FLAKES AND BLADES. THE ROLE OF FLAKE PRODUCTION IN THE AURIGNACIAN OF ... · THE ROLE OF FLAKE...

261G u i d o B a t a i l l e - S i u r e n 1

FLAKES AND BLADES. THE ROLE OF FLAKE PRODUCTION IN THE AURIGNACIAN OF

SIUREN 1 (CRIMEA, UKRAINE)

Guido Bataille

AbstractUp to now, Siuren 1 is the only known Aurignacian site in Crimea. It has nine different Aurignacian occupational layers in primary positions, which are attributed to the early/archaic (units H and G) and the late Aurignacian (unit F) due to techno-typological reasons. Thus this sequence offers a unique insight into the Aurignacian of Eastern Europe. Within all Aurignacian horizons, the as-semblages are characterized by bladelets and microblades, which constitute the majority of tool supports as well. Nevertheless, flakes were also obtained that served as blanks for the modification of different, sometimes specific, tool-types. Especially cores, mostly for the production of bladelets and microblades, were produced on flakes. Moreover, within most archaeological layers of the lower units H and G of Siuren 1, a small Middle Palaeolithic tool component is present that is char-acterized by unifacial surface shaped points and different types of side scrapers, often on flakes.In this article, the role of blank production will be discussed, with special focus on processes of flake manufacture. On the one hand, the obtainment of that blank category within the regular operational sequence of blade and bladelet production is analysed and on the other hand the pos-sible existence of an isolated operational sequence for flake production is investigated.

KeywordsSiuren 1, early Aurignacian, evolved Aurignacian, flake production, bladelet production

introduction

In Palaeolithic research, Upper Palaeolithic lithic industries have long been un-derstood as blade dominated entities (Bordes 1968; Uthmeier 2004a) whereas, vice versa, Middle Palaeolithic assemblages have regularly been seen as flake dominated (Sonneville-Bordes 1960; Bordes 1967, 1968; Bosinski 1967; Uthmeier 2004a). However, there are also Middle Palaeolithic blade dominated assemblages from the late Saalian (MIS 6) until the late Weichselian (MIS 3) in different geographic regions, for instance Piekary IIa, layers 7c, 7a (Poland), Yabrud (Syria), Rheindahlen (Germany), Shlyakh (Russia), Kabazi II (Crimea), Riencourt-lès-Bapaume (France) or Khonako III (Tajikistan) (Sitlivy & Zieba 2006; Rust 1950; Bosinski 1974; Nehoroshev 2004; Chabai 2003; Sitlivy & Zieba 2006; Révillion & Tuffreau 1994; Schäfer & Ranov 1998).

An important challenge of the traditional scientific view is the meaning of mi-crolithic components in assemblages starting from the time of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition, like the retouched bladelets of the Proto-Aurignacian (Kuhn 2002) or some of the Uluzzian arched backed pieces (Kuhn 2002, 85). Bladelets occur sporadically in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, like in Yezupil, layer III (Sytnik 2000, cited in Sitlivy & Zieba 2006), as well as within the Middle Palaeolithic sequence of the Balver Höhle (Germany) (Pastoors & Tafelmaier 2010). Moreover, non-lamellar micro-lithic pieces are known from Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, like the Sesselfelsgrotte (Germany) (Richter 1997).

The idea of the workshop Flakes not Blades can be understood as complementary to the dealing with modern features within Middle Palaeolithic industries. Here, atten-tion was drawn to possible conservative trends in (early) Upper Palaeolithic industries. According to that, this paper will deal with the role of flake production in the early Up-per Palaeolithic of Crimea and consider the following questions: (1) Is there an isolated operational sequence for the production of flakes attested in Aurignacian assemblages of Siuren 1 (Crimea) and (2) what is the role of flake production in these inventories?

a n d r e a S P a S t o o r S & M a r c o P e r e S a n i ( e d S . ) : F l a k e S n o t B l a d e S : t h e r o l e o F F l a k e P r o d u c t i o n a t t h e o n S e t o F t h e u P P e r P a l a e o l i t h i c i n e u r o P e .

W i S S e n S c h a F t l i c h e S c h r i F t e n d e S n e a n d e r t h a l M u S e u M S 5 , M e t t M a n n 2 0 1 2 .

262 F l a k e S n o t B l a d e S

the criMean early uPPer Palaeolithic aSSeMBlaGeS oF Siuren 1 and Buran-kaya iii in the context oF the reGional late Middle Palaeolithic

What makes the Crimean Palaeolithic so special in comparison to other regions is not only the high density of Middle Palaeolithic in situ occupations on a quite small territory. Another exceptional peculiarity is the possible co-existence of early Upper Palaeolithic and late Middle Palaeolithic industries in Crimea. These very late Middle Palaeolithic occupations are attributed to the Crimean Micoquian of Kiik-Koba facies (Buran-Kaya III, level B/B1) and Starosele facies (Prolom II/II and Zaskalnaya V/I), and to the Western Crimean Mousterian (Kabazi II, levels II/1, A3A, A3B, A3C and A4).

These assemblages obviously belong to the same geochronological stages like ear-

Fig. 1 Geochronology of the Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic of Crimea. As data basis informations of Chabai (2005, 10 ff. & Tab. 1-1; 2006, Tab. 1-1), Gerasimenko (2005, Fig. 2-3) and Demidenko & Otte (2000-2001, 102-103) were used.


ly Upper Palaeolithic occupations that were assigned to the end of Huneborg stadial (early Upper Palaeolithic-level C of Buran-Kaya III) and to Arcy/Denekamp interstadial (Aurignacian levels of Siuren 1) (Chabai 2008, 2005; Chabai & Uthmeier 2006; Gerasi-menko 2004; Demidenko & Otte 2007; Demidenko 2008a; Monigal 2006) (Fig. 1).

Knowledge of the early Upper Palaeolithic in that region is not as comprehensive as the knowledge of the Crimean Middle Palaeolithic. According to Chabai, the number of Upper Palaeolithic sites in Crimea is five times smaller than the number of Middle Palaeolithic ones that feature most of the time late Gravettian assemblages (Chabai 1998). At the moment, only two sites are known representing early Upper Palaeolithic occupations: Layer C of Buran-Kaya III situated in the eastern and Siuren 1 located in the western part of the internal mountain range (Fig. 2). Buran-Kaya III, level C exhibits an assemblage termed eastern Szelettian (Marks & Monigal 2004; Chabai et al. 2004) of Streletskayan-type (Monigal 2006, 199 ff.). Despite different names for this assem-blage, all investigators share the view that it is an early Upper Palaeolithic industry that has no analogies in the contemporaneous Crimean Middle Palaeolithic and shows nearest analogies to early Streletskayan assemblages that are known from stratified sites of the Kostenki-Borshchevo area in the middle Don region (Russia) (Kostenki 12, layer III and Kostenki 1, layer V) and maybe the Seversky-Donetsk region (Ukraine) (Bu-rulchaya Balka 2, levels 3a-3b) (Marks 1998; Chabai 2003; Matyukhin 2006; Otte et al. 2006; Demidenko 2008b). The validity of this proposed connection is not a topic of the present article.

Siuren 1 displays a sequence of Aurignacian occupations (archaeological units H, G and F) that are, according to AMS-dates, younger than the Buran-Kaya III occupa-tion (Monigal 2004a; Marks 1998; Demidenko et al. 1998; Chabai 1998; Demidenko & Otte 2000-2001; Demidenko 2008a, 2008b). The early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of both industries are attributed to the Huneborg stadial (Buran-Kaya III, level C) and the Arcy/Denekamp interstadial (Siuren 1, units H, G and F) or possibly the Maisières interstadial (Siuren 1, unit F) (Demidenko 2008a, Gerasimenko 2004; Chabai & Uth-meier 2006).

Like the majority of Middle Palaeolithic stratified sites, which are situated in rock shelters or caves (Uthmeier & Chabai 2006), the early Upper Palaeolithic layers were found in rock shelters (Monigal 2004a; Demidenko et al. 1998). Apart from Karabi-Tamchin, which is one of four stratified Middle Palaeolithic open air sites, the Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic localities cluster within the interior chain of the Crimean Mountains with the western-most (Starosele) and eastern-most (Prolom I and II) sites not further away from each other than 60 km (e.g., Uthmeier & Chabai 2006; Stepan-chuk 1998). Accumulated on Cretaceous sediments within the second mountain range, most sites are close to sources of primary and secondary raw flint, in many cases of high quality (Uthmeier 2004b).

