- Email: [email protected]
Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian
Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian Janusz K. Koz1owski Jagiellonian University, Archaeology, Golebia 11, 31007 Krakow, Poland
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online xxx
The objective of this paper is to justify the hypothesis which claims the parallel development of two basic cultural traditions in the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe, namely the Micoquian and the Mousterian, staring from MIS 8. The origin of the Micoquian is probably complex: west of the “Movius line” the Micoquian was rooted in the classical Acheulian, but east of this line the bifacial technology was probably an independent innovation. Further development of the Micoquian, in MIS6, shows internal differentiation that gave rise to évolution buissonnante, manifested in the whole gamut of bifacial chaines operatoires, varying tool morphology, and different blank production methods. During MIS 5e, the number of Micoquian sites decreases, probably caused by the impeded access to raw materials in new, forested environments and difficulties in adapting Micoquian hunting strategies to interglacial environments. In MIS 5e in Central Europe, the most common facies of the Mousterian was Taubachian with microflake technology. The number of Micoquian sites increased again in MIS4 and the beginning of MIS3. This was also a period of further growing diversity of the Micoquian, continuing its évolution buissonnante. Instances of the Micoquian/Mousterian interstratification come from this time interval, but there are no grounds for the interpretation of these cases as functional differences of sites or various degrees of tool reduction, differing access to raw materials or adaptation strategies. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The criticism of such an interpretation of Bordes’ system arose from a variety of premises. For Binford and Binford (1966), who interpreted Mousterian tools (and generally Middle Palaeolithic tools) as “expedient” tools, the facieses distinguished on the basis of their relative frequency reflected the intensity of activities performed in a given place at a given time. Types of activities and their intensity were thought to have been determined by, first of all, environmental factors. L. Binford’s hypothesis, on the other hand, was criticised for its lack of correlation between Bordes’ tool types and specific activities (e.g. Shea, 1989; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990), and a lack of correlation between types of activities and types of environments, or a lack of evidence of synchronicity between the various facies of the Mousterian (Mellars, 1996). Another major critical trend that revealed the deficiencies of Bordes’ system was the hypothesis that interpreted some artefact types as stages of artefact reduction in agreement with “Frieson’s effect” (Dibble, 1995). Consequently, the Mousterian facies represent degree of intensity of tool use and tool rejuvenation. For the explanation of the Mousterian variability, both typological and technological, the role of other factors has also been emphasized, namely the raw material procurement systems (Binford, 1979),
For half a century, discussion has continued on the system of classification of tools and assemblages of the Middle Palaeolithic. The starting point for this discussion was the typological list formulated by Bordes (1961, 1966) which interpreted tool types found in Mousterian assemblages: Levalloisian blanks, Mousterian retouched tools (side-scrapers), Upper Palaeolithic tool types and notched-denticulated implements as intentional and final products. These tool types as non-random attribute combinations were supposed to be the expression of, most importantly, technologicalstylistic traditions. The cultural facies distinguished on the basis of such combinations were to be material expression of norms of behaviours in agreement with the normative empiricist inductive framework (Binford and Sabloff, 1982). Moreover, the distinguished facieses were identified with ethnic groups along the principles of European cultural-historical archaeology.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
2
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 1. Tool groups of the Central European Micoquian (MMO) with reference to the hypothesis on the seasonal variability between Mousterian and Micoquian (after Richter).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
3
Fig. 2. Sesselfelsgrotte: functional variability between summer (short stay camps) and winter (principal campsites) occupations in relations to seasonal migration routes (after Richter).
subsistence strategies, use and maintenance of tools based on life history of artefacts from raw material acquisition to discard (Audouze, 1999), and post-depositional factors (Shea and Klenck, 1993). The discussion summarized above concerned, primarily, the internal differentiation of the Mousterian with unifacial tools in its
Fig. 4. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 19 (AH 6). 1,2 e backed flakes (after Cyrek).
Fig. 3. Markkleeberg (Germany). “Jungacheuleen” ssemblage: 1,2 e bifacial tools, 3e5 e side scrapers, 6 e retouched blade, 7 e levalloisian core (after.
technological and typological aspects. The present paper, however, deals with another aspect of Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability: the difference between assemblages with bifacial and those with unifacial tools i.e. between the Micoquian and the Mousterian. This differentiation goes beyond the framework of Bordes’ classification, and concerns a different, more general, level of technotypological classification. This general level of differentiation of technological traditions had its beginnings in the Lower Palaeolithic, when the tradition of the unifacial and the bifacial technologies corresponded to successive waves of migrations to Europe of Homo erectus both from the Near East as well as from Maghreb. As the local evolution of these populations continued and pre-Neanderthal populations, first of all Homo heidelbergensis, evolved, the advance of technologies in the two traditions accelerated. It is only in the cold isotope stages of MIS 8 and 6 that, partly as the effect of adaptational processes, new anatomical forms developed: Proto-Neanderthal (Ante-Neanderthal) and Neanderthal proper forms. In these stages and in the warm stage separating them (MIS 7), further evolution of Lower Palaeolithic traditions into the Middle Palaeolithic units \took place. Moreover, their acumene spread to the territories as far as the European Lowlands (Otte, 2009). The boundary between these periods is fairly indistinct and temporally prolonged, much more so than the boundary between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic. This was, in all likelihood, caused by the fact that at the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition Europe saw the local anatomical and cultural evolution, whereas the Middle/Upper
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
4
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 5. Radiometrically dates sites from MIS 7.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
5
Fig. 6. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 15 (AH 4). 1,2 e asymmetric bifacially worked knives with natural backs (after Cyrek).
Palaeolithic boundary was related to the migration of anatomically Modern Humans to Europe. 2. Bifacial vs unifacial technologies Bifacial technologies formerly were regarded as a stage of cultural evolution earlier than the stage with unifacial tools. In time, it was established that unifacial techniques occurred in the Lower Palaeolithic parallel with bifacial technologies (e.g. Acheulian and Clactonian), not only in different territories (e.g. the famous “Movius Line” e Movius, 1948), but also in the same territories (e.g. in Italy). The continuation of the parallel evolution of unifacial and bifacial technologies in the Middle Palaeolithic across nearly the whole of Europe, is the opposition of the Mousterian on the one hand, and the Mousterian with Acheulian tradition (MTA) and the Micoquian on the other hand. The characteristic feature of the two latter complexes is the co-occurrence of bifacial tool shaping and the various flake technologies. The Micoquian is distinguished by its specific bifacial tools, mainly asymmetrical knives, described as the “Keilmesser Gruppe” (KMG e Bosinski, 1967, 2000e2001) or “Assemblages with Asymmetric Knives” (AAK e Urbanowski, 2003). As with the Mousterien, the Micoquian shows a number of taxonomic variants: of both regional as well as chronological importance. Recent investigations, notably in Poland, have contributed to the study of the interrelations, especially chronological, between the Mousterian and the Micoquian. Richter (1997, 2000) and Uthmeier (1998, 2000) attempted to account for the difference between the Mousterian and the Micoquian by their relative taxonomic position, wherein the Micoquian
was the more advanced phase of the Mousterian in terms of tool reduction and duration of tasks. These attempts tend to interpret Mousterian assemblages as a result of short-term site occupation episodes, while the Micoquian ones correspond with more longlasting habitations, appearing only in the Late phase of the Middle Palaeolithic. This hypothesis is based on the example of a stratigraphic sequence from ‘complex G’ in Sessfelsgrotte cave, where in the period from 50 to 45 ka, 13 interstratified cultural levels are present, both Mousterian and Micoquian, revealing different seasonal patterns for each of the two units (Richter, 2006). In some aspects, this theory refers to the hypothesis explaining differences between Middle Palaeolithic facies by the degree of side-scraper reduction which depended on the length of tool use-life and, consequently, on the site occupation timespan (Fig. 1). The connection suggested by J. Richter, between the seasonality of camps and the technotypological composition of inventories (with Mousterien representing spring-summer camps depending on circulating mobility, while Micoquian are summer-autumn camps depending on radiating mobility; Fig. 2), finds no confirmation in the archaeological record. From Central Europe, long-term Mousterian camps are known which are centrally placed, with production relying on uniform raw material, while at the same time there are short-term Micoquian camps with more diversified raw material composition. The interpretation of the taxonomic differences between bifacial (MTA, KMG) and Mousterian assemblages as resulting from the duration of site occupation and from other behaviours of Neanderthals connected with the exploitation of natural environment finds no confirmation, mainly due to the lack of technological transformation between unifacial and bifacial tools. Taking into
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
6
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 7. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 6.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
7
Fig. 8. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 14 (AH 3). 1, 4 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives on flint plaquettes, 2,3 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives with thinned distal ends (after Cyrek).
