technology forms a prominent component—from across Africa, the Levant and Arabia, contributing a diverse range of approaches and perspectives to this salient debate.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet production has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palaeolithic... more
Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet production has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palaeolithic techno-complexes, e.g. at Boker Tachtit (Negev Desert, Israel) and Kara-Bom (Altai Republic, Russian Federation). Only isolated bladelets have been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher degree of technological heterogeneity of the Bohunician techno-complex than previously thought.
Research Interests:
This paper presents the Hummalian industry uncovered during the 2001-2005 and 2009 excavations at Hummal (El Kowm), Syria from the stratified layers, mainly layer 6c-2. Blade industries were located in the stratigraphy between the... more
This paper presents the Hummalian industry uncovered during the 2001-2005 and 2009 excavations at Hummal (El Kowm), Syria from the stratified layers, mainly layer 6c-2. Blade industries were located in the stratigraphy between the Yabrudian and Levallois-Mousterian occupations and their complete sequence is dated to circa 200 ky. The main Hummalian core reduction strategy aimed to produce elongated and large-sized blanks of different morphology. Nonetheless the significance of on-site manufacturing of small implements from burin-cores and truncated-faceted pieces is also a remarkable feature. These end products, namely bladelets and small-sized flakes, also represent anticipated components complementary to the repertoire of various lithic specimens recovered from Hummalian layers and could suggest hand held cutting tools. The presence of three variable reduction strategies showing a great variety of core reduction methods seems to be related to the Hummal site function and its Early...
Blinkhorn et al. present a reanalysis of fossil and lithic material from Garrod's 1928 excavation at Shukbah Cave, identifying the presence of Nubian Levallois cores and points in direct association with a Neanderthal molar. The authors... more
Blinkhorn et al. present a reanalysis of fossil and lithic material from Garrod's 1928 excavation at Shukbah Cave, identifying the presence of Nubian Levallois cores and points in direct association with a Neanderthal molar. The authors argue that this demonstrates the Nubian reduction strategy forms a part of the wider Middle Palaeolithic lithic repertoire, therefore its role as a cultural marker for Homo sapiens population movements is invalid. We raise the following four major concerns: (1) we question the assumptions made by the authors about the integrity and homogeneity of the Layer D assemblage and (2) the implications of this for the association of the Neanderthal tooth with any specific component of the assemblage, (3) we challenge the authors' attribution of lithic material to Nubian Levallois technology according to its strict definition, and (4) we argue that the comparative data presented derive from a biased sample of sites. These points critically undermine the article's conclusion that Shukbah's Neanderthals made Nubian cores and thus the argument that Neanderthals might have made Nubian technology elsewhere is unsubstantiated.
Research Interests:
This paper presents the Hummalian industry uncovered during the 2001-2005 and 2009 excavations at Hummal (El Kowm), Syria from the stratified layers, mainly layer 6c-2. Blade industries were located in the stratigraphy between the... more
This paper presents the Hummalian industry uncovered during the 2001-2005 and 2009 excavations at Hummal (El Kowm), Syria from the stratified layers, mainly layer 6c-2. Blade industries were located in the stratigraphy between the Yabrudian and Levallois-Mousterian occupations and their complete sequence is dated to circa 200 ky. The main Hummalian core reduction strategy aimed to produce elongated and large-sized blanks of different morphology. Nonetheless the significance of on-site manufacturing of small implements from burin-cores and truncated-faceted pieces is also a remarkable feature. These end products, namely bladelets and small-sized flakes, also represent anticipated components complementary to the repertoire of various lithic specimens recovered from Hummalian layers and could suggest hand held cutting tools. The presence of three variable reduction strategies showing a great variety of core reduction methods seems to be related to the Hummal site function and its Early...
Research Interests:
Book review of: Neruda, P., & Kaminská, L. (2013). Neanderthals at Bojnice in the Context of Central Europe / Neandertálci z Bojnic v kontextu střední Evropy. Anthropos - Studies in Anthropology, Palaeoethnology and Quaternary Geology,... more
Book review of: Neruda, P., & Kaminská, L. (2013). Neanderthals at Bojnice in the Context of Central Europe / Neandertálci z Bojnic v kontextu střední Evropy. Anthropos - Studies in Anthropology, Palaeoethnology and Quaternary Geology, Vol. 36. Brno - Nitra: Moravské Zemské Muzeum & Archeologický Ústav SAV. 249 pages, Paperback, 265
Kč, ISBN 978-80-7028-407-0
Kč, ISBN 978-80-7028-407-0
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the article, the Vác 1 loci (Danube Bend area in North-Central Hungary) and its surface lithic artifacts systematically collected over the last 20 years have been analyzed. The loci and lithic artifact chaîne opératoire analyses showed... more
In the article, the Vác 1 loci (Danube Bend area in North-Central Hungary) and its surface lithic artifacts systematically collected over the last 20 years have been analyzed. The loci and lithic artifact chaîne opératoire analyses showed that the site served as a hunter-gatherer temporary camp with some base camp characteristics and some similar with lithic artifact primary and secondary treatment processes adding to one another for both rather local and distant raw material types (RMTs). Furthermore, the lithic assemblage data indicate an Early Epigravettian industrial attribution. Likewise, some assemblages' techno-typological data certainly augment some of the more peculiar features for the already known Early Epigravettian variability in the Eastern Central Europe.