Due to Middle and Upper Palaeolithic interstratifications at Buran-Kaya III (Mico-quian archaeological layers B and B1 on top of early Upper Palaeolithic layer C), a co-occurrence of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic entities within Crimea is discussed (e.g., Monigal 2006; Monigal 2004b). Furthermore, in the lower layers (units H and G) of

Fig. 2 Map of Crimea: Sites with late Middle Palaeolithic and early Upper Palaeolithic sites co-existing between Huneborg Stadial and Dene-kamp Interstadial.


Siuren 1 unifacial and bifacial tools were found, which were interpreted as belonging to typical Crimean Micoquian tool kits (Demidenko et al. 1998). The same is true for the lower layer of the Bonch-Osmolowski excavation, where Middle Palaeolithic tool-types constitute “3 small, bifacial, triangular hand axes (...), 15 side scrapers (...), and 19 points (...)” (Anikovich 1992, 224 f.). Few remains of the production of surface shaped arte-facts in units H and G indicate the on-site manufacture of unifacial and bifacial tools. As mentioned above, unifacially and bifacially plano-convex surface shaped tools are regular features of the Crimean Micoquian. According to spatial and stratigraphical as-sociations of Neanderthal burials and Micoquian assemblages in Kiik-Koba, Zaskalnaya 5 and Zaskalnaya 6, Neanderthals are generally seen as the bearers of the Crimean Micoquian (Prat et al. 2011). Vice versa, the interpretation of an isolated molar found in the lower layer of the Bonch-Osmolovski excavations as Homo sapiens sapiens led to the assumption that anatomically modern human are the bearers of the Aurigna-cian of Crimea (Monigal 2006; Hahn 1977). This view is in accordance with investiga-tions of Bailey et al. (2009) concerning the association of specific modern human’s teeth and archaeological remains of the Aurignacian. Nevertheless, taxonomical as-sociations of isolated bones and teeth should always be treated with caution. Hence, a possible co-occurrence of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens was proposed, with either both species contributing to the Aurignacian assemblages in Crimea or visit-ing the site alternately without meeting each other (Monigal 2006). However, a defi-nite judgement concerning the taxonomical nature of the bearers of the early Upper Palaeolithic assemblage of Buran-Kaya III, level C and of the Western Crimean Mous-terian occupations is not possible at the moment, due to the lack of human fossils. New discussions will arise concerning new direct dates of Homo sapiens sapiens fossils of the Gravettian layer 6-1 of Buran-Kaya III that were found during several excava-tion seasons in 1994, 2001, 2009 and 2010 – these bones delivered an absolute age of 31,900 ± 240/220 BP (GrA-37938) and contradict the younger age determinations of underlying layers B/B1 (Prat et al. 2011). Concerning the possible palimpsest as a result of alternating Aurignacian and Micoquian occupations in Siuren 1, some issues have to be kept in mind. Already in 1972 Hahn emphasized that at the beginning of the Aurig-nacian techno-complex the occurrence of Middle Palaeolithic elements is a common feature: “At the beginning of the Aurignacian a strong Middle Palaeolithic substratum is still present, consisting of side scrapers and partially bifacial tools, few blades and burins. Afterwards, an increase of the virtual Aurignacian forms, like carinated and nosed end scrapers, end scrapers with lateral retouch and burins takes place” (Hahn 1972, 78; trans-lated by G. B.). The occurrence of bifacial types has been documented by Hahn (1977) especially at sites in eastern Europe and the eastern part of central Europe like Ripi-ceni-Izvor (Prut region/Romania), Ceahlau-Cetatica (Moldava/Romania), Tibava, Barca II and Kechnek I (Slovakia) or Zelesice (Moravia) (Hahn 1977). Additionally, within early and evolved Aurignacian levels (Aurignacian I and II) of Istállósko in the Bück moun-tains (Hungary) few bifacial foliates were reported (Adams 2009). Various non-surface shaped side scrapers on flake occur occasionally but regularly in early Aurignacian contexts (e. g., Conard & Bolus 2006) – this is also true for Siuren 1 assemblages of units H and G (Demidenko et al. 1998). Discoidal cores are known from Aurignacian sites, like Lommersum (Rheinland/Germany) (Hahn 1989; Pastoors & Tafelmaier, this volume), Pešt (Bulgaria) or Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels and Vogelherd (Swabian Yura) (Conard & Bolus 2006; Bolus, this volume). So far, no typical Middle Palaeolithic core reduction strategies, like recurrent or preferential Levallois or discoidal method, have been reported to be part of the blank production strategies within any Aurignacian level of Siuren 1. However, if bifacial components are present in Aurignacian assem-blages, in most cases these are foliates of bi-convex manner that are in fact very rare in Crimean Middle Palaeolithic and absent in the Siuren 1 Aurignacian assemblages. On the other hand, some of the unifacial pieces present in level Gc1-2 of Siuren 1 indeed show strong similarity to points known from the Crimean Micoquian (Kiik-Koba facies).


Siuren 1

GeoGraPhical Situation and hiStory oF reSearch

The rock shelter Siuren 1 is situated about 20 km east of the provincial capital Simferopol and 13 km south of the town Bakchisarai (Demidenko et al. 1998; Massé & Patou-Mathis 2009; Hoffecker 2002) (Fig. 2). “It is one of two rock shelters (Siuren-II is a late Paleolithic site) which are located on the right bank of the Belbek river, at its narrowest point (the so-called “Belbek Gate”) where it cuts through the cliffs of the Second range of the Crimean Mountains. Siuren-I is a large south-facing rock shelter, 43 m wide, 15 m deep, and 9-10 m high with an elevation of 15-17 m above the current level of the Belbek River” (Demidenko et al. 1998, 367-368).

The site was already discovered in 1879 and investigated in the same and the following year by Merejkowski (Demidenko & Otte 2007). The early death of the St. Petersburg student, who was the first successful investigator of the Crimean Palaeo-lithic, interrupted further investigations for more than forty years (Chabai 1998). Inten-sive research was resumed in 1926 by Bonch-Osmolowski and conducted until 1929 (Demidenko & Otte 2007; Bonch-Osmolowski 1934). He observed three cultural layers that he assigned to the Aurignacian techno-complex (Demidenko & Otte 2007). Ad-ditionally, further excavations on an area of about 4 m2 were conducted within the upper layer by Tarasov during the early 1980s (Demidenko et al. 1998). Already dur-ing the 1960s western scholars investigated the Siuren 1 material and connected it to eastern European Aurignacian assemblages characterized by retouched bladelets (Laplace 1970; Kozlowsi & Kozlowski 1970, 1975 cited in Demidenko & Otte 2007; Hahn 1977, 1972). Contrary to that, a non-Aurignacian interpretation of the Siuren material was proposed by Klein in the 1960s (1965; Demidenko & Otte 2007) and renewed by Hoffecker in the 1980s (Demidenko & Otte 2007). Motivated by the unclear archaeo-logical association of the Bonch-Osmolovski lower and middle layers and the different industrial attributions by different scholars, a joint Ukrainian-Belgian team conducted new excavations near the centre of the old excavation area in order to improve the knowledge about geological and archaeological layers, the faunal and lithic data base, to obtain samples for age determinations and to clarify the relationship between Mid-dle and Upper Palaeolithic lithic components (Demidenko et al. 1998). These excava-tions were carried out between 1994 and 1997 under the supervision of Otte (Massé & Patou-Mathis 2009). A connected excavation area of 12 m2 was located southwest of the central area of the Bonch-Osmolovski excavation according to the original grid system (Fig. 3) (Demidenko et al. 1998). As a result, a non-Aurignacian attribution of the lower and middle layers was revised by members of the 1990s Siuren 1 excavations (Demidenko et al. 1998; Chabai 1998; Demidenko & Otte 2007). Today, there is agree-

Fig. 3 Siuren 1. Map of Excava-tion. Modified after Demiden-ko et al. 1998, Fig. 1.


ment on the Aurignacian association of the bulk of material of the Siuren 1 Denekamp assemblages (units F, G, H). Anyhow, Middle Palaeolithic tools known from Bonch-Os-molovski’s and units H and G of the new excavations were interpreted as belonging to additional Micoquian occupations (Demidenko 2008b) or alternatively as the result of contacts between local Neanderthals and “intruders” (Anikovich 1992, 224-225).