account that not all the tools were of the ‘expedient’ character, some of the ‘curated’ tools (work-consuming bifaces in particular) must surely have been carried from one settlement point to another. However, it is not known, for example, of homogenous Mousterian assemblages with single tools of MTA or Micoquian type. 3. Early Micoquian assemblages in Central Europe The Micoquian technological tradition (KMG), recorded over a vast area from France to the lower Volga basin, is much more widespread than the MTA tradition, as the latter is confined to Western Europe. In Western Europe, the ranges of the two cultural traditions overlap, as is best evidenced in Belgium or France (Farizy, 1995; Gouedo, 2001). Contrary to the view expressed by Otte (2001), that Micoquian episodes in Western Europe are intrusions from Central Europe, a possible independent Western European branch of the Micoquian should be considered. Its existence has been suggested by Gouedo (2001), who derived the Micoquian assemblages in Paris Basin dated to MIS 6, characterised by Levallois or even laminar technology (Vinneuf, Verriere-le-Buisson), from the Acheulean tradition. Also, the early asymmetric bifacial knives of Micoquian type from Mesvin IV in Belgium, occurring in the context of Levallois technology, are dated to 300e250 ka (Cahen et al., 1984), MIS 8. In Central Europe, MIS 8 assemblages with the Levallois technique that contain few hand axes of the Acheulean type, are described by Gerhard Bosinski as “Jungacheuleen”. This applies to the site of Markkleberg, which is a huge flint workshop (Fig. 3). The Proto-Levallois technological context was also recorded in assemblages from Poland, dated probably to MIS 8 (TL dated to more than 230 ka), known from layer 19ce19a (AH 8e7) and layer
19 (AH 6) in Bisnik Cave (Cyrek, 2010). In these layers, bifacial reduction is lacking, but thick backed flakes with curved backs and a side-scraper with surface retouch occur in layer 19 (Fig. 4). The appearance of typical Micoquian assemblages in Central Europe can be referred to the times not earlier than MIS 7 (Fig. 5). Layer 15 (AH4) in Bisnik Cave, dated using thermoluminescence (TL) to 195 35 ka (previously, the date of 216 25 ka has been cited; Cyrek, 2002) yielded, in the context of Levallois technology, Micoquian bifacial knives with natural backs (Fig. 6:1,2) (Cyrek, 2010; these tools have previously been associated with the AH5 assemblage; Cyrek, 2002). In MIS7 in Transcarpathian Ukraine, in the upper Tisa basin, bifacial tools in the form of large leaf points occur in a Levallois context, known from levels Vb and Va of the Korolevo II site (Gladiline and Sitlivy, 1990). Assemblages with bifacial tools of Micoquian type are even more widespread in MIS 6 (Penultimate Glaciation). In this period, apart from single hand axes (e.g. from Achenheim levels 15e17; Junkmans, 1991), rather scanty traces of hunting camps are known from the western part of Central Europe (including those in the vicinity of volcanoes; Schaffer, 1990; Conrad and Fischer, 2000) whose taxonomic attribution is uncertain. It is difficult to decide whether they represent ‘Jungacheuleen’ or Micoquian (KMG). Evident traces of Micoquian (KMG) from MIS6 (Warta stage) come from the south of Poland (Fig. 7), including two types of assemblages: a) From level 14 (AH 3) in Bisnik Cave, TL dated to between 224/ 195 and 139/81 ka. Characteristic of this level are, in the Levallois technological context, bifacial asymmetric knives side-scrapers on flint plaquettes (Fig. 8:1,4) and flakes, including a specimen with a fully bifacial processing and removals from the oblique, thinned distal end (podtylec in Polish)(Fig. 8:2,3). Also typical of this level are the numerous
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 9. Cyprzanów 49 (Poland). 1,2 e bifaces, 3e6 e bifacially worked asymmteric knives.
Fig. 10. Cyprzanów 49 (Poland). 1e3 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives, 4,5 e bifacially worked transversal side-scrapers.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
9
_ Fig. 11. Dzierzys1aw 1, lower loess layer. 1,2 e bifacially worked implements.
occurrences of backed flakes and denticulate tools (Cyrek, 2003). b) From the open-air site of Pietraszyn 49, where artefactscontaining alluvial sediments of the Warta stage were dated using OSL to 193e130 ka, MIS 6 (Fajer et al., 2001). The lithic industry contains only the tools formed by bifacial shaping of nodules or their fragments. Flakes, apart from a single Levallois specimen, most likely come from early stages of bifacial tools faconnage rather than from core reduction, which seems to be a characteristic trait, probably functional, of this assemblage. Bifacial tools are represented by symmetrical hand axes with a natural base (thermal or cortex), of plano-convex or rhomboidal section (Fig. 9:1,2). Amongst the asymmetrical bifacial kniveseside-scrapers there occur trapeze-shaped specimens resembling the Pra˛dnik type (but lacking a pseudo-burin scar), sub-triangular specimens resembling Bockstein type and specimens with partially blunted back and biconvex section (Fig. 9:3e6; 10:1e3). They are accompanied by side-scrapers with partially bifacial retouch, mostly trapeze-shaped, including specimens formed with Quina retouch (Fig. 10:4,5). Also present is a single discoid specimen of ‘groszak’ type (round scraper) and a series of bifacial half-products. As for the chrono-stratigraphic position of Pietraszyn 49 site, some doubts were raised concerning the association of artefacts with the dated alluvial sediment (Wisniewski, 2006). However, the presence of Micoquian tradition (KMG) in Silesia during MIS 6 has been confirmed by another, more modest assemblage from the site _ of Dzierzys1aw 1, discovered in the loess underlying Vistulian soils and solifluctions and TL dated to 180 35 ka. From this level a kind of a bifacial ‘Blattschber’ (Fig. 11:1) was found, with a fragment of an
asymmetric bifacial tool with plano-convex retouch (Fig. 11:2) (Foltyn et al., 2000). Cultural level IX recorded during recent excavations at Ciemna Cave (Ginter et al., 2012) is also likely from MIS 6, which yielded single bifacial elements in an uncertain context. Further to the east, no typical Micoquian assemblages are known from MIS 6, although in western Ukraine there exist (as in MIS 7) assemblages combining the Levallois technique with bifacial leaf points of biconvex section. This applies to the Veliki Glubochok site, where such artefacts occurred in the loess level (III) TL dated to 175 30 ka (Sitnik, 2000). These data suggest a hypothesis that the Micoquian cultural tradition developed independently in Western Europe, as a consequence of the development of Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean tradition, in the Levallois technological context. Micoquian industries in Central Europe (KMG) have another origin. They too are dominated by Levallois technological context, and bifacial technology can be derived only from ‘Jungacheuleen’, as Central Europe and the territories east of the Oder in particular, are situated beyond the ‘Movius line’ and have yielded only single hand axes of the Acheulean type, without context and precise chronology (Konradówka, Maków and others). In MIS 6, bifacial tools are represented on the borderlands of Central and Eastern Europe only by leaf points. 4. Classic Micoquian of the late Middle Palaeolithic in Central Europe Before MIS 5e, Micoquian is known mostly from the cooler periods (MIS 8, MIS 6), while from the last interglacial (MIS 5e) relatively few Micoquian sites are known, and their chronostratigraphical position is uncertain (Fig. 12). In Central Europe
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 12. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 5e.
Fig. 13. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 12 (AH 1). 1 e biface, 2 e asymmetric bifacial knife, 3 e biface-leaf point (after Cyrek).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
11
Central Europe (Fig. 16). Chronological and spatial diversity within the Micoquian tradition becomes noticeable (J.K. Koz1owski, 2006). There are several conceptions of internal taxonomy of the Micoquian complex (KMG) from the early Vistulian. Bosinski (1967) proposed distinguishing 5 groups for the territory of the presentday Germany, namely Bockstein, Klausennische and Buhlen for the uplands, and Königsaue and Lebenstedt for the lowlands (Mania and Töpfer 1973, Bosinski, 2000–2001). For the territory of Poland, J.K. Koz1owski and S.K. Koz1owski (1996) proposed discerning 4 groups: Bockstein (or Skalien), for Ciemna (Ojcowien) and Wylotne for the uplands, and Zwolen the lowlands. Both classifications are based on techno-typological features of bifacial forms, allowing an attempt to combine them and distinguish between upland and lowland assemblages. To the first group belong:
Fig. 14. Piekary III (Poland). Biface (after Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski).
these are primarily the materials from Bisnik Cave from layer 13 (AH 2), TL dated to 126 25 ka and layer 12 (AH 1) dated to 122 22 ka (Cyrek, 2002), as well as single bifacial artefacts discovered in clay layers probably of interglacial age from Piekary I layer 5 and Piekary III layer 8 (Sachse-Kozlowska and Koz1owski. 2004). In Bisnik Cave, if the AH2 inventory is not very typical (Cyrek, 2002 pl.XXV), then AH1 inventory contains bifacial forms including a sub-triangular hand axe (Fig. 13:1) (Cyrek, 2010 pl.VII 1), asymmetric bifacial knives (Fig. 13:2) and a bifacial tool of the transitory form between hand axe and leaf point (Fig. 13:3) (Cyrek, 2002, pl.XXIV). The technological context is typically Levallois, although the suggested denticulate retouches on flakes may be post-depositional pseudo-retouches. From Piekary I and III come single specimens of bifacial Micoquian forms. Piekary III has a small, asymmetrical hand axe (Fig. 14), while the bifacial form from Piekary I has been lost. To the interglacial sites containing bifacial specimens belongs Malyi, a site from the Carpathian Basin, included by Ringer (2002) as ‘Babonyen’, supposedly occurring in M1 soil developed between two loess layers, the lower of which dates to 157 23 ka while the upper to 101 9 and 85 7 ka. Babonyen is characterised by non-Levallois technique and the presence of triangular bifaces, asymmetric bifacial knives and Faustkeilblatt (Fig. 15:1e3). If the Micoquian traces from MIS 5e are sparse, then in the early Vistulian climate oscillations, i.e. during the alternate cooler (MIS 5d, MIS 5b and MIS 4 e Lower Pleniglacial) and warmer (MIS 5c, MIS 5a and early MIS 3 e Interpleniglacial) periods, Micoquian assemblages become more numerous in the northern part of
Fig. 15. Sajobabony (Hungary). 1 e side-scraper, 2 e biface, 3 e partially bifacial knife (after Ringer).