Research Interests:
In the article a group of Berehove and Muzhievo surface find spots situated near in situ Proto-Aurignacian Berehove I site in Transcarpathia (Ukraine) is discussed. The conducted study allow us to take a new look at these loci and their... more
In the article a group of Berehove and Muzhievo surface find spots situated near in situ Proto-Aurignacian Berehove I site in Transcarpathia (Ukraine) is discussed. The conducted study allow us to take a new look at these loci and their UP lithics. Instead of the before viewed as a group of Middle Aurignacian real sites, the considering actually Proto-Aurignacian loci are now understood as representing a series of various supply chain loci with raw material outcrops, workshops, a site-workshop, and special camps for now Berehove I base camp. All these functionally varying loci and the site situated at raw material outcrops at Berehove Volcanic Shallow Mountain Area do represent a logistic settlement pattern. Accordingly, it is the first case for European Proto-Aurignacian when a complex settlement pattern with a base camp and sites-satellites is recognized for a closely located cluster of loci. Now recognized Proto-Aurignacian site of Tibava in Eastern Slovakia most probably also belongs to Berehove and Muzhievo Proto-Aurignacian site complex.
Keywords: Central Europe, Transcarpathia and Eastern Slovakia, Proto-Aurignacian, raw material outcrops, site cluster, logistic settlement pattern.
Keywords: Central Europe, Transcarpathia and Eastern Slovakia, Proto-Aurignacian, raw material outcrops, site cluster, logistic settlement pattern.
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Early Upper Paleolithic I (Archaeology), Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), and 7 moreLithic Technology (Archaeology), Settlement archaeology, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Lithic Analysis, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Early Upper Paleolithic lithic technology, and Proto-Aurignacian
The article is dedicated to the memory of Dmytro ("Dima") Yu. Nuzhnyi (1959–2016) – an outstanding Ukrainian Stone Age archaeologist and extraordinary man. ABSTRACT: After occupying terminologically about the whole Late Upper Paleolithic... more
The article is dedicated to the memory of Dmytro ("Dima") Yu. Nuzhnyi (1959–2016) – an outstanding Ukrainian Stone Age archaeologist and extraordinary man.
ABSTRACT: After occupying terminologically about the whole Late Upper Paleolithic period in Eastern Europe in the 1930s–1960s, Magdalenian virtually disappeared in the East European Late Upper Paleolithic record in the 1990s. It has been replaced by terms "Epigravettian" / "Eastern Epigravettian". The present article discusses the presence of variable Magdalenian-like features in some assemblages, although the conducted study has shown still the absence of true Magdalenian assemblages in Eastern Europe. The appearance of Magdalenian-like elements could be explained through various environmental and human depending factors.
ABSTRACT: After occupying terminologically about the whole Late Upper Paleolithic period in Eastern Europe in the 1930s–1960s, Magdalenian virtually disappeared in the East European Late Upper Paleolithic record in the 1990s. It has been replaced by terms "Epigravettian" / "Eastern Epigravettian". The present article discusses the presence of variable Magdalenian-like features in some assemblages, although the conducted study has shown still the absence of true Magdalenian assemblages in Eastern Europe. The appearance of Magdalenian-like elements could be explained through various environmental and human depending factors.
Research Interests:
A salvage excavation was conducted in harsh conditions to recover stone structure E (KSE). In spite of a very short time window available for digging, an area of 20 m 2 was completely excavated and the entire structure (KSE) was carefully... more
A salvage excavation was conducted in harsh conditions to recover stone structure E (KSE). In spite of a very short time window available for digging, an area of 20 m 2 was completely excavated and the entire structure (KSE) was carefully documented. Spatial distribution of artifacts closely follows the boundary of the paved area. The raw material spectrum is characterized by prevailing rock crystal, supplemented by quartz, plasma, erratic flint, radi-olarite, smoky quartz and Krumlovský les-type chert. The artifacts are similar to those recovered from KSA and KSB, including carinated atypical end-scraper-cores, bipolar anvil cores, and Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths. A detailed analysis of granulite used to construct the pavement structure indicates smoothing, abrasion, pounding marks, and flake removals-they probably served as pads for activities that we have not identified as yet.
Research Interests:
Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet production has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palaeolithic... more
Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet production has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palaeolithic techno-complexes, e.g. at Boker Tachtit (Negev Desert, Israel) and Kara-Bom (Altai Republic, Russian Federation). Only isolated bladelets have
been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher degree of technological heterogeneity of the Bohunician techno-complex than previously thought.
been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher degree of technological heterogeneity of the Bohunician techno-complex than previously thought.
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Paleolithic Europe, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, and 7 moreUpper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Paleolithic, Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Analysis, Initial Upper Paleolithic, and Initial upper palaeolithic
The paper analyzes possible movements of the Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic human groups over the territory of the Great Caucasus across the Greater Caucasus range. The survey of the archaeological evidence pertinent to... more
The paper analyzes possible movements of the Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic human groups over the territory of the Great Caucasus across the Greater Caucasus range. The survey of the archaeological evidence pertinent to this topic leads to the following suppositions. The Greater Caucasus range was an impenetrable barrier for the Middle Paleolithic humans (both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens). On the contrary, the Early Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens
appear to have found a migratory route from the South Caucasus to the North Caucasus through the Eastern Black Sea littoral, bypassing the main heights of the Greater Caucasus range. In all likelihood, such a bypass route became possible due to a considerable broadening of the Early Upper Paleolithic food niche through the inclusion in the human diet of diverse aquatic (marine and riverine) resources that had not been exploited in the Middle Paleolithic.
appear to have found a migratory route from the South Caucasus to the North Caucasus through the Eastern Black Sea littoral, bypassing the main heights of the Greater Caucasus range. In all likelihood, such a bypass route became possible due to a considerable broadening of the Early Upper Paleolithic food niche through the inclusion in the human diet of diverse aquatic (marine and riverine) resources that had not been exploited in the Middle Paleolithic.