StratiGraPhy and itS GeoloGical and environMental context Up to now, Siuren 1 is the only known Aurignacian site in Crimea and one of few

stratified Aurignacian sites of Eastern Europe between Prut/Dnestr (Mitoc Malu Gal-ben) in the west and the northern Caucasus (Shiroky Mys) in the east (Noiret 2005, 2004; Demidenko 2008a; Shchelinsky 2007).

The archaeological sequence of the 1990’s excavations comprises, according to Demidenko & Otte (2007), fifteen archaeological layers embedded within archaeo-logical units A till H (Fig. 4). According to the second investigator Bonch-Osmolowski, three archaeological horizons could be observed during the 1920s investigations: The lower, middle and upper layers (Demidenko & Otte 2007). Those horizons defined by Bonch-Osmolowski could be divided into further strata in the course of the modern excavations (Demidenko & Otte 2007). According to Demidenko & Otte (2007), the ar-chaeological sequence can be summarized as follows: Bonch-Osmolowski’s lower layer correlates with the 1990s archaeological unit G (levels Gd, Gc1-2, Gb1-2, Ga).

Lowermost level H was newly discovered during the last excavation campaign and thus originally underlay Bonch-Osmolowki’s lowermost archaeological horizon. Bonch-Osmolowski’s middle layer is consistent with unit F (levels Fc, Fb1-2, Fa3, Fa1-2). The upper layer of the old excavations can be divided into archaeological horizons of units A till E. Artefacts of unit E could be associated with the lowermost finds of 1920s upper layer and belong to the late/evolved Aurignacian (Demidenko & Otte 2002, 102). Unit D comprising a Gravettian techno-complex was associated with “mainly 3rd ‘ex-cavation horizon’ of the 1920s excavations Upper layer” (Demidenko & Otte 2002, 102). Four archaeological horizons of unit A (levels Ab3, Ab2, Ab1, Aa) were described as Epi-Gravettian assemblages. The combined stratigraphy of both excavation phases show recurrent occupations of the site, spanning from Denekamp interstadial until Alleröd interstadial. Thus, in accordance with absolute dates, a time-range is considered be-

Fig. 4 Siuren 1. Stratigraphy of the site. Profiles III & IV. Modified after Demidenko et al. 1998, Fig. 2.


tween 31.5 ka BP and 10 ka BP (Demidenko & Otte, 2007).Altogether nine archaeological horizons of units H, G and F belong to the Aurigna-

cian techno-complex. The sediments have a thickness of about 1 m. “The stratigraphy of the site was studied on the basis of five profils” (Demidenko et al. 1998). The lower archaeological units H and G are separated from each other by sterile sediments of the fourth of five rock-fall events and uppermost Aurignacian archaeological unit F is separated from unit G by the accumulation of the third rock-fall episode. To the top, the archaeological layers of unit F are separated from unit E, situated above, by sterile sediments (Demidenko et al. 1998).

The lowermost level H was found in “dark yellowish-brown clay with rare limestone éboulis” (Massé & Patou-Mathis 2009, 151) in geological stratum 17, which was prob-ably formed during the stadial preceding the Arcy/Denekamp interstadial (Demidenko & Otte 2000-2001; Demidenko et al. 1998). No findings were made below level H – thus, human impact on the site started in association with Aurignacian occupations. Absolute age-determinations were obtained on a human tooth and AMS-dated to 28,200 ± 400 BP (OxA-8249) (Chabai 2003).

The four archaeological horizons of unit G were composed of different coloured brown fine sediments with limestone debris. All layers were sub-divided from each other by sterile differently sized limestone debris (Massé & Patou-Mathis 2009). These horizons were embedded within geological strata 14 (Ga), 15 (Gb1-2), 15d (Gc1-2) and between strata 15 and 16 (Gd) (Demidenko et al. 1998, 376 ff.). For the uppermost level Ga, a direct AMS-date was obtained on bone – 28,450 ± 600 BP (OxA-5154) (Chabai 2003). Like the archaeological horizons of unit F, the layers of units G and H are associ-ated with Denekamp interstadial (Demidenko & Otte, 2007, 102 f.). For level Fb2, an absolute AMS-date could be obtained on bone: 29,950 ± 700 BP (OxA-5155) (Chabai 2003).

The four archaeological horizons of unit F were found within geological strata 10 (Fa1-2), 10a (Fa3), 11 (Fb1-2) and 12 (Fc) (Fig. 4). The archaeological horizons were deposited in fine sediments that had a yellowish-brown colour with grain sizes of mostly silty clay and silty sand components most of the time, often mixed with éboulis of different sizes (Demidenko et al. 1998, 371). Most archaeological horizons of this unit consist of evident “carpets of artefacts, faunal remains and concentrations of char-coal and ash” (Demidenko et al. 1998, 375).

The sequence of Siuren 1 yields nine different Aurignacian occupational layers belonging to the three archaeological units H, G and F (Chabai 1998; Demidenko & Otte 2000-2001). Thus it offers a unique insight into the Aurignacian of Eastern Europe. Also, for layers 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5 of Buran-Kaya III, an attribution to the Aurignacian techno-complex was proposed by Yanevich (1998) and Yanevich et al. (2009). Accord-ing to him, the Aurignacian is attested by tool-types like Dufour bladelets (layers 6-5, 6-4, 6-3), Krems points (layers 6-5, 6-4) and one atypical nosed end scraper (layer 6-5) (Yanevich 1998, 134-35). Unfortunately, no further information and no figures of these assemblages have been published up to now – so the question about the nature of a second Aurignacian site in Crimea has to remain open at the moment. The Aurignacian sequence of Siuren 1 shows no analogies to any contemporaneous industry in Crimea, neither to the latest Middle Palaeolithic occupations of the Kiik-Koba type Micoquian (apart from some unifacial components, see below) and the so-called Western Crimean Mousterian, nor to the up to now solitary assemblage of Buran-Kaya III, level C. Due to that, there is no doubt that the Aurignacian is intrusive in the peninsula (Demidenko 2008a; Chabai et al. 2004).

the lithic aSSeMBlaGeS

The Siuren 1 sequence yields a quite homogeneous lithic ensemble. The divergenc-es between the different archaeological horizons are more of technological than of typological character. Typologically, the complete Aurignacian section of the stratig-raphy is characterized by laterally retouched bladelets and microblades (among them Dufour bladelets with alternating and Pseudo-Dufour bladelets with bilateral dorsal retouch), which in level Gc1-2 make up to > 40 % of all tools and in the biggest level


Fb1-2 even up to 60 % of all tools. According to the comparatively high share of Du-four bladelets (> 5 % of all tools) within Siuren 1, in layer 4 of the Bonch-Osmolowski excavations, Hahn (1977, 1972) saw closest relations of the Siuren Aurignacian with the assemblages of Kostenki I/layer 3 (Russia), Krems-Hundssteig (Austria), Muralovka, Tincova and Žlutava (Romania) – these sites he attributed to one of five sub-types (In-ventarausprägung) of the Aurignacian techno-complex (Hahn 1977, 256 ff.). According to the classification of the Siuren 1 Aurignacian material by Hahn (1972, 1977) and Ko-zlowski & Kozlowski (1975, 1979 after Demidenko & Otte 2007), Demidenko et al. (1998, 401) adopted the term Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour type. Indeed, it is the bladelet/microblade production that gives way for a twofold separation of the sequence. The lower layers of units H and G are dominated by slightly curved and straight bladelets of the Dufour sub-type. Twisted pieces and microblades occur occasionally. In contrast to that, the archaeological horizons of the upper unit F are dominated by microblades of the Roc-de-Combe sub-type (e.g., Demidenko et al. 1998) (Fig. 5). Additionally, in the lower layers of units H and G, there are a few Krems points that are indicative for an early/archaic Aurignacian and are not within the occupations of unit F (Demidenko et al. 1998). As mentioned above, a Middle Palaeolithic tool component is present within the layers of units H and G, apart from the uppermost level Ga. Reflecting the high share of bladelets and microblades within these assemblages, bladelet cores domi-nate the core category. Bladelets were solely obtained from bladelet and carinated cores within the lower layers (units G and H) and within the upper layers additionally from carinated tools (end scrapers and particularly burins) (Noiret 2005). Due to the techno-typological dichotomy, the existence of two chronological stages in Siuren 1 was proposed: An ancient/early Aurignacian in units H and G and an evolved Aurigna-cian in unit F (Demidenko 2008a). The integrity of that interpretation will not be topic of the present article. This paper investigates if the flake production changes through-out Aurignacian also alter the sequence in the same way like the bladelet production does. Furthermore, what are the reasons for the nature of the flake production? During three journeys in Ukraine between February 2010 and January 2011, all available lithic blanks that yielded technological and typological information with maximal measured lengths bigger than 1 cm and all available cores, tools and bladelets/microblades from Siuren 1 were investigated. Unmodified chunks, chips, heavily burnt pieces as well as uncharacteristically or heavily fragmented debitage pieces lacking full technologi-