a) Bockstein group is characterised by typical Bockstein knives (triangular both in outline and section) and a series of hand axes, usually small, ‘Halbkeile’ (plano-convex) and ‘Faustkeilblatter’. In Poland, similar types occur in Piekary I [Jama Cave e Ossowski’s excavations, layer 3/2 from Krukowski’s excavations, Piekary IIE and Piekary III layer 7 (Skalien according to Krukowski, 1939e1945) (Fig. 17:1e5)]. The loess sequence associates the sites at Piekary with early Vistulian (probably from phase MIS 5a to the beginning of MIS 3). Unfortunately, there are no data as to the age and homogeneity of another site with Bockstein knives and partially bifacial trapeze-shaped knives at the Okiennik Cave. These tools were found in non-Levallois context with few discoidal and sub-discoidal cores (Fig. 18:1e 12). All the sites yielded flake tools, side-scrapers and groszaks in particular. b) Klausenniche group is characterised mainly by trapeze-shaped bifacial knives on flint plaquettes, as well as triangular hand axes. Faustkeile, Halbkeile and leaf-shaped hand axes. In German assemblages, flake tools are rare, although prepared cores are recorded. In the territory of Poland, a sequence from Wylotne Cave refers to this facies (which also covers early Vistulian): from layer 8/7 through layer 6 to layer 5 (Chmielewski, 1975; S.K. Kozlowski, 2006). Assemblages from these layers are characterised by a similar proportion of large bifaces (of various types: triangular, oval, cordiform e Fig. 19:1; 20:3) and asymmetrical knives (often on plaquettes e Fig. 19:2,3; 20:1,2), the presence of groszakis (Fig. 20:4) and the increasing share of side-scrapers (especially in layers 6 and 5), including the specimens of Quina type. Bifacial tools trace a complete manufacturing cycle from nodules or their fragments to discarded or re-used specimens (Fig. 21). In the youngest layer (5) were discovered trapeze-shaped specimens with thinned distal end (podtylec) similar to the Pra˛ dnik type knives (Jackowska, 2006), which gave rise to the assumption that the facies in question evolved from Buhlen-Ciemna group. On the other hand, East-European analogies known for bifacial tools and the discovery in Kraków (Kopernika street - Kowalski, 1967) of an asymmetrical bifacial knife made from flint originating from the Volynian Plateau may suggest eastern connections. c) Buhlen group, known from Buhlen IIIb and Balve III (Fig. 22:1e 3), is characterised by the numerous cases of typical Pra˛ dnik knives (Sobczyk, 1975; Kulakovska et al., 1993). These are asymmetrical specimens, trapeze-shaped, with a distinctly curved back, and the top thinned by parallel removals, including those with sharpened lateral edges (by the removal of pseudo-burin spall). In Poland, an equivalent to this group is the assemblage from layer 6 of Ciemna Cave, discovered in sediments contemporary with the beginning of the
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
12
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 16. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 5c-3.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 17. Piekary III (Poland), layer 7. 1e4 e bifaces, 5 e asymmetric bifacial knife (after Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski).
Fig. 18. Okiennik Cave (Poland). 1 e biface, 2 e Bockstein knife, 3,5e7 e side-scrapers, 4 e Königsaue knife, 8e12 e grochakis, 13 e raclette (after Koz1owski and Koz1owski).
Fig. 19. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland) layer 7e8. 1e biface, 2, 3 e bifacial asymmetric knives, (after Kozlowski and Koz1owski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
14
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 20. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland). 1,2 e bifacial asymmetric knives, 3 e biface, 4 e grochak (after Koz1owski and Koz1owski).
sedimentation of the lower Pleniglacial (MIS 4) loess. Technological context of the Ciemna Cave assemblage is based on the manufacture of flakes from single-platform, unprepared cores. The Levallois technique is present, but the majority of flakes regarded as Levallois originate probably from bifacial reduction. Asymmetric bifacial knives of typical Pradnik type are numerous (Fig. 23:1e7). Side-scrapers are also numerous and morphologically diversified. Groszakis are a constant element in the inventory. Numerous pseudo-burin spalls from resharping of Pradnik knives are also present (Fig. 23:8e10). New excavations in the interior of Ciemna Cave allow two stages of the Micoquian occupation to be distinguished, namely levels III and IV. Level III and the ‘main cultural level’ from S. Krukowski’s excavations yielded dates corresponding to MIS3, around 41 ka (Ginter et al., 2012).
the site in the context of side-scrapers with surface retouch and very few indicators of the Levallois technique (Tomaszewski, 2005). Apart from the Micoquian groups in the uplands and the northern part of Central European lowlands, Micoquian sites also appear in the Carpathian Basin and the middle Danube Basin (Gábori, 1976). Examples are assemblages from levels 9b and 7c/ 7alpha/7a/6a from Kulna cave in Moravia (Valoch, 2000), dated between 75 and 45 ka (MIS 4/3). The assemblages from Kulna (7a in particular) yielded small sub-triangular bifaces, asymmetrical bifacial knives of Bockstein type and those resembling Pra˛dnik type. Of particular importance is the discovery of the teeth of Neanderthal in layer 7a. Micoquian sites are known from the White Carpathians, as well.
5. Relations between Micoquian and Mousterian To the Micoquian (KMG) assemblages of the lowland zone belong the Konigsaue and Salzgitter-Lebenstedt groups identified by Gerhard Bosinski (2000e2001) and, in Poland, the Zwolen group. The lowland groups with bifaces and asymmetric knivese side-scrapers are characterised by the presence of bifacial leaf points, both asymmetric (Königsaue A) and more symmetric (Sal , where the TL zgitter-Lebenstedt). Similar forms occur at Zwolen dated assemblages from periods MIS 5a (85e75 Kyr BP) and early MIS 4 (ca. 70 Kyr BP) represent specialised killing/butchering places , sub-triangular and almond-shaped bi(Schild, 2005). At Zwolen faces (Fig. 24:1e4) occur in the lower, middle and upper levels of
The Micoquian is a separate entity whose development from period MIS 8 to MIS 3 followed the pattern of ‘evolution buissonante’. The long-lasting continuation of this technological tradition and its presence in various environments and functional contexts speaks for considering Micoquian as more than just a type of Mousterian. At the same time, there are sequences of Middle Palaeolithic sites where both Micoquian and Mousterian are present. In the western part of Central Europe, an example of the interstratification of the two units comes from the Königsaue site, where Micoquian
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
15
Fig. 21. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland), layer 5. Initial stages of shaping bifacial tools (after Jackowska).
Fig. 22. Buhlen III (Germany. 1e3 e Pradnik knives (after Bosinski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
16
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 23. Ciemna Cave (Poland) layer 6. 1e7 e Pradnik knives, 8e10 e pseudo-burin spalls.
levels A and C are separated by level B e Mousterian with Levallois technology (Mania, 1975). In Poland, the Micoquian/Mousterian sequence is known from the complex of sites at Piekary (Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski, 2004), although the chronology of Middle Palaeolithic levels is
not unambiguous there (Fig. 25). Based on litostratigraphical criteria, Micoquian episodes may be dated to a longer period (starting from Eemian levels from Piekary I - layer 3 and Piekary III layer 7 to the entire early Vistulian sequence e MIS 5d-a/4 at Piekary I e layers 3/2 and at Piekary III layer 7). They might be
Fig. 24. Zwolen (Poland). 1 e bifacial asymmetric knife, 2e4 e bifaces (after Tomaszewski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
17
Fig. 25. Micoquian/Mousterian sequences of the open air sites Piekary and Zwierzyniec.
interrupted by short Mousterian episodes characterised by entirely different technology (Levallois and blade one). On the other hand, TL dates suggest dating the whole of Levallois-Moustierian levels to the period corresponding with the warming at the beginning of MIS 3, i.e. later than Micoquian whose chronology corresponds with MIS 5 (Interglacial/Early Glacial). An inverse Micoquian/Mousterian sequence was recorded on the Kraków-Zwierzyniec site, where the Eemian level (layers 2,3) contained small Levallois-Mousterian assemblages, while the redeposited loess (layer 11) yielded a more concentrated Micoquian assemblage from early MIS3. The sequence ended with Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with leaf points. In cave sites, Mousterian is usually earlier than Micoquian (Fig. 26); this applies to the sequences from Nietoperzowa and Ciemna Caves. Only in Koziarnia Cave is the sequence inverted: within the layers of probably MIS 5 origin, Mousterian is deposited higher than Micoquian. However, there are sites where both entities occur alternatively, either over a longer timespan (as in Bisnik Cave) or over a short period (as in ‘complex G’ of Sesselfels cave). As for Bisnik Cave, in
some layers the rate of sedimentation was too slow to distinguish individual settlement phases of the two complexes (this applies to levels A1, A2, A3 and A4). Only units A5, B, C and D are purely Mousterian, and units A3, E, F possibly purely Micoquian (Fig. 27). Cultural levels in Sesselfels cave are more easily discernible, probably due to the rate of sedimentation during early MIS 3. However, it cannot be ruled out that some levels could represent a Micoquian-Mousterian palimpsest. In Eastern Europe, examples of Micoquian-Mousterian interstratifications are also known (e.g. in Jezupil, where Mousterian layer III with Levallois technique is deposited below Micoquian layer II, in a buried soil dated to ca. 100 ka; Sitnik, 2000). In the Crimea, in early phase of MIS 3, Western Crimean Mousterian is contemporary with Micoquian variants (Akkaya, Starosiele and Kiik Koba) (Marks and Chabai, 1998). 6. Conclusions The goal of this paper was to show a parallel development, probably beginning from MIS 8, of the two basic techno-typological
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
18
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 26. Micoquian/Mousterian sequences of Cave sites in Poland.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
19
Fig. 27. Micoquian/Mousterian interstratifications in Bisnik Cave and chronological position of TL/AMS dated sites in Poland.
traditions in the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe: the Micoquian and the Mousterian. The origin of the Micoquian tradition may be complex. In the territories to the west of the Rhine, it may have developed from Acheulean, while to the east of the ‘Movius line’ it appeared independently from the classic Acheulean, perhaps with some influence from ‘Jungachaeuleen’ and other units. The further development of Micoquian in MIS 6 is characterised by a differentiation which marks the beginning of the ‘evolution buissonante’ of this unit. This is manifested by various reduction cycles of bifacial tools, tools morphology and differences in flake blanks production. MIS 5 (especially 5e) was characterised by a reduced Micoquian frequency, which may be explained by impeded access to larger nodules of lithic raw material due to thicker ground cover, especially forests. This factor also influenced the possibility of the adaptation of Micoquian hunting strategies to interglacial conditions. Therefore, Mousterian facies, especially those based on the micro-flake technique (Taubachien), became predominant in Central Europe.