Research Interests:
Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ)
Research Interests:
the Beregovo Proto-Aurignacian is not only characterized now by a complex logistic mobility system of a base camp and supplementing it workshops, firstly recognized such se" lement pa" ern for European Proto-Aurignacian, but it probably... more
the Beregovo Proto-Aurignacian is not only characterized now by a complex logistic mobility system of a base camp and supplementing it workshops, firstly recognized such se" lement pa" ern for European Proto-Aurignacian, but it probably extends beyond the Berehove area creating a larger Proto-Aurignacian network with some sites in Eastern
Slovakia as well.
Slovakia as well.
Research Interests:
The Mohelno-Plevovce site is located in the valley of the Jihlava River, which is deeply incised into the Bohemian-Moravian Highland, ca. 30 km to the west of the present city of Brno. Due to its close proximity to a pumped-storage... more
The Mohelno-Plevovce site is located in the valley of the Jihlava River, which is deeply incised into the Bohemian-Moravian Highland, ca. 30 km to the west of the present city of Brno. Due to its close proximity to a pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant, the site is continually eroded by water level fluctuations on a daily basis, and thus regularly monitored by archaeologists. Until now, rescue excavations have uncovered two spatially separated paved areas-stone structures labeled A and B. These stone structures are associated with a peculiar lithic industry characterized by tiny microliths, produced on atypical carinated end scrapers/cores, and splintered tools/bipolar anvil cores. The artefacts were made from both local and exogenous rocks. The spatial distribution of finds follows the boundary of the pavement, suggesting a barrier effect. The structures are therefore interpreted as interior floor features of sheltered constructions-possibly huts. Zusammenfassung-Die Fundstelle Mohelno-Plevovce befindet sich im Tal des Flusses Jihlava, der hier in das Massiv der Böhmisch-mährischen Höhen ungefähr 30 km westlich der heutigen Stadt Brünn tief eingeschnitten ist. Heutzutage ist das Tal in Folge einer Talsperre überschwemmt. Da die täglichen Schwankungen des Wasserspiegels, verursacht durch ein Pumpkraftwerk, die Uferbereiche kontinuierlich erodieren, werden diese Bereiche des Wasserreservoirs ständig durch Archäologen überwacht. Bisherige Forschungen stellten zwei räumlich getrennte gepflasterte Flächen fest-die Steinstrukturen A und B. Mit diesen Struk-turen ist ein ungewöhnliches Steingeräteinventar vergesellschaftet, welches durch kleine, an atypischen Kielkratzern/Kernen und gesplitterten Stücken/bipolaren Kernen (Ambostechnik) hergestellte Mikrolithen charakterisiert wird. Die Artefakte wurden sowohl aus lokalen Rohmaterialien (Quarz, Bergkristall, Verwitterungsprodukt der Serpentine, Hornstein des Typs Kromauer Wald) als auch aus exotischen Rohmaterialien (erratischer Silizit, Radiolarit des Typs Szentgál) hergestellt. Es wurden keine Beson-derheiten in der Verteilung einzelner Rohmaterialien oder Werkzeuge in der Fläche beobachtet. Das Artefakte aus der Struktur A und B sind unter technologischen sowie typologischen Gesichtspunkten identisch, nur die Verhältnisse der lokalen und er exoti-schen Rohstoffe unterscheiden sich. Die räumlich begrenzte Verteilung der Funde deutet auf einen Barriere-Effekt hin und die Strukturen werden daher als gepflasterte Innenräume überdachter Konstruktionen-mögliche Behausungen-interpretiert. Es wurden keine Besonderheiten in der Verteilung einzelner Rohmaterialien oder Werkzeuge in der Fläche beobachtet. Das Artefakte aus der Struktur A und B sind unter technologischen sowie typologischen Gesichtspunkten identisch, nur die Verhältnisse der lokalen und er exotischen Rohstoffe unterscheiden sich.
Research Interests:
Nitra 2019
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The particular classification and attribute analysis system was written in 1995 and started to be used since then for Crimean Middle Paleolithic flint artifact analyses.
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, and 9 moreLithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Middle Paleolithic, Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Analysis, Artifacts, Transitions Before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, edited by E. Hovers and S.L. Kuhn, Lower and Middle Paleolithic in Europe, and Lithic Artifacts
The proposed article aims to present data on Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) Early Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages from 9 sites in Eastern and Central Europe that compose the same specifi c Epi-Aurignacian industry with... more
The proposed article aims to present data on Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) Early Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages from 9 sites in Eastern and Central Europe that compose the same specifi c Epi-Aurignacian
industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths (EASMM), and which are dated to ca. 25,500–23,000 cal BP. Initially identified in the south of Eastern Europe, where the first 7 such sites were found, later on it was
also recognized in Central Europe, more precisely at the Mohelno-Plevovce (Czech Republic) and Rosenburg (Austria) sites.
We will present data on those 9 sites, discussing their topographic positions, fi eld research data, analyses of recovered artifacts, including some use-wear information, absolute dates, pollen and/or fauna data. Then we will summarize all this information to get insights into the human subsistence strategies, including technological adaptations, practiced by the groups that inhabited the cold steppe environment of these parts of Europe during the harsh climatic conditions of the LGM.
Finally, we will deal with the origins of the EASMM from a Pan-European perspective, discussing its origins and possible scenarios of migration, cultural contact, etc., taking into account the different chronological,
archaeological, climatic and paleoenvironmental data.
industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths (EASMM), and which are dated to ca. 25,500–23,000 cal BP. Initially identified in the south of Eastern Europe, where the first 7 such sites were found, later on it was
also recognized in Central Europe, more precisely at the Mohelno-Plevovce (Czech Republic) and Rosenburg (Austria) sites.