Fig. 5 Siuren 1. Bladelets characteristic for unit F (above) and for units H & G (below). Drawings: G. Bataille.


cal information were not taken under consideration. Additionally, all artefacts where sorted into different raw material units (Transformation Analysis) according to macro-scopic features, in order to better understand raw material economy. Consequently, import and export activities and reduction strategies can be analysed in more detail (c.f. Weissmüller 1995; Uthmeier 2004a, b; Bataille 2010). Artefacts of the following archaeological units were analysed (from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphy): Levels H, Gd, Gc1-2, Gb1-2, Ga, Fb1-2, Fa1-2, Fa3. The focus of the present article is the investigated samples of the two richest archaeological complexes of the site level Gc1-2 (892 artefacts) and level Fb1-2 (1,175 artefacts), because both represent the se-quence’s technological variety and the more or less typological conformity.

level Gc1-2 – early auriGnacian

Archaeological horizon Gc1-2 is situated between layers Gd at the bottom and Gb1-2 at the top. It consists of three artefact concentrations Gc1, Gc2 and Gc2a, which are embedded within geological stratum 15c (Fig. 4). The results of the raw material sorting confirm the togetherness of the concentrations, which does not necessarily mean that we are definitely dealing here with only one single occupational event. In general, the lithic assemblage consists of two components: The majority of artefacts is characterized by the production and modification of bladelets, microblades and blades. A small part of artefacts consists of unifacial and bifacial tools which resemble Micoquian items and are accompanied by few surface shaping flakes (Demidenko et al. 1998; Demidenko & Otte 2007).

Fig. 6 Siuren 1. Cores. Drawings: G. Bataille.


In the following, the flake production within the general lithic reduction processes will be investigated.

Cores

Altogether twelve cores are present in the assemblage (Tab. 1) including three cores, which were described as tools (two carinated end scrapers and one dihedral burin for bladelet/microblade production). In the following, cores with two or more flaking/striking surfaces will be called multiple cores. In contrast to that, cores with only one flaking and striking surface will be called simple cores. Like in all Aurignacian layers of Siuren 1, bladelet cores dominate the assemblage.

Also three blade cores with multiple flaking surfaces are present. Only two com-bined blade/flake cores, one simple and one multiple, indicate intentional flake pro-duction. Additionally, one core chunk of an unspecific flake core is present – at the end of its reduction, small flakes were struck off from a breakage plain. Among the six bladelet cores, there are two simple, two bipolar and two multiple cores each. One nosed end scraper with unilateral retouch further functioned as microblade core in ac-cordance with Bordes (2006). Only for three cores out of nine could a blank type (raw piece, flake, blade or chunk) be evaluated. All blanks that were transformed to cores are flakes: two simple flakes and one with cortical edge.

Concluding from the present core types, longitudinal blank products (bladelets, microblades, and further blades) were detached preferentially from carinated and semi-pyramidal cores with flat reduction surfaces or such that were reduced in a semi-tournante manner (6.1-3 & 6.1-4). Additionally, carinated-like cores with flat surfaces were used in order to obtain curved and straight but non-twisted bladelets (Fig. 6,1). Above all, carinated end scrapers, which are understood by the author as microblade cores, occur as well (Fig. 6,2). They show curved end scraper caps for the production of small curved microblades. The core function of such pieces was investigated and pointed out recurrently (e.g., Bordes 2006; Svoboda 2006). Apart from that, one has to ask for the role of the existing flake cores. First of all, it has to be considered that a dis-tinct concept for flake production in one single level could not be recognized, neither on a core nor on a blank. Uncharacteristic flake cores solely occur, often with multiple striking platforms and flaking surfaces, where adjacent flaking surfaces function as striking platforms (Fig. 7,14). Sometimes these cores show blade flaking surfaces or remains of it (Fig. 6,3). To better understand the meaning of flake production, attention is now drawn to the blank products of level Gc1-2.

BlanksAltogether 892 blanks bigger than 1 cm were analysed, including twelve cores,

among them three cores that can also be interpreted as tools and furthermore 208 tools without core character (Tabs. 1-6). 673 artefacts constitute unmodified blank products (75.45 % of total artefacts bigger than 1 cm). All available blades, bladelets/microblades and flakes > 2 cm were examined. Additionally, further samples of flakes < 2 cm were analysed. Pieces with longest scale dimensions below 3 cm constitute the majority of flakes – this is true for the complete Aurignacian sequence and differs dra-matically from late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of the same region (e.g., Kabazi V, layers IV/2 and IV/3) (Tabs 2-6).

Taking into consideration all investigated blanks including tools and cores, blade-lets and microblades dominate the artefact categories with 33.63 %, followed by 220 flakes > 2 cm with 33.3 %, but including 129 flakes smaller 3 cm (Tab. 7). Blades have an average share of 27.35 %. The category ‘others’ includes six core tablets, five chunks, five retouch chips, two bifacial preforms, 24 not recognizable and nine pieces with missing values (5.72 %). According to the excavators, the blank products of this level constitute the following shares: 424 flakes, 177 blades, 251 bladelets, 98 microblades, 47 core re/preparation pieces, 10 core-like pieces, 195 tools, 17 burin spalls, 939 chips and 137 chunks (Demidenko et al. 1998).

Every artefact category (flake, blade, bladelet/microblade) reflects all phases of core reduction: cortical pieces indicate the decortication phase and crested blanks the


core preparation and core rejuvenation phases. The presence of crested flakes sug-gests the reduction of flake cores within the lithic assemblage. All blank categories were further modified – but, to varying numbers and degrees and consequently as varying types (see below).

It is obvious that the category flake is dominated by pieces smaller 3 cm. This ob-servation gives hint to the inferior meaning of flake production resulting from the pro-duction first of all of small bladelet cores. On the contrary, the bigger flakes often were chosen as tool supports or were reduced as bladelet cores. On the other hand, taking into consideration all flakes, obviously flakes are the dominating blank category with 38.59 % of all blanks and 18.47 % of all artefacts (N = 2,295), but still superior to blades, bladelets and microblades (Demidenko et al. 1998).

ToolsAccording to the present studies, among modified blanks a clear hierarchy of blank

and size classes is visible. Leptolithic artefacts were preferentially modified – 77.25 % of all modified pieces are at least twice as long as wide. Among the latter blank cat-egories, the smallest dominate: Blades with 21.33 %, bladelets with 21.8 % and micro-blades clearly dominate with 34.12 % (Tab. 8). Only 33 flakes were subsequently modi-fied as tools or tools with core function (15.64 % of all modified pieces): 28 of these pieces are flakes bigger than 3 cm and five are flakes smaller than 3 cm.