The development of Micoquian gained momentum again in MIS 4 and early MIS 3 when this tradition underwent further technotypological differentiation that reflected its ‘evolution buissonante’. From this period come the most numerous examples of Micoquian-Mousterian interstratification. However, the differences between the two traditions that might be interpreted as differences in site functioning, stage of tools reduction, or various adaptation strategies find no confirmation. The most important factor which created the taxonomic differences between the Mousterian and the Micoquian were particular techno-morphological traditions, in some cases reinforced by the different access to lithic resources. References Anderson-Gerfaud, F.,1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic. Functional analysis of some sites from southwestern France. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389e418. Audouze, F., 1999. New advances in French Prehistory. Antiquity 73, 167e175. Binford, L., 1979. Organization and formation process. Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255e273.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
20
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Binford, S., Binford, L., 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68 (2), 238e295. Binford, L., Sabloff, J., 1982. Paradigms, systematics and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38, 137e153. Bordes, F., 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134. Bordes, F., 1966. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. CNRS, Paris. Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpaläolithische Funde in westlichen Mitteleuropa. In: Fundamenta, A4. Köln. Bosinski, G., 2000-2001. The Middle Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Zephyrus 53-54, 79e142. Chmielewski, W., 1975. Paleolit srodkowy i dolny. In: Hensel, W. (Ed.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, vol. 1. Ossolineum, Wroc1aw. Cahen, D., Haesearts, P., Szabo, B., Van Neer, W., Wanet, P., 1984. An Early Middle Palaeolithic site Mesvin IV (Mans, Belgium). Its significance for stratigraphy and palaeontology. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 55, 1e20. Conrad, N., Fischer, B., 2000. Are there recognizable cultural entities in the German Middle Palaeolithic. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Before Modern Humans 400e50 ka, British Archaeological Reports International Series, pp. 7e 24. Cyrek, K., 2002. Jaskinia Bisnik Rekonstrukcja zasiedlenia jaskini na tle zmian srodowiska przyrodniczego. Uniwersytet M.Kopernika, Torun. Cyrek, K., 2003. Bisnik Cave: a reconstruction of the site’s occupation in the context of environmental changes. Eurasian Prehistory 1, 5e29. Cyrek, K., 2010. The Bisnik Cave in Southern Poland. Reconstruction of the Palaeolithic Cave habitation in relation to the environmental changes. In: Burdukiewicz, M., Wisniewski, A. (Eds.), Middle Palaeolithic Human Activity and Palaeoecology: New Discoveries and Ideas. Uniwersytet, Wroc1aw, pp. 69e93. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Palaeolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (4), 299e368. Fajer, M., Foltyn, E., Koz1owski, J.K., 2001. Contribution à l’évolution du Micoquien en Europe Centrale: nouvelles decouvertes du Micoquien en Haute Silesie (Pologne). In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les industires à outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen en Euriope occidentale, ERAUL, 98, pp. 195e208. Farizy, C., 1995. Industries charentiennes à influence micoquienne, l’exemple de l’est de la France. In: Les industries à pointes foliacées d’Europe Centrale. Paléo, supplement, pp. 173e178. Foltyn, E.M., Foltyn, E., Koz1owski, J.K., 2000. Première evidence de l’age pre-eemien des industries à pièces bifaciales asymetriques en Europe Centrale. In: Ronen, A., Weinsteuin-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, British Archaeological Reports Int. Series 850. Gábori, M., 1976. Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen entre les Alpes et l’Oural. Esquisse historique. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Ginter, B., Sobczyk, K., Stefanski, D., Valde-Nowak, P., Zaja˛ c, M., 2012. Current report on Ciemna Cave Project. Excavations 2007-2011. In: Hugo Obermaier Gesellschaft. 54th Annual Meeting Toulouse, 16,17. Gladiline, V., Sitlivy, V., 1990. Achel Tsentralnoy Evropy. Naoukova Doumka, Kiev. Gouedo, J.M., 2001. Les bifaces micoquiens de Vinneuf et de Verbieres-le-Buisson (Bassin Parisien): comparaisons avec des bifaces provenant de gisements acheuléens du Nord-Est de l’Europe. ERAUL 98, 179e198. Jackowska, K., 2006. Wylotne rockshelter, layer 5. In: Kozlowski, S.K. (Ed.), Wylotne and Zwierzyniec Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Poland. PAU, Kraków, pp.161e224. Junkmans, J., 1991. Die Steinartefakte aus Achenheim in der Sammlung Paul Wernert. Archaologische Korespondenzblatt 21, 1e16. _ Kowalski, S., 1967. Wazne znalezisko paleolityczne z ulicy Kopernika w Krakowie. Materia1y Archeologiczne 8, 33e37. Koz1owski, J.K., 2006. Les Neandertaliens en Europe Centrale. In: Neanderthals in Europe. ERAUL 117, 77e90. Kozlowski, S.K., 2006. Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Poland. PAU, Krakow.
Koz1owski, J.K., Koz1owski, S.K., 1996. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Pologne. Millon, Geneve. Krukowski, S., 1939e1945. Paleolit Polski. PAU, Kraków. Kulakovskaya, L., Koz1owski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 1993. Les couteaux micoquiens du Wurm ancien. Préhistoire Européenne 4, 9e32. Mania, D., 1975. Stratigraphie, Oekologie und Paläolithikum des Weichselfrühglazials im mittleren Elbe-Saale-Gebiet. Swiatowit 34, 81e138. Mania, D., Töpfer, V., 1973. Königsause. Gliederung, Okologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit. Berlin. Marks, A.E., Chabai, V.P., 1998. The Middle Palaeolithic of Western Crimea. ERAUL 84. Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Movius, L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 38, 329e420. Otte, M., 2001. Micoquien et ses derivés. ERAUL 98, 173e178. Otte, M., 2009. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe. Armand Collin, Paris. Richter, J., 1997. Das G-Schichten Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verständiss des Micoquien. Quartär-Bibliothek 7. Richter, J., 2000. Social memory among the Neanderthals. In: Orschiedt, J., Weninger, G. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans- Discussing the Transition. Neanderthal Museum, pp. 123e132. Richter, J., 2006. Neanderthals and their landscape in Neanderthals in Europe. ERAUL 117, 51e66. Ringer, A., 2002. The chronostratigraphy and Palaeo-human ecology of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Northern Hungary between 130 000 and 10 000 years. Praehistoria 3, 39e46. Sachse-Koz1owska, E., Koz1owski, S.K. (Eds.), 2004. Piekary près de Cracovie (Pologne). Complexe des sites paléolithiques. PAU, Krakow. Schaffer, J., 1990. Conjoining artefacts and consideration of raw material, their application at the Middle Palaeolithic site of the Schweinkopf-Karmelenberg. In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N., Winter, E. (Eds.), The Big Puzzle, pp. 85e100. Schild, R., 2005. The Killing Fields of Zwolen. a Middle Palaeolithic Kill-butcherysite in Central Poland. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Warszawa. Shea, J., 1989. A functional study of the lithic industries associated with hominid fossils in Kebara and Quafzeh caves, Israel. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution. Behavioural and Biological Perspectives in the Origins of Modern Humans. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 611e625. Shea, J., Klenck, J., 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 175e194. Sitnik, O., 2000. Sredniy paleolit Poddilia. Akademia Nauk, Lvov. Sobczyk, K., 1975. Problem pra˛ dnika w swietle tzksonomii numerycznej. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 27. : Tomaszewski, A.J., 2005. Lithic finds. In: Schild, R. (Ed.), The Killing Field of Zwolen a Middle Palaeolithic Kill-butchery-site in Central Poland. Institute of Archeology and Ethnology, Warszawa, pp. 139e190. Urbanowski, M., 2003. Pra˛dnik Knives as Element of Micoquian Techno-stylistic Specifics (PhD thesis). Warsaw University. Uthmeier, T.H., 1998. Micoquian, Aurignacian and Gravettian in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Ubergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum. Koln. Uthmeier, Th, 2000. Stone tools, “Time of activity”, and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Bavaria (Germany). In: Ortschedt, J., Weniger, C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans- Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50 000e30 000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, pp. 133e150. Valoch, K., 2000. Le Micoquien et les premières industries laminaires en Moravie. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans, the Yabrudian and the Micoquian (4000e50 k-years Ago), British Archaeological Reports Int. Series 850, pp. 173e180. Wisniewski, A., 2006. Srodkowy paleolit w dolinie Odry. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu, Wroc1aw.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian Janusz K. Koz1owski Jagiellonian University, Archaeology, Golebia 11, 31007 Krakow, Poland
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online xxx