We will present data on those 9 sites, discussing their topographic positions, fi eld research data, analyses of recovered artifacts, including some use-wear information, absolute dates, pollen and/or fauna data. Then we will summarize all this information to get insights into the human subsistence strategies, including technological adaptations, practiced by the groups that inhabited the cold steppe environment of these parts of Europe during the harsh climatic conditions of the LGM.
Finally, we will deal with the origins of the EASMM from a Pan-European perspective, discussing its origins and possible scenarios of migration, cultural contact, etc., taking into account the different chronological,
archaeological, climatic and paleoenvironmental data.
Research Interests:
It is proposed to view Byki site flint triangles as oldest in Europe used triangles being arrowheads ca. 18 – 16 000 BP uncalibrated, representing a special Byki triangle type of Early Late Upper Paleolithic
Research Interests:
Magdalenian in Eastern Europe considered
Central European Badegoulian possible "generic roots" in "Epi-Aurignacian"
Abstract A salvage excavation carried out in Hlinsko quarry in 2006 yielded a collection of Aurignacian-like artifacts supplemented by a bifacial triangular point. Recently, a reftting attempt documented on-site reduction of a carinated... more
Abstract
A salvage excavation carried out in Hlinsko quarry in 2006 yielded a collection of Aurignacian-like artifacts supplemented by a bifacial triangular point. Recently, a reftting attempt documented on-site reduction of a carinated burin-core and shaping/thinning of the bifacial point. Subsequently, a use-wear study supported the homogeneity of the assemblage. The assemblage relates to the Morava-type Aurignacian (B. Klíma) or Míškovice-type Upper Paleolithic industry (M. Oliva) previously known in Moravia for lithic assemblages originating only from surface fnd spots. At the same time, some similar excavated Upper Paleolithic assemblages combining Aurignacian-like and Szeletian-like features are also known in Eastern Europe.
Keywords
Moravia, Morava-type Aurignacian, Míškovice-type, carinated burin-cores, bifacial triangular point
A salvage excavation carried out in Hlinsko quarry in 2006 yielded a collection of Aurignacian-like artifacts supplemented by a bifacial triangular point. Recently, a reftting attempt documented on-site reduction of a carinated burin-core and shaping/thinning of the bifacial point. Subsequently, a use-wear study supported the homogeneity of the assemblage. The assemblage relates to the Morava-type Aurignacian (B. Klíma) or Míškovice-type Upper Paleolithic industry (M. Oliva) previously known in Moravia for lithic assemblages originating only from surface fnd spots. At the same time, some similar excavated Upper Paleolithic assemblages combining Aurignacian-like and Szeletian-like features are also known in Eastern Europe.
Keywords
Moravia, Morava-type Aurignacian, Míškovice-type, carinated burin-cores, bifacial triangular point
Research Interests:
LGM Late UP assemblages from 9 sites in Eastern and Central Europe compose one and the same Epi-Aurignacian industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths dated to c. 21-19,000 uncal BP/c. 25,5-23,000 cal BP. Previously suggested... more
LGM Late UP assemblages from 9 sites in Eastern and Central Europe compose one and the same Epi-Aurignacian industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths dated to c. 21-19,000 uncal BP/c. 25,5-23,000 cal BP. Previously suggested Evolved Aurignacain origin for the Epi-Aurignacian industry is rejected now due to too long chronological gap between the two industries in c. 7-9000 years. But a closer look at an Evolved Aurignacian record in Central and Eastern Europe allowed us to define a new industry type there. Additionally, the former Aurignacian V (Terminal Gravettian/Proto-Solutrean) data in Western Europe (c. 22-21,000 uncal BP) really puts the Epi-Aurignacian
with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths into a Pan-European analysis with various possibilities to discuss its origin and “historical fate”.
with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths into a Pan-European analysis with various possibilities to discuss its origin and “historical fate”.
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Aurignacian, Lithic Refitting, Upper Paleolithic, and 11 moreLithic Technology (Archaeology), Lithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Geoarchaeology and Lithic Studies, Lithic Analysis, Upper Palaeolithic, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Late Upper Paleolithic, Aurignacien, Late Upper Palaeolithic, and European Upper & Late Palaeolithic
Hummal, located in the El-Kowm area of Central Syria, is a reference site for the Palaeolithic in the interior Levant due to its archaeological sequence of deposits from the Lower to Upper Palaeolithic. The open-air site offers an... more
Hummal, located in the El-Kowm area of Central Syria, is a reference site for the Palaeolithic in the interior Levant due to its archaeological sequence of deposits from the Lower to Upper Palaeolithic. The open-air site offers an exceptional opportunity to study patterns of continuity and variability within the lithic assemblages of its eponymous industry, the Hummalian. The particular lithic assemblage recovered from Layer 7 is the focus of an attempted refitting and provides the data used in the research presented here. The collected pieces allowed the reconstruction of several chipped stone tool manufacturing episodes and reveals details of the technological working processes and the life cycle of archaeological objects through this refitting. It alludes to, after the primary blade reduction, the manufacturing of small debitage pieces which in turn testifies to the technological variability within the Hummalian. Combined with other studies such as attribute analysis, distribution patterns and geomorphological analyses they contribute to a greater understanding of the occupational history of the site as well as site disturbance processes. Furthermore, the Hummalian is the part of the Early Middle Palaeolithic (EMP) record and the presented refittings give evidence of the diverse technological behaviour of prehistoric
humans not only within the Hummalian occupations themselves but also in comparison to other contemporary archaeological sites discovered in this and neighbouring regions. This case study contributes to the growing record of the EMP technological behaviour patterns and indicates the flexibility and dynamics of the technological organisation of prehistoric toolmakers from this period.