By comparing tool categories with blank categories, the role of flake production becomes clearer: First of all there is a strong association of bladelets and especially microblades and laterally retouched pieces. Typical for the Aurignacian, microliths are represented by laterally retouched bladelets and microblades, among them Dufour bladelets with alternate and Pseudo-Dufour bladelets with bilateral dorsal retouch. At a first glance, flakes and blades do not correlate remarkably with specific tool catego-ries but featured as supports for more or less all categories (Tab. 9). 11 side scrapers dominate the flake category, followed by retouched pieces (6) and truncated pieces (4). Blades, on the other hand, were preferred as supports for lateral retouched pieces (15), notches (8) and burins (6, including 3 combination tools); furthermore, the blank category was not recognizable for two burins. All simple end scrapers were produced on blades, as well. Concerning the role of flake blanks within the different tool-types, it

Fig. 7 Siuren 1. Middle Palaeolithic component (1-4), sequence of flakes (raw material unit 7) (5-13), exhaus-ted multiple flake core (14). Photos: G. Bataille..


becomes obvious that flakes were preferred as supports for only the thick end scraper types with core function of that assemblage: one double carinated end scraper (com-bined with a lateral retouched edge) and one nosed end scraper. All unifacially and bifacially surface shaped tools were produced on flakes; for one further surface shaped point, the original blank category could not be estimated. As supports for the two carinated end scrapers’ types, thick flakes were chosen, for the double carinated end scraper without and the nosed end scraper with cortical remains (~25 %). In the other layers, thick flakes with cortical remains were favourably chosen as supports for cari-nated pieces, e.g., one piece of level Gb1 (Fig. 6,2). A similar picture was reported for carinated and nosed end scrapers of the Geißenklösterle Aurignacian (Germany) (Hahn 1988).

To sum up, within level Gc1-2, which belongs to the lower section of the sequence, the pronounced importance of bladelet production is recognizable within the blank categories core and tool. The production and modification of blades is another but mi-nor feature of that assemblage – those pieces are especially important for the produc-tion of different types of burins, lateral modifications and further simple end scrapers. Looking at the blank production mode, we recognize a developed bladelet and blade production that features prismatic, semi-prismatic cores and such with flat reduction surfaces. Contrary to that, no specific flake production technology could be attested. On the other hand, flake cores exhibit features of blade and bladelet cores: Flat strik-ing platforms produced by the detachment of core tablets, multiple flaking surfaces which function as striking platforms of adjacent surfaces, unipolar longitudinal scars (Figs. 6,3 & 7,14). The Middle Palaeolithic component is characterized by different types of side scrapers and points on flakes, some of them unifacially and bifacially surface shaped (Figs. 7,1 & 7,2). Thus, there is an isolated operational sequence for the produc-tion of unifacial and bifacial tools on undiagnostic flakes (Fig. 7,3-4). Concerning the Upper Palaeolithic component, thick flakes were needed for the production of blade and bladelet cores on flakes and carinated and (thick) nosed end scrapers (including shouldered end scrapers which are here summarized under the category of (thick) nosed end scrapers (according to Hahn 1977), which in fact are bladelet cores, as well.

Due to the results described above, it seems as if flake production is intermingled with blade and bladelet production processes and possibly a by-product of the blade and bladelet production. Might this assumption be reflected in the upper section of the sequence? In the following, this will be investigated in the biggest Aurignacian horizon level Fb1-2.

level FB1-2 – evolved auriGnacian

Archaeological horizon Fb1-2 is the lowermost archaeological complex of the up-per section of the Aurignacien sequence (Fig. 4). It is situated between the debris of the third rock-fall episode that covers level Ga and below archaeological horizon level Fa3 (Demidenko et al. 1998). Archaeological horizon level Fb1-2 is the richest level of the whole sequence, showing the highest number of stone artefacts and faunal re-mains (Demidenko et al. 1998; Massé & Patou-Mathis 2009). According to Demidenko & Otte (2000-2001, 2007), the present level belongs to the late/evolved phase of the Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour type. Technological and typological investigations could confirm this view. The assemblage is characterized by numerous twisted and curved Dufour and Pseudo-Dufour microblades and further bladelets of Roc-de-Combe sub-type resulting from carinated cores (carinated and nosed end scrapers). Distinct from the lower layers of Siuren 1, straight or slightly curved Dufour and Pseudo-Dufour bladelets of Dufour sub-types do not dominate the microlithic component and only occur occasionally. Furthermore, in levels Fa1-2, Fa3 and Fb1-2, the microlith’s average size classes of width, thickness and length decrease in comparison to the lower levels of Siuren 1. To sum up, technological and typological differences between lower and upper layers of the site, as proposed by Demidenko et al. (1998) are attested. The ques-tion as to whether this observation militates in favour for the presence of two different chronological stages or if it is the result of converging functional manifestations will not be discussed in this paper.


Cores

Level Fb1-2 exhibits 28 cores. Bladelet and microblade cores dominate the assem-blage with 20 pieces (71.43 % of all cores) (Tab. 10). Among those pieces there are seven tools which are interpreted as bladelet/microblade cores by the author: two carinated end scrapers, two nosed end scrapers and three multiple (dihedral) burins. For further multiple burins of this level a core function is possible, as well. (For a de-tailed description of bladelet cores of carinated and nosed end scraper types and such of carinated and dihedral burin types see Bordes [2006] and Lucas [2006]). There are no blade cores, but six flake cores and two core chunks were counted (21.43 % of all cores). This encounter is surprising at first, since a pronounced number of blades occur in that level. It seems possible that at least some of the investigated flake cores were blade cores in a previous production stage. One of these pieces is a combined flake/bladelet core with multiple striking and flaking surfaces. Two of six flake cores are remnant cores. Seven of the 28 cores are tools like carinated end scrapers and different types of multiple burins which were, in the opinion of the author, intended to produce microblades. Six cores were produced on flakes and two on blades. For the majority a specific blank type could not be evaluated, most probably because they were pro-duced on raw pieces.

BlanksThe category blades/microblades dominates the assemblage. According to the ex-

cavators, the blank products of this level are made up of the following: 753 flakes, 89 blades, 272 bladelets, 934 microblades, 117 core re/preparation pieces, 20 core-like pieces, 153 tools, 41 burin spalls, 3665 chips and 249 chunks (Demidenko et al. 1998). For the present study, all available flakes bigger than 1 cm, which exhibited full technological information, blades and the majority of bladelets and microblades were studied. The sample of all blanks is clearly dominated by microblades (40.07 %) followed by flakes (25.66 %), bladelets (19.63 %) and blades (10.06 %) (Tab. 11). Again, all stages of the operational sequence of flake, blade and bladelet production are at-tested by the presence of cortical, crested and natural crested blanks. Among the ana-lysed bladelets and microblades, the majority shows off-axis twisted profiles, followed by curved pieces. In contrast to that, the overwhelming majority of the quite small group of twisted bladelets in level Gc1-2 is twisted on-axis. No specific concept of flake production, in spite of multi-platform cores, can be attested.

ToolsAll available tools were analysed – altogether 150 pieces, among them 28 pieces

with retouch. The great importance of microliths in this assemblage is even more pro-nounced than in level Gc1-2 – a general trend within the archaeological assemblages of unit F. Thus, 48 % of all tools were prepared on bladelets and first of all microblades (44 %), including two crested pieces and one lamellar burin spall. 28 flakes and 29 blades were modified, the former including one crested piece, four transversal flakes and even one flake with dimensions smaller than 3 cm (Tab. 12). The latter are also dominated by 26 simple blanks, but also exhibit one crested blade, one with remnant crest and one with cortical edge, respectively.

On a first glance, no specific relation between flakes and a specific tool type could be observed. Most of them are laterally retouched side scrapers – but, compared to level Gc1-2 this tool type lost its importance and typical Micoquian types like unifacial and bifacial pieces are absent (Tab. 13). Anyhow, two small flakes show features of sur-face shaping: Pronounced lips and a characteristic dorsal scar pattern. Comparatively to level Gc1-2, the variety of tool types on flakes increased. Like in level Gc1-2, end scrapers and burins were preferentially produced on blades. However, flakes were also used as supports of three burins and three end scrapers. All end scrapers on flakes are thick carinated (1) and nosed (2) pieces. Additionally to that, among the combination tools there are one combined carinated end scraper/simple burin, one combined sim-ple end scraper/dihedral burin, two laterally retouched burins on truncation and two laterally modified end scrapers.


coMPariSon oF level Gc1-2 (early auriGnacian) and level FB1-2 (evolved auriGnacian)By comparing lithic assemblages of both studied levels, two fundamental observa-

tions can be made:

- Most tool types observed within the Aurignacian sequence of Siuren 1 are pre-sent in both layers. Nevertheless, only a few artefacts indicating an early stage of the Aurignacian (Krems points) are present and only in level Gc1-2. The same is true for the few unifacial and bifacial tools which resemble Micoquian types. Side scrapers on flakes occur only occasionally within level Fb1-2.