The objective of this paper is to justify the hypothesis which claims the parallel development of two basic cultural traditions in the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe, namely the Micoquian and the Mousterian, staring from MIS 8. The origin of the Micoquian is probably complex: west of the “Movius line” the Micoquian was rooted in the classical Acheulian, but east of this line the bifacial technology was probably an independent innovation. Further development of the Micoquian, in MIS6, shows internal differentiation that gave rise to évolution buissonnante, manifested in the whole gamut of bifacial chaines operatoires, varying tool morphology, and different blank production methods. During MIS 5e, the number of Micoquian sites decreases, probably caused by the impeded access to raw materials in new, forested environments and difficulties in adapting Micoquian hunting strategies to interglacial environments. In MIS 5e in Central Europe, the most common facies of the Mousterian was Taubachian with microflake technology. The number of Micoquian sites increased again in MIS4 and the beginning of MIS3. This was also a period of further growing diversity of the Micoquian, continuing its évolution buissonnante. Instances of the Micoquian/Mousterian interstratification come from this time interval, but there are no grounds for the interpretation of these cases as functional differences of sites or various degrees of tool reduction, differing access to raw materials or adaptation strategies. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The criticism of such an interpretation of Bordes’ system arose from a variety of premises. For Binford and Binford (1966), who interpreted Mousterian tools (and generally Middle Palaeolithic tools) as “expedient” tools, the facieses distinguished on the basis of their relative frequency reflected the intensity of activities performed in a given place at a given time. Types of activities and their intensity were thought to have been determined by, first of all, environmental factors. L. Binford’s hypothesis, on the other hand, was criticised for its lack of correlation between Bordes’ tool types and specific activities (e.g. Shea, 1989; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990), and a lack of correlation between types of activities and types of environments, or a lack of evidence of synchronicity between the various facies of the Mousterian (Mellars, 1996). Another major critical trend that revealed the deficiencies of Bordes’ system was the hypothesis that interpreted some artefact types as stages of artefact reduction in agreement with “Frieson’s effect” (Dibble, 1995). Consequently, the Mousterian facies represent degree of intensity of tool use and tool rejuvenation. For the explanation of the Mousterian variability, both typological and technological, the role of other factors has also been emphasized, namely the raw material procurement systems (Binford, 1979),
For half a century, discussion has continued on the system of classification of tools and assemblages of the Middle Palaeolithic. The starting point for this discussion was the typological list formulated by Bordes (1961, 1966) which interpreted tool types found in Mousterian assemblages: Levalloisian blanks, Mousterian retouched tools (side-scrapers), Upper Palaeolithic tool types and notched-denticulated implements as intentional and final products. These tool types as non-random attribute combinations were supposed to be the expression of, most importantly, technologicalstylistic traditions. The cultural facies distinguished on the basis of such combinations were to be material expression of norms of behaviours in agreement with the normative empiricist inductive framework (Binford and Sabloff, 1982). Moreover, the distinguished facieses were identified with ethnic groups along the principles of European cultural-historical archaeology.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
2
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 1. Tool groups of the Central European Micoquian (MMO) with reference to the hypothesis on the seasonal variability between Mousterian and Micoquian (after Richter).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
3
Fig. 2. Sesselfelsgrotte: functional variability between summer (short stay camps) and winter (principal campsites) occupations in relations to seasonal migration routes (after Richter).
subsistence strategies, use and maintenance of tools based on life history of artefacts from raw material acquisition to discard (Audouze, 1999), and post-depositional factors (Shea and Klenck, 1993). The discussion summarized above concerned, primarily, the internal differentiation of the Mousterian with unifacial tools in its
Fig. 4. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 19 (AH 6). 1,2 e backed flakes (after Cyrek).
Fig. 3. Markkleeberg (Germany). “Jungacheuleen” ssemblage: 1,2 e bifacial tools, 3e5 e side scrapers, 6 e retouched blade, 7 e levalloisian core (after.
technological and typological aspects. The present paper, however, deals with another aspect of Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability: the difference between assemblages with bifacial and those with unifacial tools i.e. between the Micoquian and the Mousterian. This differentiation goes beyond the framework of Bordes’ classification, and concerns a different, more general, level of technotypological classification. This general level of differentiation of technological traditions had its beginnings in the Lower Palaeolithic, when the tradition of the unifacial and the bifacial technologies corresponded to successive waves of migrations to Europe of Homo erectus both from the Near East as well as from Maghreb. As the local evolution of these populations continued and pre-Neanderthal populations, first of all Homo heidelbergensis, evolved, the advance of technologies in the two traditions accelerated. It is only in the cold isotope stages of MIS 8 and 6 that, partly as the effect of adaptational processes, new anatomical forms developed: Proto-Neanderthal (Ante-Neanderthal) and Neanderthal proper forms. In these stages and in the warm stage separating them (MIS 7), further evolution of Lower Palaeolithic traditions into the Middle Palaeolithic units \took place. Moreover, their acumene spread to the territories as far as the European Lowlands (Otte, 2009). The boundary between these periods is fairly indistinct and temporally prolonged, much more so than the boundary between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic. This was, in all likelihood, caused by the fact that at the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition Europe saw the local anatomical and cultural evolution, whereas the Middle/Upper
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
4
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 5. Radiometrically dates sites from MIS 7.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
5
Fig. 6. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 15 (AH 4). 1,2 e asymmetric bifacially worked knives with natural backs (after Cyrek).
Palaeolithic boundary was related to the migration of anatomically Modern Humans to Europe. 2. Bifacial vs unifacial technologies Bifacial technologies formerly were regarded as a stage of cultural evolution earlier than the stage with unifacial tools. In time, it was established that unifacial techniques occurred in the Lower Palaeolithic parallel with bifacial technologies (e.g. Acheulian and Clactonian), not only in different territories (e.g. the famous “Movius Line” e Movius, 1948), but also in the same territories (e.g. in Italy). The continuation of the parallel evolution of unifacial and bifacial technologies in the Middle Palaeolithic across nearly the whole of Europe, is the opposition of the Mousterian on the one hand, and the Mousterian with Acheulian tradition (MTA) and the Micoquian on the other hand. The characteristic feature of the two latter complexes is the co-occurrence of bifacial tool shaping and the various flake technologies. The Micoquian is distinguished by its specific bifacial tools, mainly asymmetrical knives, described as the “Keilmesser Gruppe” (KMG e Bosinski, 1967, 2000e2001) or “Assemblages with Asymmetric Knives” (AAK e Urbanowski, 2003). As with the Mousterien, the Micoquian shows a number of taxonomic variants: of both regional as well as chronological importance. Recent investigations, notably in Poland, have contributed to the study of the interrelations, especially chronological, between the Mousterian and the Micoquian. Richter (1997, 2000) and Uthmeier (1998, 2000) attempted to account for the difference between the Mousterian and the Micoquian by their relative taxonomic position, wherein the Micoquian
was the more advanced phase of the Mousterian in terms of tool reduction and duration of tasks. These attempts tend to interpret Mousterian assemblages as a result of short-term site occupation episodes, while the Micoquian ones correspond with more longlasting habitations, appearing only in the Late phase of the Middle Palaeolithic. This hypothesis is based on the example of a stratigraphic sequence from ‘complex G’ in Sessfelsgrotte cave, where in the period from 50 to 45 ka, 13 interstratified cultural levels are present, both Mousterian and Micoquian, revealing different seasonal patterns for each of the two units (Richter, 2006). In some aspects, this theory refers to the hypothesis explaining differences between Middle Palaeolithic facies by the degree of side-scraper reduction which depended on the length of tool use-life and, consequently, on the site occupation timespan (Fig. 1). The connection suggested by J. Richter, between the seasonality of camps and the technotypological composition of inventories (with Mousterien representing spring-summer camps depending on circulating mobility, while Micoquian are summer-autumn camps depending on radiating mobility; Fig. 2), finds no confirmation in the archaeological record. From Central Europe, long-term Mousterian camps are known which are centrally placed, with production relying on uniform raw material, while at the same time there are short-term Micoquian camps with more diversified raw material composition. The interpretation of the taxonomic differences between bifacial (MTA, KMG) and Mousterian assemblages as resulting from the duration of site occupation and from other behaviours of Neanderthals connected with the exploitation of natural environment finds no confirmation, mainly due to the lack of technological transformation between unifacial and bifacial tools. Taking into
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
6
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 7. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 6.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
7
Fig. 8. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 14 (AH 3). 1, 4 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives on flint plaquettes, 2,3 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives with thinned distal ends (after Cyrek).