humans not only within the Hummalian occupations themselves but also in comparison to other contemporary archaeological sites discovered in this and neighbouring regions. This case study contributes to the growing record of the EMP technological behaviour patterns and indicates the flexibility and dynamics of the technological organisation of prehistoric toolmakers from this period.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the problem of the total absence of Gravettian sites in the Great North Black Sea region. It can be shown that the Gravettian sites are associated with the forest-steppe sub-zone of the periglacial belt in both the... more
The article deals with the problem of the total absence of Gravettian sites in the Great North Black Sea region. It can
be shown that the Gravettian sites are associated with the forest-steppe sub-zone of the periglacial belt in both the middle
part of Eastern Europe and Central Europe. The latter region was a source of Gravettian migrations into Eastern Europe.
The periglacial sub-zone was characterized by the presence of rich food resources for mammoths. Numerous “mammoth
cemeteries” are also known there. Periodical mammoth hunts and variable use of mammoth bone and ivory were of crucial
importance for the subsistence of Gravettian groups. These two “natural-faunal factors” were not present in the Great North
Black Sea region, which explains why Gravettian humans did not move into these southern territories of Eastern Europe.
Accordingly, the Great North Black Sea region was almost depopulated during ca. 28 000—20 000 uncal BP. This depopulation might have become one of the factors favoring the probable colonization of the region by Epi-Aurignacian groups with
Sagaidak-Muralovka microliths ca. 21 000 uncal BP.
be shown that the Gravettian sites are associated with the forest-steppe sub-zone of the periglacial belt in both the middle
part of Eastern Europe and Central Europe. The latter region was a source of Gravettian migrations into Eastern Europe.
The periglacial sub-zone was characterized by the presence of rich food resources for mammoths. Numerous “mammoth
cemeteries” are also known there. Periodical mammoth hunts and variable use of mammoth bone and ivory were of crucial
importance for the subsistence of Gravettian groups. These two “natural-faunal factors” were not present in the Great North
Black Sea region, which explains why Gravettian humans did not move into these southern territories of Eastern Europe.
Accordingly, the Great North Black Sea region was almost depopulated during ca. 28 000—20 000 uncal BP. This depopulation might have become one of the factors favoring the probable colonization of the region by Epi-Aurignacian groups with
Sagaidak-Muralovka microliths ca. 21 000 uncal BP.
Research Interests:
Moravia is situated in the heart of Central Europe and in the immediate vicinity of the Danube River valley. This river valley is often mentioned as the main pathway for Aurignacian Homo sapiens migrations throughout Central Europe and... more
Moravia is situated in the heart of Central Europe and in the immediate vicinity of the Danube River valley. This river valley is often mentioned as the main pathway for Aurignacian Homo sapiens migrations throughout Central Europe and the Balkans. Moravia has always been well-known for its rich Aurignacian record, but this record was mainly based on artifacts from surface find spots with very few in situ sites so industrial homogeneity of the assemblages was often questioned and the proposed ideas and hypotheses regarding the Moravian Aurignacian were often treated with scepticism. Until the end of last century there were only four known stratified and dated Aurignacian sites in Moravia: Mladeč caves, Stránská skála open-air site complex, Vedrovice Ia and Milovice I. At the beginning of the XXI century one of us (P. Š.) has found and excavated three more Aurignacian sites in Moravia - Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě, Líšeň VIII / Líšeň - Nad výhonem and Napajedla III / Napajedla - Zámoraví. These discoveries almost doubled the number of in situ, dated sites for the Moravian Aurignacian. Our study of the new sites and their finds, as well as some more considerations of the previously obtained Aurignacian data, allow us to say that the Moravian Aurignacian geochronologically postdates the HE–4 / CI eruption interval dating to the GI-8–GI-5 period with absolute dates ranging from ca. 37–36 ka to 33–32 ka cal BP.
The Aurignacian artifact assemblages are grouped into Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian industry and the newly defined Evolved Aurignacian industry type with Góra Puławska II-type microliths. Also, detailed artifact analyses point out significant variability in site activity areas around Stránská skála and Líšeň chert outcrops for the latter Evolved Aurignacian. At the same time, the new Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian Moravian data also open new possibilities for a better understanding of this rather rare “transitional” industry between Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian and Evolved Aurignacian in Europe.
The Aurignacian artifact assemblages are grouped into Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian industry and the newly defined Evolved Aurignacian industry type with Góra Puławska II-type microliths. Also, detailed artifact analyses point out significant variability in site activity areas around Stránská skála and Líšeň chert outcrops for the latter Evolved Aurignacian. At the same time, the new Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian Moravian data also open new possibilities for a better understanding of this rather rare “transitional” industry between Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian and Evolved Aurignacian in Europe.