- There is a technological shift concerning bladelet production which results in two different typological variants of bladelets and microblades (in connection with different core configurations) in levels Fb1-2 and Gc1-2. According to Demidenko (2008a & 2008b) this technological and typological shift indicates the presence of two different stages of the Aurignacian at the site.

It is the different Dufour sub-types that might militate in favour for the argument of a chronological dichotomy within the Aurignacian sequence (early/archaic and late/evolved Aurignacian). On the other hand, the typological uniformity of the assemblag-es throughout the sequence might be an argument for a more functional interpreta-tion of the techno-typological differences of bladelet production and modification. In the following the role of flake production within this attested shift will be investigated more closely.

Flake Production Within the oPerational SequenceS

It is striking to see that the mean scale dimensions of all artefacts decrease from level Gc1-2 to Fb1-2 (Tab. 14). This might reflect the shift of scale dimensions of the preponderant blank products bladelet and microblade and of the cores from which they were detached. A decrease of scale dimensions within level Fb1-2 is best shown considering the mean width and thickness values of all artefacts.

Considering only complete artefacts, a similar picture arises (Tab. 14). The much

Fig. 8 Siuren 1. Flakes. Dra-wings: G. Bataille.


smaller mean values of length, width and thickness within the lithic assemblage of level Fb1-2 reflect the pronounced importance of microblades within the assemblages of unit F. Notably blades exhibit no considerable morphological change throughout the complete Aurignacian sequence. This is reflected by their mean scale dimension: 17.15 mm (Gc1-2) and 16.02 mm (Fb1-2). However, this observation is not true for flakes, bladelets or microblades.

Not only did the number of lamellar blanks increase considerably in level Fb1-2, their medium sizes also decrease remarkably. The moderate pronounced smaller mean dimensions of flakes are the result of the altered (bladelet) core dimensions. Moreover, they are a result of the chronological stages they occur in within the operational se-quence. The artefact sizes indicate an embedding of flake production within core prep-aration and reduction processes of blade and bladelet cores which are further attested by the quite high degree of cortical flakes in comparison to other blank products and cores. Cortical flakes indicate the on-site decortication phase. Blades and sometimes bladelets were also involved in this phase, what is proven by the presence of crested and natural débordant blades and bladelets. The high amount of small flakes smaller 3 cm on the contrary gives hint to the fact that flakes were produced during all stages of the chaîne opératoire. At the end of the reduction phase of blade and bladelet cores, small flakes were possibly the main target aims of core reduction. This is indicated by the above mentioned artefact sizes and proven by two different objects:

- Rectilinear rejuvenation non-cortical flakes with unipolar lamellar dorsal scar pat-terns and plain butts, which are the remains of the original striking surface of bladelet cores and, more rarely, blade cores (Fig. 8,4-5).

- Small flake and combined flake/blade remnant cores with multiple platforms, which feature as striking surfaces for adjacent striking platforms (Fig. 6,3) and often one plain primary striking surface, obviously stemming from the preceding phase of blade or bladelet production (Fig. 7,14).

There are no cores with exclusive flaking surfaces for flake detachment in assem-blage Gc1-2; only two combined flake/blade cores, one with one common flaking sur-face for the detachment of flakes and blades and one with multiple flaking surfaces. The scale dimensions of flake, blade and bladelet/microblade cores (including cari-nated tool types), suggest a mean similarity between the combined flake/blade cores and the blade cores; considering data on mean and absolute weight, it becomes obvi-ous that blade cores show a bigger volume than the pieces with flake detachments (Tab. 14 ).

This could further indicate a common operational sequence for blade and flake production, in which real flake reduction occurs in conjunction with a transformation of blade cores into flake cores in the last reduction phase before the core’s exhaus-tion. Considering the range of absolute scale dimensions this assumption is confirmed (Tab. 15).

In level Fb1-2, a change is visible that concerns the importance of blade produc-tion. There is not one blade core present, but blade production is attested by sim-ple, crested and natural débordant blades, which attest all stages of blade production (Tab. 16). In the uppermost Aurignacian horizons of the Aurignacian sequence, there are one blade core (Fa3) and one combined blade/flake core (Fa1-2 ) present. Flake cores are absent in these small assemblages. The predominance of bladelet cores re-flects the increasing importance of bladelets and microblades within level Fb1-2. The few known flake cores of this level are of indifferent character without any analogy to known flake production concepts. Solely the general trend to use every possible angle to obtain flakes from different flaking surfaces is visible. Two of those artefacts are remnant cores. The absence of blade cores may be interpreted as a reorganization of these pieces at the end of their reduction cycle and their transformation into small, often indifferent flake cores with one or more striking and flaking surfaces. This as-sumption is further indicated by smaller mean and absolute sizes of flake cores and flakes in level Fb1-2 in comparison to level Gc1-2 and the general differences between


the volumes of flake (and blade/flake cores) and blade cores (Tabs. 15 & 16). As an additional argument, the presence of remnant cores among the flake cores has to be taken into account. The different core sizes are not the result of a changed selection of lithic raw material; within all assemblages preferentially flat raw materials, like flat round nodules and plaquettes, were chosen for the production of cores (Tabs. 17 & 18).

If the mean weights of flakes and blades are compared as an indicator for the ar-tefact volume, the slight decrease of mean artefact volume in level Fb1-2 concerning the category flake and the reverse for category blade becomes obvious (Tab. 14). Fur-thermore, considering level Fb1-2, blades exhibit slightly bigger mean volumes than flakes – again flake volumes seem to follow the trend of a general decrease of scale di-mensions of bladelets and microblades, while blades seem to result from isolated op-erational sequences that undergo no considerable change throughout the sequence.

It may be that the small blade sample had an impact on the reverse picture. If we compare volumes of all blades and flakes, the picture becomes clearer: Blade volumes are still bigger than flake volumes, but not so distinctly (Tab. 14). Furthermore, no considerable change of mean blade weight is visible. The reason lies within the nota-ble technological and morphological stability in blade production, contrary to blade-

flake blade bladelet microblade chunk others not recognizable missing value0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

missing value

100 %

< 100 %

< 75 %

< 50 %

< 25 %

0 %

Fig. 9 Siuren 1. Cortical remains of all investigated blank categories of level Gc1-2.

flake blade bladelet microblade chunk others not recognizable0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

100 %

< 100 %

< 75 %

< 50 %

< 25 %

0 %

Fig. 10 Siuren 1. Cortical remains of all investigated blank categories of level Fb1-2.


let/microblade production. Moreover, blade production loses its importance in level Fb1-2, which is notable in the lack of blade cores and the decrease of blade products (Demidenko et al. 1998).

The same is true for scale dimensions of both categories. The flakes’ scale dimen-sions decrease notably from level Gc1-2 to level Fb1-2 – this is visible whether only complete or all flakes were considered (Tab. 14). The differences become even clear-er by taking into consideration all flakes bigger than 1cm: Flakes undergo a general (slight) decrease of scale dimensions (Tab. 14). In contrast to flakes, blades show no considerable scale variations between levels Gc1-2 and Fb1-2, regarding all complete and all artefacts (Tab. 14). Only the mean width decreases slightly, while the thickness exhibits an opposite development.

The evidence above reveals a stability of the blade production throughout the Siu-ren 1 sequence with no technological change concerning its production. On the other hand, the, in general, bigger maximum length values of blades in comparison to flakes in both archaeological horizons indicate that blades might have been the preferred products. Apart from cortical flakes of bigger sizes, they were produced rather early at the beginning of the blank production phase whereas flakes were produced rather late during that phase. Additionally, flakes were detached during the whole sequence of core reduction in the course of continuous and recurrent core trimming (cortical flakes and débordant flakes), blank production (undiagnostic flakes of different sizes and shapes) and core rejuvenation (crested flakes).

Analogous to the observed decrease of flakes’ scale dimensions and mean weights,

Fig. 11 Stages of the operational sequence of flake production with referential artefacts of Siuren 1.


mean scale dimensions and mean volumes of modified flakes decline drastically while the dimensions of modified blades stay more or less stable (Tab. 14). This observation further contradicts an isolated operational sequence for flake production but militates in favour of an isolated operational chain for the production of blades that undergoes no technological or morphological changes throughout the sequence. Furthermore, the decrease of flake scales and volumes is a result of the absence of surface shaped tools within level Fb1-2. In comparison to Crimean late Middle Palaeolithic assemblag-es, the Aurignacian assemblages show much smaller mean and absolute scale dimen-sions and smaller mean weights of flakes.