account that not all the tools were of the ‘expedient’ character, some of the ‘curated’ tools (work-consuming bifaces in particular) must surely have been carried from one settlement point to another. However, it is not known, for example, of homogenous Mousterian assemblages with single tools of MTA or Micoquian type. 3. Early Micoquian assemblages in Central Europe The Micoquian technological tradition (KMG), recorded over a vast area from France to the lower Volga basin, is much more widespread than the MTA tradition, as the latter is confined to Western Europe. In Western Europe, the ranges of the two cultural traditions overlap, as is best evidenced in Belgium or France (Farizy, 1995; Gouedo, 2001). Contrary to the view expressed by Otte (2001), that Micoquian episodes in Western Europe are intrusions from Central Europe, a possible independent Western European branch of the Micoquian should be considered. Its existence has been suggested by Gouedo (2001), who derived the Micoquian assemblages in Paris Basin dated to MIS 6, characterised by Levallois or even laminar technology (Vinneuf, Verriere-le-Buisson), from the Acheulean tradition. Also, the early asymmetric bifacial knives of Micoquian type from Mesvin IV in Belgium, occurring in the context of Levallois technology, are dated to 300e250 ka (Cahen et al., 1984), MIS 8. In Central Europe, MIS 8 assemblages with the Levallois technique that contain few hand axes of the Acheulean type, are described by Gerhard Bosinski as “Jungacheuleen”. This applies to the site of Markkleberg, which is a huge flint workshop (Fig. 3). The Proto-Levallois technological context was also recorded in assemblages from Poland, dated probably to MIS 8 (TL dated to more than 230 ka), known from layer 19ce19a (AH 8e7) and layer
19 (AH 6) in Bisnik Cave (Cyrek, 2010). In these layers, bifacial reduction is lacking, but thick backed flakes with curved backs and a side-scraper with surface retouch occur in layer 19 (Fig. 4). The appearance of typical Micoquian assemblages in Central Europe can be referred to the times not earlier than MIS 7 (Fig. 5). Layer 15 (AH4) in Bisnik Cave, dated using thermoluminescence (TL) to 195 35 ka (previously, the date of 216 25 ka has been cited; Cyrek, 2002) yielded, in the context of Levallois technology, Micoquian bifacial knives with natural backs (Fig. 6:1,2) (Cyrek, 2010; these tools have previously been associated with the AH5 assemblage; Cyrek, 2002). In MIS7 in Transcarpathian Ukraine, in the upper Tisa basin, bifacial tools in the form of large leaf points occur in a Levallois context, known from levels Vb and Va of the Korolevo II site (Gladiline and Sitlivy, 1990). Assemblages with bifacial tools of Micoquian type are even more widespread in MIS 6 (Penultimate Glaciation). In this period, apart from single hand axes (e.g. from Achenheim levels 15e17; Junkmans, 1991), rather scanty traces of hunting camps are known from the western part of Central Europe (including those in the vicinity of volcanoes; Schaffer, 1990; Conrad and Fischer, 2000) whose taxonomic attribution is uncertain. It is difficult to decide whether they represent ‘Jungacheuleen’ or Micoquian (KMG). Evident traces of Micoquian (KMG) from MIS6 (Warta stage) come from the south of Poland (Fig. 7), including two types of assemblages: a) From level 14 (AH 3) in Bisnik Cave, TL dated to between 224/ 195 and 139/81 ka. Characteristic of this level are, in the Levallois technological context, bifacial asymmetric knives side-scrapers on flint plaquettes (Fig. 8:1,4) and flakes, including a specimen with a fully bifacial processing and removals from the oblique, thinned distal end (podtylec in Polish)(Fig. 8:2,3). Also typical of this level are the numerous
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 9. Cyprzanów 49 (Poland). 1,2 e bifaces, 3e6 e bifacially worked asymmteric knives.
Fig. 10. Cyprzanów 49 (Poland). 1e3 e bifacially worked asymmetric knives, 4,5 e bifacially worked transversal side-scrapers.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
9
_ Fig. 11. Dzierzys1aw 1, lower loess layer. 1,2 e bifacially worked implements.
occurrences of backed flakes and denticulate tools (Cyrek, 2003). b) From the open-air site of Pietraszyn 49, where artefactscontaining alluvial sediments of the Warta stage were dated using OSL to 193e130 ka, MIS 6 (Fajer et al., 2001). The lithic industry contains only the tools formed by bifacial shaping of nodules or their fragments. Flakes, apart from a single Levallois specimen, most likely come from early stages of bifacial tools faconnage rather than from core reduction, which seems to be a characteristic trait, probably functional, of this assemblage. Bifacial tools are represented by symmetrical hand axes with a natural base (thermal or cortex), of plano-convex or rhomboidal section (Fig. 9:1,2). Amongst the asymmetrical bifacial kniveseside-scrapers there occur trapeze-shaped specimens resembling the Pra˛dnik type (but lacking a pseudo-burin scar), sub-triangular specimens resembling Bockstein type and specimens with partially blunted back and biconvex section (Fig. 9:3e6; 10:1e3). They are accompanied by side-scrapers with partially bifacial retouch, mostly trapeze-shaped, including specimens formed with Quina retouch (Fig. 10:4,5). Also present is a single discoid specimen of ‘groszak’ type (round scraper) and a series of bifacial half-products. As for the chrono-stratigraphic position of Pietraszyn 49 site, some doubts were raised concerning the association of artefacts with the dated alluvial sediment (Wisniewski, 2006). However, the presence of Micoquian tradition (KMG) in Silesia during MIS 6 has been confirmed by another, more modest assemblage from the site _ of Dzierzys1aw 1, discovered in the loess underlying Vistulian soils and solifluctions and TL dated to 180 35 ka. From this level a kind of a bifacial ‘Blattschber’ (Fig. 11:1) was found, with a fragment of an
asymmetric bifacial tool with plano-convex retouch (Fig. 11:2) (Foltyn et al., 2000). Cultural level IX recorded during recent excavations at Ciemna Cave (Ginter et al., 2012) is also likely from MIS 6, which yielded single bifacial elements in an uncertain context. Further to the east, no typical Micoquian assemblages are known from MIS 6, although in western Ukraine there exist (as in MIS 7) assemblages combining the Levallois technique with bifacial leaf points of biconvex section. This applies to the Veliki Glubochok site, where such artefacts occurred in the loess level (III) TL dated to 175 30 ka (Sitnik, 2000). These data suggest a hypothesis that the Micoquian cultural tradition developed independently in Western Europe, as a consequence of the development of Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean tradition, in the Levallois technological context. Micoquian industries in Central Europe (KMG) have another origin. They too are dominated by Levallois technological context, and bifacial technology can be derived only from ‘Jungacheuleen’, as Central Europe and the territories east of the Oder in particular, are situated beyond the ‘Movius line’ and have yielded only single hand axes of the Acheulean type, without context and precise chronology (Konradówka, Maków and others). In MIS 6, bifacial tools are represented on the borderlands of Central and Eastern Europe only by leaf points. 4. Classic Micoquian of the late Middle Palaeolithic in Central Europe Before MIS 5e, Micoquian is known mostly from the cooler periods (MIS 8, MIS 6), while from the last interglacial (MIS 5e) relatively few Micoquian sites are known, and their chronostratigraphical position is uncertain (Fig. 12). In Central Europe
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 12. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 5e.
Fig. 13. Bisnik Cave (Poland). Layer 12 (AH 1). 1 e biface, 2 e asymmetric bifacial knife, 3 e biface-leaf point (after Cyrek).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
11
Central Europe (Fig. 16). Chronological and spatial diversity within the Micoquian tradition becomes noticeable (J.K. Koz1owski, 2006). There are several conceptions of internal taxonomy of the Micoquian complex (KMG) from the early Vistulian. Bosinski (1967) proposed distinguishing 5 groups for the territory of the presentday Germany, namely Bockstein, Klausennische and Buhlen for the uplands, and Königsaue and Lebenstedt for the lowlands (Mania and Töpfer 1973, Bosinski, 2000–2001). For the territory of Poland, J.K. Koz1owski and S.K. Koz1owski (1996) proposed discerning 4 groups: Bockstein (or Skalien), for Ciemna (Ojcowien) and Wylotne for the uplands, and Zwolen the lowlands. Both classifications are based on techno-typological features of bifacial forms, allowing an attempt to combine them and distinguish between upland and lowland assemblages. To the first group belong:
Fig. 14. Piekary III (Poland). Biface (after Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski).
these are primarily the materials from Bisnik Cave from layer 13 (AH 2), TL dated to 126 25 ka and layer 12 (AH 1) dated to 122 22 ka (Cyrek, 2002), as well as single bifacial artefacts discovered in clay layers probably of interglacial age from Piekary I layer 5 and Piekary III layer 8 (Sachse-Kozlowska and Koz1owski. 2004). In Bisnik Cave, if the AH2 inventory is not very typical (Cyrek, 2002 pl.XXV), then AH1 inventory contains bifacial forms including a sub-triangular hand axe (Fig. 13:1) (Cyrek, 2010 pl.VII 1), asymmetric bifacial knives (Fig. 13:2) and a bifacial tool of the transitory form between hand axe and leaf point (Fig. 13:3) (Cyrek, 2002, pl.XXIV). The technological context is typically Levallois, although the suggested denticulate retouches on flakes may be post-depositional pseudo-retouches. From Piekary I and III come single specimens of bifacial Micoquian forms. Piekary III has a small, asymmetrical hand axe (Fig. 14), while the bifacial form from Piekary I has been lost. To the interglacial sites containing bifacial specimens belongs Malyi, a site from the Carpathian Basin, included by Ringer (2002) as ‘Babonyen’, supposedly occurring in M1 soil developed between two loess layers, the lower of which dates to 157 23 ka while the upper to 101 9 and 85 7 ka. Babonyen is characterised by non-Levallois technique and the presence of triangular bifaces, asymmetric bifacial knives and Faustkeilblatt (Fig. 15:1e3). If the Micoquian traces from MIS 5e are sparse, then in the early Vistulian climate oscillations, i.e. during the alternate cooler (MIS 5d, MIS 5b and MIS 4 e Lower Pleniglacial) and warmer (MIS 5c, MIS 5a and early MIS 3 e Interpleniglacial) periods, Micoquian assemblages become more numerous in the northern part of
Fig. 15. Sajobabony (Hungary). 1 e side-scraper, 2 e biface, 3 e partially bifacial knife (after Ringer).