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Paleolithic Europe, Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), and 17 moreMiddle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Lithic Refitting, Upper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Geoarchaeology and Lithic Studies, Paleolithic Archaeology, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Lithic Analysis, Upper Palaeolithic, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition, Levantine Aurignacian, Early Homo sapiens, Palaeolithic, Aurignacian, and Origin and Dispersal of early Homo sapiens
Epi-Aurignacian with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths in the south of Eastern Europe and its European perspectives
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Aurignacian, Lithic Refitting, Upper Paleolithic, and 11 moreLithic Technology (Archaeology), Lithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Geoarchaeology and Lithic Studies, Lithic Analysis, Upper Palaeolithic, Late Upper Paleolithic, LGM, Late Upper Palaeolithic, LGM climate, and European Upper & Late Palaeolithic
Vladislav N. Gladilin (1935-2015) - an informal leader of Paleolithic research in Ukraine in 1970-1980s. To the memory of the Professor and Scientist.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Lithic Technology, Lithics, Paleolithic Europe, and 14 moreOldowan, The Oldowan Technocomplex, Acheulian (Archaeology), Lower Paleolithic, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Paleolithic, Acheulean (Archaeology), Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Analysis, Acheulean, and Lower Danube Archaeology
Research Interests: Technology, Stone Age (Archaeology), Use Wear Analysis, Lithic Technology, Lithics, and 10 moreEarly Upper Paleolithic I (Archaeology), Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Anthropology of Hunting, Archaeology of Hunting, Upper Paleolithic, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, and Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition
After more than 80 years of Yabrud II rock-shelter excavations by A. Rust in Syria, the site’s Levantine Mousterian and Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sequence does not have yet a unanimous archaeological interpretation. The... more
After more than 80 years of Yabrud II rock-shelter
excavations by A. Rust in Syria, the site’s Levantine
Mousterian and Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sequence does not have yet a unanimous archaeological interpretation. The present paper tries
to propose new understanding for the sequence and,
as a result, it appears to be of a “dotted line” character with no continuity at all except the layer 5-2 Levantine Aurignacian A / Phase 3 industry sequence.
The latter industry is suggested to have its origin in a
specifc facies of Southern Levantine Early Ahmarian
and being then transformed into Levantine Aurignacian B / Phase 4 industry, a possible “industrial starting point” for European Proto-Aurignacian.
Also, Classic Levantine Aurignacian is proposed to be considered now as comparable to European Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian, instead of the previously stated comparison to European Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian. etc...
excavations by A. Rust in Syria, the site’s Levantine
Mousterian and Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sequence does not have yet a unanimous archaeological interpretation. The present paper tries
to propose new understanding for the sequence and,
as a result, it appears to be of a “dotted line” character with no continuity at all except the layer 5-2 Levantine Aurignacian A / Phase 3 industry sequence.
The latter industry is suggested to have its origin in a
specifc facies of Southern Levantine Early Ahmarian
and being then transformed into Levantine Aurignacian B / Phase 4 industry, a possible “industrial starting point” for European Proto-Aurignacian.
Also, Classic Levantine Aurignacian is proposed to be considered now as comparable to European Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian, instead of the previously stated comparison to European Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian. etc...
Research Interests: Levantine Archaeology, Early Upper Paleolithic I (Archaeology), Levantine prehistory, Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), and 8 moreMiddle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Upper Paleolithic, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition, Levantine Aurignacian, Proto-Aurignacian, and Initial Upper Paleolithic
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Landscape Archaeology, Flint (Archaeology), Middle Stone Age (Archaeology), and 21 moreLithic Technology, Lithics, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Middle Paleolithic, Flint Technology, Bifacial Tools, Lithic Analysis, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Flintknapping, Middle Stone Age, African Middle Stone Age, Eastern Micoquian, Chaîne Opératoire, Bifacial Technologies, Keilmesser and Keilmessergruppen, Micoquian, Keilmessergruppe, Flint Knapping, Primitive Technology, Anthropology, and Technology on Flint Tools
A peculiar "Epi-Aurignacian" LGM industry in Central & Eastern Europe
Research Interests:
Yabrud II (Syria) industrial sequence
Research Interests: Levantine Archaeology, Early Upper Paleolithic I (Archaeology), Levantine prehistory, Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), and 8 moreUpper Paleolithic, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Levantine Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic, Initial Upper Paleolithic, Initial upper palaeolithic, and Ahmarian
Page 1. Discussion and Criticism' On Proprietary Rights in Archaeology: Some Unresolved Issues PHILIP L. KOHL Department of Anthropology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. o0281, USA 29 XI 94 A letter from Aleksandr ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Lithic Technology, Lithics, Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, and 29 moreUpper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Bow and Arrow Technology, Projectile technology, Projectile Points, Bow and Arrows Techniques, The Bow and Arrow, Lithic Projectile Hafting system, Projectile Point Typology, Projectile Point Technology, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Lithic Analysis, Upper Palaeolithic, Projectile technologies, Projectiles, Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition, Levantine Aurignacian, Arrowheads, Aurignacien, Archaeology, Aurignacian, Lithic Blades Bladelets Production, Microliths, Projectile, Projectile Point, Bow and Arrow, Projectile Weapons in Paleolithic and Mesolithic Period, Palaeolithic, Aurignacian, and Microlithic Technology
Morphological, typological, technological and use-wear studies of Byli Late UP triangles (18 - 16 000 BP uncalibrated)
Research Interests: Use Wear Analysis, Lithic Technology, Lithics, Arrow of time, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), and 15 moreMagdalenian, Bow and Arrow Technology, Projectile technology, Projectile Points, Bow and Arrows Techniques, The Bow and Arrow, Projectile Point Typology, Projectile Point Technology, Lithic Analysis, Late Upper Paleolithic, Arrowheads, Lithic Use Wear Analysis, Late Upper Palaeolithic, Projectile Point, and Bow and Arrow
Siuren I UP data reject existence of so-called UP steppe zone in the south of Eastern Europe
Research Interests:
Siuren I Aurignacian & first proposed term "North Black Sea Epi-Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour industry type"
Research Interests: Upper Palaeolithic boundary, Early Upper Paleolithic I (Archaeology), Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, and 7 moreUpper Paleolithic, Early Upper Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Late Upper Paleolithic, Levantine Aurignacian, Archaeology, Aurignacian, Lithic Blades Bladelets Production, and Proto-Aurignacian
The salvage excavation of stone structure KSD was completed (an area of 27 m2) during subsequent campaigns in 2020 and 2021. Preliminary analysis of all excavated material was completed. Characteristics of the lithic industry and spatial... more
The salvage excavation of stone structure KSD was completed (an area of 27 m2) during subsequent campaigns in 2020 and 2021. Preliminary analysis of all excavated material was completed. Characteristics of the lithic industry and spatial patterning of artefacts and pavement are like previously excavated stone structures at the site (KSA, KSB, KSE). More detailed analyses of the KSD material will follow.