The question that has to be considered is: What is the reason for the decrease of scale dimensions of flakes?

As recurrently mentioned above, there is a technological change in bladelet/mi-croblade production that leads to a typological dichotomy in the sequence, already described by Demidenko (2008a, 2008b): A predominance of bladelets of Dufour sub-type in units H and G and a predominance of bladelets of Roc-de-Combe sub-type in unit F connected with a decrease of artefact sizes. This decrease of lamellar products’ dimensions is reflected by the analogous decrease of flakes’ dimensions. This becomes obvious by looking at scale dimensions of the (few) complete bladelets and micro-blades of levels Gc1-2 and Fb1-2 (Tab. 14).

If the changing mean artefact volume of complete lamellar blanks of levels Gc1-2 and Fb1-2 are taken into consideration, this distinct coherence is mirrored (Tab. 14). The same picture arises when the mean width and thickness values of all bladelets and microblades of both assemblages are taken into consideration (Tab. 14). Therefore, there can be no doubt about the embedding of flake production within blade and first of all bladelet/microblade production processes. What is now the role of flake produc-tion within the operational sequence? The cortical remains of the different blank cat-egories reveal that flakes were produced during the complete operational sequence (Figs. 9 & 10). The comparatively high amount of flakes with cortical remains shows that flakes were produced during the core preparation phase (Figs. 11 & 12). On the

Fig. 12 Incorporation of the flake production within the different stages of the operational sequence of Siuren 1.


other hand, the high degree of flakes smaller 3 cm militates in favour for flake detach-ments from small remnant cores, among them also former blade and bladelet cores.

concluSion

The flake production of Siuren 1 is embedded within the regular production of blades, bladelets and microblades. Moreover, within all layers bladelets and micro-blades are regularly obtained from cores on flakes (Fig. 12). In contrast to the develop-ment of bladelet and microblade production, within this sequence no technological change of flake production is attested. However, a decrease of flakes’ scale dimensions mirrors the increasing number of microblades and microliths from the lower to the up-per layers; changes in flake dimensions reflect above all the general change in bladelet production.

Cores were prepared by the detachment of flakes and additionally by blades, as indicated by the dorsal cortical remains. The lack of blanks completely covered with cortex suggests that most of the cores were decorticated pre-site and imported in an early stage of reduction. Cortical and partially cortical flakes smaller 3 cm stem from the preparation of bladelet cores on flakes. The same is true for the Aurignacian of the Geißenklösterle in the Swabian Jura (Germany) where flakes show more cortical remains than blades (43 % of all flakes: 28 % of all blades). This is also valid for end scrapers (76 %), carinated end scrapers (82 %) and nosed end scrapers (69 %), which show the biggest number of tools with cortical remains (Hahn 1988).

Thick (cortical) flakes were needed as blanks for small bladelet/microblade cores. Bladelet cores were produced on thick flakes from the preparation phase of blade core production (Fig. 12). After exhaustion, the flaking surface was often detached and sometimes further modified. Flakes with cortical remains stemming from the prepara-tion and correction of blade cores were often modified. At the end of the reduction sequence, blade cores could be transformed into combined blade/flake cores or into multiple flake cores after the detachment of the flaking surface (Figs. 11 & 12).

Neither an isolated operational sequence for flake production nor specific tech-nological concepts to obtain flakes could be observed. However, the production of flakes from multi-platform cores with flat striking surfaces seems to be characteristic. The regular occurrence of plain striking platforms and plain butts suggest a re-use of former bladelet and blade cores for flake production.

As already mentioned above, one further mode of lithic production is present – this is the unifacial and bifacial shaping, attested by unifacial and bifacial points and side scrapers of level Gc1-2. The on-site production of these tools is further proven by a few debitage remains in level Gc1-2 and probably level Fb1-2 with only two possi-ble flakes from surface shaping. It could be demonstrated that at least a part of these pieces were produced on blank products – comparatively big flakes were chosen for unifacial and probably also for bifacial tools.

acknoWledGeMentS

The present study is based on the analysis of the Siuren 1 sequence in the course of a doctoral thesis project (The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Crimea [Ukraine] and in the Middle Don Region [Russia] – cultural adaptation and innovation of late Mid-dle Palaeolithic and early Upper Palaeolithic groups) at the University of Cologne. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude to Jürgen Richter and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the financial funding of the journeys related to that pro-ject, and not at least to Werner Schuck for providing unbureaucratic and dependable help concerning these journeys. I also would like to thank Andreas Pastoors, Marco Peresani and Gerd-Christian Weniger for inviting me to the workshop Flakes not Blades and giving me the opportunity to present some preliminary results of my PhD-project in this volume. Yuri Demidenko and Victor Chabai I would like to thank for giving me the opportunity to work with the Siuren 1 material, their support in many respects and not at least for their hospitability. A. Veselsky is thanked for help and fruitful discus-


sions during my stay in Alushta. Andreas Pastoors is thanked for the critical review and proposals for the improvement of the present article. Last, but not least I thank Yvonne Tafelmaier for support and for the proofreading of the present article.

Guido BatailleUniversity of CologneInstitute of Prehistoric ArchaeologyWeyertal 12550923 [email protected]


reFerenceS cited

Adams, B. (2009). The Bükk Mountain Szeletian: Old and New Views on “Transitional” Material from the Eponymous Site of the Szeletian. In: M. Camps & P. Chauhan (Eds.) Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York-Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London, 427-440.

Anikovich, M. (1992). Early Upper Paleolithic Industries of Eastern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 6/2: 205-245.

Bailey, S. E., Weaver, T. D. & Hublin, J.-J. (2009). Who made the Aurignacian and other early Upper Paleolithic industries? Journal of Human Evolution 57: 11-26.

Bonch-Osmolowski, G. A. (1934). The results of the investigations in the Crimean Paleo-lithic. In: The Proceedings of the Second International Congress of the Association for the Quaternary Investigations in Europe 5. Leningrad, Moskau, Nowosibirsk, 114-183.

Bordes, F. (1967). Considérations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Paléoli-thique. Quartär 18: 25-55.

Bordes, F. (1968). Faustkeil und Mammut. Die Altsteinzeit. Kindlers Universitäts Biblio-thek.

Bordes, J.-G. (2006). News from the West: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian sequence of the Périgord. In: O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (Eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Syposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45, Lisboa, 147-171.

Bosinski, G. (1967). Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln, Graz.

Bosinski, G. (1974). Der paläolithische Fundplatz Rheindahlen, Stadtkreis Mönchen-gladbach. Archäologische Informationen 2/3: 11-14.

Chabai, V. P. (1998). The Middle Paleolithic to Aurignacian Transition in the Crimea. In: M. Otte (Ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 339-352.

Chabai, V. P. (2003). The chronological and industrial variability of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33: 71-86.

Chabai, V. P. (2005). Kabazi II: Stratigraphy and Archaeological Sequence. In: V. P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (Eds.) Kabazi II: Last Interglacial Occupation, Environment & Substistence. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea, Vol. 1, Simferopol, Köln, 1-24.

Chabai, V. P. (2008). Kabazi V in the Context of the Crimean Middle Palaeolithic. In: V. P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (Eds.) Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian & Levallois-Mousterian Camp Sites. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea, Vol. 3, Part 2, Simferopol Köln, 1-24.

Chabai, V. P., Marks, A. E. & Monigal, K. (2004). Crimea in the context of the Eastern Eu-ropean Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. E. Marks (Eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III. ERAUL 104, Liège, 419-460.


Chabai, V. P. & Uthmeier, Th. (2006). Settlement Systems in the Crimean Middle Palaeo-lithic. In: V. P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (Eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea, Vol. 2, Simferopol, Köln, Shlyak, 297-359.

Conard, N. J. & Bolus, M. (2006). The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in European Prehistory. In: O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (Eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Syposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45, Lisboa, 211-239.

Demidenko, Y. E. (2008a). East European Aurignacian and its Early/Archaic Industry of Krems-Dufour Type in the Great North Black Sea region. Praehistoria 9: 107-140.

Demidenko, Y. E. (2008b). The Early and Mid-Upper Palaeolithic of the North Black Sea region: an overview. Quartär 55: 99-114.