a) Bockstein group is characterised by typical Bockstein knives (triangular both in outline and section) and a series of hand axes, usually small, ‘Halbkeile’ (plano-convex) and ‘Faustkeilblatter’. In Poland, similar types occur in Piekary I [Jama Cave e Ossowski’s excavations, layer 3/2 from Krukowski’s excavations, Piekary IIE and Piekary III layer 7 (Skalien according to Krukowski, 1939e1945) (Fig. 17:1e5)]. The loess sequence associates the sites at Piekary with early Vistulian (probably from phase MIS 5a to the beginning of MIS 3). Unfortunately, there are no data as to the age and homogeneity of another site with Bockstein knives and partially bifacial trapeze-shaped knives at the Okiennik Cave. These tools were found in non-Levallois context with few discoidal and sub-discoidal cores (Fig. 18:1e 12). All the sites yielded flake tools, side-scrapers and groszaks in particular. b) Klausenniche group is characterised mainly by trapeze-shaped bifacial knives on flint plaquettes, as well as triangular hand axes. Faustkeile, Halbkeile and leaf-shaped hand axes. In German assemblages, flake tools are rare, although prepared cores are recorded. In the territory of Poland, a sequence from Wylotne Cave refers to this facies (which also covers early Vistulian): from layer 8/7 through layer 6 to layer 5 (Chmielewski, 1975; S.K. Kozlowski, 2006). Assemblages from these layers are characterised by a similar proportion of large bifaces (of various types: triangular, oval, cordiform e Fig. 19:1; 20:3) and asymmetrical knives (often on plaquettes e Fig. 19:2,3; 20:1,2), the presence of groszakis (Fig. 20:4) and the increasing share of side-scrapers (especially in layers 6 and 5), including the specimens of Quina type. Bifacial tools trace a complete manufacturing cycle from nodules or their fragments to discarded or re-used specimens (Fig. 21). In the youngest layer (5) were discovered trapeze-shaped specimens with thinned distal end (podtylec) similar to the Pra˛ dnik type knives (Jackowska, 2006), which gave rise to the assumption that the facies in question evolved from Buhlen-Ciemna group. On the other hand, East-European analogies known for bifacial tools and the discovery in Kraków (Kopernika street - Kowalski, 1967) of an asymmetrical bifacial knife made from flint originating from the Volynian Plateau may suggest eastern connections. c) Buhlen group, known from Buhlen IIIb and Balve III (Fig. 22:1e 3), is characterised by the numerous cases of typical Pra˛ dnik knives (Sobczyk, 1975; Kulakovska et al., 1993). These are asymmetrical specimens, trapeze-shaped, with a distinctly curved back, and the top thinned by parallel removals, including those with sharpened lateral edges (by the removal of pseudo-burin spall). In Poland, an equivalent to this group is the assemblage from layer 6 of Ciemna Cave, discovered in sediments contemporary with the beginning of the
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
12
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 16. Radiometrically dated sites from MIS 5c-3.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
Fig. 17. Piekary III (Poland), layer 7. 1e4 e bifaces, 5 e asymmetric bifacial knife (after Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski).
Fig. 18. Okiennik Cave (Poland). 1 e biface, 2 e Bockstein knife, 3,5e7 e side-scrapers, 4 e Königsaue knife, 8e12 e grochakis, 13 e raclette (after Koz1owski and Koz1owski).
Fig. 19. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland) layer 7e8. 1e biface, 2, 3 e bifacial asymmetric knives, (after Kozlowski and Koz1owski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
14
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 20. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland). 1,2 e bifacial asymmetric knives, 3 e biface, 4 e grochak (after Koz1owski and Koz1owski).
sedimentation of the lower Pleniglacial (MIS 4) loess. Technological context of the Ciemna Cave assemblage is based on the manufacture of flakes from single-platform, unprepared cores. The Levallois technique is present, but the majority of flakes regarded as Levallois originate probably from bifacial reduction. Asymmetric bifacial knives of typical Pradnik type are numerous (Fig. 23:1e7). Side-scrapers are also numerous and morphologically diversified. Groszakis are a constant element in the inventory. Numerous pseudo-burin spalls from resharping of Pradnik knives are also present (Fig. 23:8e10). New excavations in the interior of Ciemna Cave allow two stages of the Micoquian occupation to be distinguished, namely levels III and IV. Level III and the ‘main cultural level’ from S. Krukowski’s excavations yielded dates corresponding to MIS3, around 41 ka (Ginter et al., 2012).
the site in the context of side-scrapers with surface retouch and very few indicators of the Levallois technique (Tomaszewski, 2005). Apart from the Micoquian groups in the uplands and the northern part of Central European lowlands, Micoquian sites also appear in the Carpathian Basin and the middle Danube Basin (Gábori, 1976). Examples are assemblages from levels 9b and 7c/ 7alpha/7a/6a from Kulna cave in Moravia (Valoch, 2000), dated between 75 and 45 ka (MIS 4/3). The assemblages from Kulna (7a in particular) yielded small sub-triangular bifaces, asymmetrical bifacial knives of Bockstein type and those resembling Pra˛dnik type. Of particular importance is the discovery of the teeth of Neanderthal in layer 7a. Micoquian sites are known from the White Carpathians, as well.
5. Relations between Micoquian and Mousterian To the Micoquian (KMG) assemblages of the lowland zone belong the Konigsaue and Salzgitter-Lebenstedt groups identified by Gerhard Bosinski (2000e2001) and, in Poland, the Zwolen group. The lowland groups with bifaces and asymmetric knivese side-scrapers are characterised by the presence of bifacial leaf points, both asymmetric (Königsaue A) and more symmetric (Sal , where the TL zgitter-Lebenstedt). Similar forms occur at Zwolen dated assemblages from periods MIS 5a (85e75 Kyr BP) and early MIS 4 (ca. 70 Kyr BP) represent specialised killing/butchering places , sub-triangular and almond-shaped bi(Schild, 2005). At Zwolen faces (Fig. 24:1e4) occur in the lower, middle and upper levels of
The Micoquian is a separate entity whose development from period MIS 8 to MIS 3 followed the pattern of ‘evolution buissonante’. The long-lasting continuation of this technological tradition and its presence in various environments and functional contexts speaks for considering Micoquian as more than just a type of Mousterian. At the same time, there are sequences of Middle Palaeolithic sites where both Micoquian and Mousterian are present. In the western part of Central Europe, an example of the interstratification of the two units comes from the Königsaue site, where Micoquian
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
15
Fig. 21. Wylotne rock-shelter (Poland), layer 5. Initial stages of shaping bifacial tools (after Jackowska).
Fig. 22. Buhlen III (Germany. 1e3 e Pradnik knives (after Bosinski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
16
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 23. Ciemna Cave (Poland) layer 6. 1e7 e Pradnik knives, 8e10 e pseudo-burin spalls.
levels A and C are separated by level B e Mousterian with Levallois technology (Mania, 1975). In Poland, the Micoquian/Mousterian sequence is known from the complex of sites at Piekary (Sachse-Koz1owska and Koz1owski, 2004), although the chronology of Middle Palaeolithic levels is
not unambiguous there (Fig. 25). Based on litostratigraphical criteria, Micoquian episodes may be dated to a longer period (starting from Eemian levels from Piekary I - layer 3 and Piekary III layer 7 to the entire early Vistulian sequence e MIS 5d-a/4 at Piekary I e layers 3/2 and at Piekary III layer 7). They might be
Fig. 24. Zwolen (Poland). 1 e bifacial asymmetric knife, 2e4 e bifaces (after Tomaszewski).
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
17
Fig. 25. Micoquian/Mousterian sequences of the open air sites Piekary and Zwierzyniec.
interrupted by short Mousterian episodes characterised by entirely different technology (Levallois and blade one). On the other hand, TL dates suggest dating the whole of Levallois-Moustierian levels to the period corresponding with the warming at the beginning of MIS 3, i.e. later than Micoquian whose chronology corresponds with MIS 5 (Interglacial/Early Glacial). An inverse Micoquian/Mousterian sequence was recorded on the Kraków-Zwierzyniec site, where the Eemian level (layers 2,3) contained small Levallois-Mousterian assemblages, while the redeposited loess (layer 11) yielded a more concentrated Micoquian assemblage from early MIS3. The sequence ended with Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with leaf points. In cave sites, Mousterian is usually earlier than Micoquian (Fig. 26); this applies to the sequences from Nietoperzowa and Ciemna Caves. Only in Koziarnia Cave is the sequence inverted: within the layers of probably MIS 5 origin, Mousterian is deposited higher than Micoquian. However, there are sites where both entities occur alternatively, either over a longer timespan (as in Bisnik Cave) or over a short period (as in ‘complex G’ of Sesselfels cave). As for Bisnik Cave, in
some layers the rate of sedimentation was too slow to distinguish individual settlement phases of the two complexes (this applies to levels A1, A2, A3 and A4). Only units A5, B, C and D are purely Mousterian, and units A3, E, F possibly purely Micoquian (Fig. 27). Cultural levels in Sesselfels cave are more easily discernible, probably due to the rate of sedimentation during early MIS 3. However, it cannot be ruled out that some levels could represent a Micoquian-Mousterian palimpsest. In Eastern Europe, examples of Micoquian-Mousterian interstratifications are also known (e.g. in Jezupil, where Mousterian layer III with Levallois technique is deposited below Micoquian layer II, in a buried soil dated to ca. 100 ka; Sitnik, 2000). In the Crimea, in early phase of MIS 3, Western Crimean Mousterian is contemporary with Micoquian variants (Akkaya, Starosiele and Kiik Koba) (Marks and Chabai, 1998). 6. Conclusions The goal of this paper was to show a parallel development, probably beginning from MIS 8, of the two basic techno-typological
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
18
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Fig. 26. Micoquian/Mousterian sequences of Cave sites in Poland.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
19
Fig. 27. Micoquian/Mousterian interstratifications in Bisnik Cave and chronological position of TL/AMS dated sites in Poland.
traditions in the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe: the Micoquian and the Mousterian. The origin of the Micoquian tradition may be complex. In the territories to the west of the Rhine, it may have developed from Acheulean, while to the east of the ‘Movius line’ it appeared independently from the classic Acheulean, perhaps with some influence from ‘Jungachaeuleen’ and other units. The further development of Micoquian in MIS 6 is characterised by a differentiation which marks the beginning of the ‘evolution buissonante’ of this unit. This is manifested by various reduction cycles of bifacial tools, tools morphology and differences in flake blanks production. MIS 5 (especially 5e) was characterised by a reduced Micoquian frequency, which may be explained by impeded access to larger nodules of lithic raw material due to thicker ground cover, especially forests. This factor also influenced the possibility of the adaptation of Micoquian hunting strategies to interglacial conditions. Therefore, Mousterian facies, especially those based on the micro-flake technique (Taubachien), became predominant in Central Europe.