The structure consists of a paved area and an adjoining northeastern fold – this shape is like some of the other documented stone structures.
In a similar vein to the previously excavated structures, the raw material spectrum consists of prevailing local raw materials including rock crystal, quartz, plasma, smoky quartz, and Krumlovský les-type chert, supplemented by imported erratic flint and radiolarite. The technological spectrum is characterized by abundant splintered artefacts that were used as bipolar anvil cores for microlithic blanks (Fig. 9.6, 9.7). The prevailing tool types are endscrapers (however, some of the pieces were used as cores for carenoidal blanks) and burins. Fourteen microlithic tools were identified
(Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths), however, their number may increase when the collection of small finds is systematically studied under magnification.
Knapped stone artefacts were supplemented with heavy-duty implements made on coarser rocks including quartz, granulite, and amphibolite. Salvage excavation will continue in order to connect the individual trenches, i.e. in the areas between
individual structures. This will aid a detailed study of spatial distribution and testing hypotheses concerning contemporaneity / non- contemporaneity of the individual structures.
The structure consists of a paved area and an adjoining northeastern fold – this shape is like some of the other documented stone structures.
In a similar vein to the previously excavated structures, the raw material spectrum consists of prevailing local raw materials including rock crystal, quartz, plasma, smoky quartz, and Krumlovský les-type chert, supplemented by imported erratic flint and radiolarite. The technological spectrum is characterized by abundant splintered artefacts that were used as bipolar anvil cores for microlithic blanks (Fig. 9.6, 9.7). The prevailing tool types are endscrapers (however, some of the pieces were used as cores for carenoidal blanks) and burins. Fourteen microlithic tools were identified
(Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths), however, their number may increase when the collection of small finds is systematically studied under magnification.
Knapped stone artefacts were supplemented with heavy-duty implements made on coarser rocks including quartz, granulite, and amphibolite. Salvage excavation will continue in order to connect the individual trenches, i.e. in the areas between
individual structures. This will aid a detailed study of spatial distribution and testing hypotheses concerning contemporaneity / non- contemporaneity of the individual structures.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Spatial Analysis, Hunters, Fishers and Gatherers' Archaeology, Rescue Archaeology, Paleolithic Europe, and 9 moreUpper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Settlement archaeology, Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Ochre, LGM, Chipped Stone Artefacts, and Stone Structures
The so-called "Tor Faraj (Jordan) 2003 Book" on complex data of Late Levantine Mousterian, including Levallois point production technology based on refits, and methodology of refitting analysis by Demidenko & Usik
Research Interests: Human Ecology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Human Evolution, Archaeological Science, and 47 moreLevantine Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, Archaeological Method & Theory, Levant Prehistory, Flint (Archaeology), Taphonomy, Prehistoric Settlement, Lithic Technology, Prehistoric Technology, Lithics, Neanderthals (Palaeolithic Archaeology), Mousterian, Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Lithic Refitting, Lithic taphonomy, Evolution and Human Behavior, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Lithic Resource Identification, Lithic Industries, Archaeology, Lithic analysis and organization of technology, Paleolithic, Flint Tools, Middle Paleolithic, Flint Technology, Projectile Points, Geoarchaeology and Lithic Studies, Stone tools, Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Analysis, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Flintknapping, Neanderthal Extinction, Levallois, Lithic Typology, Flint, Neanderthal subsistence, Chaîne Opératoire, Hunter-Gatherers, Refitting, Levallois technology, Lithic technology-Levallois, Flint Knapping, Levallois Tachnology, Meditteranean Archaeology, Levallois Method, and Levallois-Mousterian
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Aurignacian, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Upper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), and 3 moreGravettian, Experimental Archaeology x Lithics x Lithic Technology x Quartz industries x Typology x Archaeology x Archaeometry x Archaeological Method & Theory x Archaeological Science x Statistical Methods in Archaeology x, and Proto-Aurignacian
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Beregovo Proto-Aurignacian is not only characterized now by a complex logistic mobility system of a base camp and supplementing it workshops, firstly recognized such settlement pattern for European Proto-Aurignacian, but it probably... more
The Beregovo Proto-Aurignacian is not only characterized now by a complex logistic mobility system of a base camp and supplementing it workshops, firstly recognized such settlement pattern for European Proto-Aurignacian, but it probably extends beyond the Berehove area creating a larger Proto-Aurignacian network with some sites in Eastern
Slovakia as well.
Slovakia as well.
Research Interests:
Along with a few more Levantine sites having long Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sequences, Yabrud II rock-shelter in Syria received many controversial industrial-chronological interpretations. Matching together our new site’s... more
Along with a few more Levantine sites having long Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sequences, Yabrud II rock-shelter in Syria received many controversial industrial-chronological interpretations. Matching together our new site’s archaeological interpretations and data on the site’s single obsidian artifact found at layer 4, the following observations are proposed now.
The Emireh point is a triangular point, which distinctive bulb of percussion was eliminated with bifacial thinning applied to proximal part of the artefact. This point is a characteristic tool for the Emiran industries and up to yet... more
The Emireh point is a triangular point, which distinctive bulb of percussion was eliminated with bifacial thinning applied to proximal part of the artefact. This point is a characteristic tool for the Emiran industries and up to yet reported from Levantine sites only. Recently, an isolated Emireh point was excavated at Bohunician site Ořechov IV in South Moravia, ca 3,000 km as the crow flies from Levantine sites.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Microscopy, Palaeolithic Archaeology, Stone Age (Archaeology), Lithic Technology, and 14 moreLithics, Paleolithic Europe, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Upper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Paleolithic, Projectile Points, Paleolithic Archaeology, Archeology and History of Ancient Near East, Bohunician, Early Modern Humans, Initial Upper Paleolithic, and Initial upper palaeolithic
In the article, Eastern and Central European Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) specific Epiaurignacian industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths (EASMM) is discussed in terms of its lithic artefact fossil types. The proposed fossil types... more
In the article, Eastern and Central European Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) specific Epiaurignacian industry with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths (EASMM) is discussed in terms of its lithic artefact fossil types. The proposed fossil types are carinated atypical endscraper-cores and Sagaidak-Muralovkatype microliths. These two lithic artefact types with some other techno-typological features of the considering EASMM industry type make it distinct within the LGM Early Late UP archaeological context in both Eastern and Central Europe.
Research Interests:
Compared to the unparalleled cultural achievements and population boom of the Gravettian hunter-gatherers in Eastern Central Europe, the succeeding Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occupation is signified by extremely low populations densities,... more
Compared to the unparalleled cultural achievements and population boom of the Gravettian hunter-gatherers in
Eastern Central Europe, the succeeding Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occupation is signified by extremely low
populations densities, which is reflected in the scant archaeological record. This chrono-cultural contrast can be
generally attributed to the severe climatic downturn of the LGM. An attempt to find common cultural patterns
that could link individual LGM populations has been only partially successful. An evaluation of the environmental
factors using GIS and multivariate spatial analysis has tested twelve geomorphological characteristics and
has found a strong pattern where sites were chosen for their seclusion in small valleys and natural amphitheatres
probably because they offered partial protection from the elements. The overall difficulty in finding common
patterns between the scattered LGM populations is partly due to our gaps in knowledge of the cultural lifeways of
this period, but it is also due to a likely greater cultural heterogeneity of the scattered, small and highly mobile
LGM populations living in the cold, arid environment of Eastern Central Europe at the time.
Eastern Central Europe, the succeeding Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occupation is signified by extremely low
populations densities, which is reflected in the scant archaeological record. This chrono-cultural contrast can be
generally attributed to the severe climatic downturn of the LGM. An attempt to find common cultural patterns
that could link individual LGM populations has been only partially successful. An evaluation of the environmental
factors using GIS and multivariate spatial analysis has tested twelve geomorphological characteristics and
has found a strong pattern where sites were chosen for their seclusion in small valleys and natural amphitheatres
probably because they offered partial protection from the elements. The overall difficulty in finding common
patterns between the scattered LGM populations is partly due to our gaps in knowledge of the cultural lifeways of
this period, but it is also due to a likely greater cultural heterogeneity of the scattered, small and highly mobile
LGM populations living in the cold, arid environment of Eastern Central Europe at the time.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Geomorphology, Settlement Patterns, Paleolithic Europe, Paleolithic, and 9 moreRaw materials, Paleolithic Archaeology, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, GIS Software, Last Glacial Maximum, Raw Material Circulation Networks, Late Upper Palaeolithic, Chipped Stone Artefacts, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
A salvage excavation was conducted in harsh conditions to recover stone structure E (KSE). In spite of a very short time window available for digging, an area of 20 m 2 was completely excavated and the entire structure (KSE) was carefully... more
A salvage excavation was conducted in harsh conditions to recover stone structure E (KSE). In spite of a very short time window available for digging, an area of 20 m 2 was completely excavated and the entire structure (KSE) was carefully documented. Spatial distribution of artifacts closely follows the boundary of the paved area. The raw material spectrum is characterized by prevailing rock crystal, supplemented by quartz, plasma, erratic flint, radi-olarite, smoky quartz and Krumlovský les-type chert. The artifacts are similar to those recovered from KSA and KSB, including carinated atypical end-scraper-cores, bipolar anvil cores, and Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths. A detailed analysis of granulite used to construct the pavement structure indicates smoothing, abrasion, pounding marks, and flake removals-they probably served as pads for activities that we have not identified as yet.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Paleolithic Europe, Archaeological Methodology, and 9 moreUpper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Archaeological Excavation, Paleolithic, Paleolithic Archaeology, Epigravettian, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Rock Crystal, and Last Glacial Maximum
The Mohelno-Plevovce site is located in the valley of the Jihlava River, which is deeply incised into the Bohemian-Moravian Highland, ca. 30 km to the west of the present city of Brno. Due to its close proximity to a pumped-storage... more
The Mohelno-Plevovce site is located in the valley of the Jihlava River, which is deeply incised into the Bohemian-Moravian Highland, ca. 30 km to the west of the present city of Brno. Due to its close proximity to a pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant, the site is continually eroded by water level fluctuations on a daily basis, and thus regularly monitored by archaeologists. Until now, rescue excavations have uncovered two spatially separated paved areas-stone structures labeled A and B. These stone structures are associated with a peculiar lithic industry characterized by tiny microliths, produced on atypical carinated end scrapers/cores, and splintered tools/bipolar anvil cores. The artefacts were made from both local and exogenous rocks. The spatial distribution of finds follows the boundary of the pavement, suggesting a barrier effect. The structures are therefore interpreted as interior floor features of sheltered constructions-possibly huts.