The development of Micoquian gained momentum again in MIS 4 and early MIS 3 when this tradition underwent further technotypological differentiation that reflected its ‘evolution buissonante’. From this period come the most numerous examples of Micoquian-Mousterian interstratification. However, the differences between the two traditions that might be interpreted as differences in site functioning, stage of tools reduction, or various adaptation strategies find no confirmation. The most important factor which created the taxonomic differences between the Mousterian and the Micoquian were particular techno-morphological traditions, in some cases reinforced by the different access to lithic resources. References Anderson-Gerfaud, F.,1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic. Functional analysis of some sites from southwestern France. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389e418. Audouze, F., 1999. New advances in French Prehistory. Antiquity 73, 167e175. Binford, L., 1979. Organization and formation process. Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255e273.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020
20
J.K. Kozłowski / Quaternary International xxx (2013) 1e20
Binford, S., Binford, L., 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68 (2), 238e295. Binford, L., Sabloff, J., 1982. Paradigms, systematics and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38, 137e153. Bordes, F., 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134. Bordes, F., 1966. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. CNRS, Paris. Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpaläolithische Funde in westlichen Mitteleuropa. In: Fundamenta, A4. Köln. Bosinski, G., 2000-2001. The Middle Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Zephyrus 53-54, 79e142. Chmielewski, W., 1975. Paleolit srodkowy i dolny. In: Hensel, W. (Ed.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, vol. 1. Ossolineum, Wroc1aw. Cahen, D., Haesearts, P., Szabo, B., Van Neer, W., Wanet, P., 1984. An Early Middle Palaeolithic site Mesvin IV (Mans, Belgium). Its significance for stratigraphy and palaeontology. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 55, 1e20. Conrad, N., Fischer, B., 2000. Are there recognizable cultural entities in the German Middle Palaeolithic. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Before Modern Humans 400e50 ka, British Archaeological Reports International Series, pp. 7e 24. Cyrek, K., 2002. Jaskinia Bisnik Rekonstrukcja zasiedlenia jaskini na tle zmian srodowiska przyrodniczego. Uniwersytet M.Kopernika, Torun. Cyrek, K., 2003. Bisnik Cave: a reconstruction of the site’s occupation in the context of environmental changes. Eurasian Prehistory 1, 5e29. Cyrek, K., 2010. The Bisnik Cave in Southern Poland. Reconstruction of the Palaeolithic Cave habitation in relation to the environmental changes. In: Burdukiewicz, M., Wisniewski, A. (Eds.), Middle Palaeolithic Human Activity and Palaeoecology: New Discoveries and Ideas. Uniwersytet, Wroc1aw, pp. 69e93. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Palaeolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (4), 299e368. Fajer, M., Foltyn, E., Koz1owski, J.K., 2001. Contribution à l’évolution du Micoquien en Europe Centrale: nouvelles decouvertes du Micoquien en Haute Silesie (Pologne). In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les industires à outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen en Euriope occidentale, ERAUL, 98, pp. 195e208. Farizy, C., 1995. Industries charentiennes à influence micoquienne, l’exemple de l’est de la France. In: Les industries à pointes foliacées d’Europe Centrale. Paléo, supplement, pp. 173e178. Foltyn, E.M., Foltyn, E., Koz1owski, J.K., 2000. Première evidence de l’age pre-eemien des industries à pièces bifaciales asymetriques en Europe Centrale. In: Ronen, A., Weinsteuin-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, British Archaeological Reports Int. Series 850. Gábori, M., 1976. Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen entre les Alpes et l’Oural. Esquisse historique. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Ginter, B., Sobczyk, K., Stefanski, D., Valde-Nowak, P., Zaja˛ c, M., 2012. Current report on Ciemna Cave Project. Excavations 2007-2011. In: Hugo Obermaier Gesellschaft. 54th Annual Meeting Toulouse, 16,17. Gladiline, V., Sitlivy, V., 1990. Achel Tsentralnoy Evropy. Naoukova Doumka, Kiev. Gouedo, J.M., 2001. Les bifaces micoquiens de Vinneuf et de Verbieres-le-Buisson (Bassin Parisien): comparaisons avec des bifaces provenant de gisements acheuléens du Nord-Est de l’Europe. ERAUL 98, 179e198. Jackowska, K., 2006. Wylotne rockshelter, layer 5. In: Kozlowski, S.K. (Ed.), Wylotne and Zwierzyniec Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Poland. PAU, Kraków, pp.161e224. Junkmans, J., 1991. Die Steinartefakte aus Achenheim in der Sammlung Paul Wernert. Archaologische Korespondenzblatt 21, 1e16. _ Kowalski, S., 1967. Wazne znalezisko paleolityczne z ulicy Kopernika w Krakowie. Materia1y Archeologiczne 8, 33e37. Koz1owski, J.K., 2006. Les Neandertaliens en Europe Centrale. In: Neanderthals in Europe. ERAUL 117, 77e90. Kozlowski, S.K., 2006. Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic Sites in Southern Poland. PAU, Krakow.
Koz1owski, J.K., Koz1owski, S.K., 1996. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Pologne. Millon, Geneve. Krukowski, S., 1939e1945. Paleolit Polski. PAU, Kraków. Kulakovskaya, L., Koz1owski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 1993. Les couteaux micoquiens du Wurm ancien. Préhistoire Européenne 4, 9e32. Mania, D., 1975. Stratigraphie, Oekologie und Paläolithikum des Weichselfrühglazials im mittleren Elbe-Saale-Gebiet. Swiatowit 34, 81e138. Mania, D., Töpfer, V., 1973. Königsause. Gliederung, Okologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit. Berlin. Marks, A.E., Chabai, V.P., 1998. The Middle Palaeolithic of Western Crimea. ERAUL 84. Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Movius, L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 38, 329e420. Otte, M., 2001. Micoquien et ses derivés. ERAUL 98, 173e178. Otte, M., 2009. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe. Armand Collin, Paris. Richter, J., 1997. Das G-Schichten Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verständiss des Micoquien. Quartär-Bibliothek 7. Richter, J., 2000. Social memory among the Neanderthals. In: Orschiedt, J., Weninger, G. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans- Discussing the Transition. Neanderthal Museum, pp. 123e132. Richter, J., 2006. Neanderthals and their landscape in Neanderthals in Europe. ERAUL 117, 51e66. Ringer, A., 2002. The chronostratigraphy and Palaeo-human ecology of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Northern Hungary between 130 000 and 10 000 years. Praehistoria 3, 39e46. Sachse-Koz1owska, E., Koz1owski, S.K. (Eds.), 2004. Piekary près de Cracovie (Pologne). Complexe des sites paléolithiques. PAU, Krakow. Schaffer, J., 1990. Conjoining artefacts and consideration of raw material, their application at the Middle Palaeolithic site of the Schweinkopf-Karmelenberg. In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N., Winter, E. (Eds.), The Big Puzzle, pp. 85e100. Schild, R., 2005. The Killing Fields of Zwolen. a Middle Palaeolithic Kill-butcherysite in Central Poland. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Warszawa. Shea, J., 1989. A functional study of the lithic industries associated with hominid fossils in Kebara and Quafzeh caves, Israel. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution. Behavioural and Biological Perspectives in the Origins of Modern Humans. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 611e625. Shea, J., Klenck, J., 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 175e194. Sitnik, O., 2000. Sredniy paleolit Poddilia. Akademia Nauk, Lvov. Sobczyk, K., 1975. Problem pra˛ dnika w swietle tzksonomii numerycznej. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 27. : Tomaszewski, A.J., 2005. Lithic finds. In: Schild, R. (Ed.), The Killing Field of Zwolen a Middle Palaeolithic Kill-butchery-site in Central Poland. Institute of Archeology and Ethnology, Warszawa, pp. 139e190. Urbanowski, M., 2003. Pra˛dnik Knives as Element of Micoquian Techno-stylistic Specifics (PhD thesis). Warsaw University. Uthmeier, T.H., 1998. Micoquian, Aurignacian and Gravettian in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Ubergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum. Koln. Uthmeier, Th, 2000. Stone tools, “Time of activity”, and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Bavaria (Germany). In: Ortschedt, J., Weniger, C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans- Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50 000e30 000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, pp. 133e150. Valoch, K., 2000. Le Micoquien et les premières industries laminaires en Moravie. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans, the Yabrudian and the Micoquian (4000e50 k-years Ago), British Archaeological Reports Int. Series 850, pp. 173e180. Wisniewski, A., 2006. Srodkowy paleolit w dolinie Odry. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu, Wroc1aw.
Please cite this article in press as: Koz1owski, J.K., Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian, Quaternary International (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020