Demidenko, Y. E., Chabai, V. P., Otte, M., Yevtushenko, A. I. & Tatartsev, S. V. (1998). Siuren-I, an Aurignacian Site in the Crimea (The Investigations of the 1994-1996 Field Seasons). In: M. Otte (Ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 367-413.

Demidenko, Y. E. & Otte, M. (2000-2001). Siuren I (Crimea) in the context of a European Aurignacian. Préhistoire Européenne 16-17: 133-146.

Demidenko, Y. E. & Otte, M. (2007). Siuren I (Crimea) as a key site for Aurignacian in-dustries of Krems-Dufour type in Eastern Europe. In: N. F. Bicho (Ed.) From the Mediter-ranean basin to the Portuguese Atlantic shore: Papers in honor of Anthony Marks. Prom-ontoria Monografica 07, Centro de Estudos de Patrimonio, Departamento de Historia, Arqueologia e Patrimonio, Universidade do Algarve, 101–107.

Gerasimenko, N. (2004). Vegetational History of Buran-Kaya III. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Mo-nigal & A. E. Marks (Eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III, ERAUL 104, Liège, 20-34.

Hahn, J. (1972). Das Aurignacien in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Ph. D. Dissertation, Universi-tät zu Köln, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 3, Köln.

Hahn, J. (1977). Aurignacien. Das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Fun-damenta, Reihe A, Band 9, Böhlau, Köln-Wien.

Hahn, J. (1988). Die Geißenklösterle-Höhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbil-dung und Besiedlung im Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien. Forschungen und Be-richte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden Württemberg, Band 26, Konrad Theiss, Stuttgart.

Hahn, J. (1989). Genese und Funktion einer jungpaläolithischen Freilandstation: Lommer-sum im Rheinland. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 29, Bonn.

Hoffecker, J. F. (2002). Desolate Landscapes. Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. Rut-gers University Press, New Brundwick, New Jersey, London.

Klein, R. (1965). The Middle Paleolithic of the Crimea. Arctic Anthropology III (1): 34-68.

Kozlowski, J. K. & Kozlowski, S. K. (1975). Pradzieje Europy od XL do IV tysiaclecia p. N. E. Warszawa, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Kozlowski, J. K. & Kozlowski, S. K. (1979). Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe. Taxonomy and Palaeohistory. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej (Wroclaw), 18.


Kuhn, S. L. (2002). Pioneers of Microlithization: The “Proto-Aurignacian” of Southern Eu-rope. In: R. G. Elston & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.) Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithi-zation. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 12, 83-93.

Lucas, G. (2006). Re-evaluation of the principal diagnostic criteria of the Aurignacian: the example from Grotte XVI (Cénac-et-Saint-Julien, Dordogne). In: O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (Eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Syposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45, Lisboa, 173-186.

Massé, J. & Patou-Mathis, M. (2009). Siuren I: New Zooarchaeological Results. In: V. P. Chabai (Ed.) Archaeological Almanac. 20, «Donbass», Donetsk, 149-158.

Marks, A. E. (1998). A new Middle to Upper Paleolithic “Transitional“ Assemblage from Buran-Kaya III, Level C: a preliminary report. In: M. Otte (Ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Ge-nèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 353-366.

Marks, A. E. & Monigal K. (2004). Origins of the European Upper Paleolithic, Seen from Crimea. Simple Myth or Complex Reality? In: P. J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn & K. W. Kerry (Eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 64-79.

Matyukhin, A. E. (2006). Stratified Paleolithic Sites at the Mouth of the Seversky Donets River. In: M. W. Anikovich (Ed.) The Early Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia: General Trends, Local Developments. Materials of the International Conference devoted to the 125-th Anniversary of the Paleolithic Investigations in Kostenki, 2004, August, 23-26. Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for the Material Culture History, Proceedings of Kosten-ki-Borschevo archaeological expedition, Vol. 4, Saint-Petersburg, 157-182.

Monigal, K. (2004a). Introduction to the Site of Buran-Kaya III. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Mo-nigal & A. E. Marks (Eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea, Vol. 1, ERAUL 104, Liège, 34-18.

Monigal, K. (2004b). The Lithic Assemblage from Buran-Kaya III Level C. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. E. Marks (Eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of East-ern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III, ERAUL 104, Liège, 57-77.

Monigal, K. (2006). Transit Lounge of Eastern Europe: Multicultural Crimea during the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic. In: N. J. Conard (Ed.) When Neander-thals and Modern Humans met. Kerns, Tübingen, 189-211.

Nehoroshev, P. E. (2004). Technology of Primary Flaking at the Site of Shlyakh, Layer 8 (The Middle Don, Russia). In: Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Bel-gique, 2-8 septembre 2001, BAR International Series 1239, 117-126.

Noiret, P. (2004). Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. L’Anthropologie 108: 425–470.

Noiret, P. (2005). The Aurignacian in Eastern Europe. Anadolu/Anatolia 29: 39-56.

Otte, M., Matyukhin, A. E. & Flas, D. (2006). La Chronologie de Biryuchya Balka (Région de Rostov, Russie). In: M. W. Anikovich (Ed.) The Early Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia: Gener-al Trends, Local Developments. Materials of the International Conference devoted to the 125-th Anniversary of the Paleolithic Investigations in Kostenki, 2004, August, 23-26. Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for the Material Culture History, Proceedings of Kostenki-Borschevo archaeological expedition, Vol. 4, Saint-Petersburg, 183-192.


Pastoors, A. & Tafelmaier, Y. (2010). Bladelet production, core reduction strategies, and efficiency of core configuration at the Middle Paleolithic site Balver Höhle (North Rhine Westphalia, Germany). Quartär 57: 25-41.

Prat, S., Péan, S. C., Crépin, L., Drucker, D.G., Puaud, S.J., Valladas, H., Láznicková-Gale-tová, M., van der Plicht, J. & Yanevich, A. (2011). The Oldest Anatomically Modern Hu-mans from Far Southeast Europe: Direct Dating, Culture and Behavior. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20834. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020834: 1-13.

Révillion, S. & Tuffreau, A. (1994) Les industries laminaires au Paléolithique Moyen. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l´ERA 37 du CRA-CNRS à Villeneuve-d´Ascq 13 et 14 novembre 1991. Dossier de Documentation Archéologique n°18, Paris.

Richter, J. (1997). Sesselfelsgrotte III. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Quartär-Bibliothek, Band 7, Saarbrücker Druckerei und Ver-lag, Saarbrücken.

Rust, A. (1950). Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumüns-ter.

Schäfer, J. & Ranov, A. (1998). Middle Palaeolithic Blade Industries and the Upper Pal-aeolithic of Central Asia. In: M. Otte (Ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 785-814.

Shchelinsky, V. E. (2007). The Paleolithic of the Black Sea shore of Northwest Caucasus (the sites in the open air). Evropeiski Dom, St.-Petersburg.

Sitlivy, V. & Zieba, A. (2006). Eastern and Central Europe before 30 kyr BP: Mousterian, Levallois and Blade Industries. In: V. P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (Eds.) Kabazi II: The 70000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea, Vol. 2, Simfer-opol, Köln, 361-419.

Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1960). Le Paléolithique supérieur du Périgord. Bordeaux.

Stepanchuk, V. (1998). The Crimean Palaeolithic: Genesis and Evolution between 140-30 Kyr BP. In: M. Otte (Ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 261-300.

Sytnik, O. S. (2000). The Middle Paleolithic of Podolia. Lviv.

Svoboda, J. A. (2006). The Aurignacian and after: chronology, geography and cultural taxonomy in the Middle Danube region. In: O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (Eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Syposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45, Lisboa, 259-274.

Uthmeier, Th. (2004a). Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern. Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum. Bonn, Habelt, 2004.

Uthmeier, Th. (2004b). Transformation Analysis and the Reconstruction of On-Site and Off-Site Activities. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. E. Marks (Eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III. ERAUL 104, Liège, 175-191.

Yanevich, A. A. (1998). Buran-Kaya 3 – Neue Angaben zur Kulturgliederung des Jungpa-läolithikums der Krim. Préhistoire Européenne 13: 133-148.


Yanevich, A. A., Péan, S., Crépin, L., Lázničková-Galetová, M., Prat, S. & Pryusyajnuk, V. (2009). Upper Palaeolithic Settlements in Buran-Kaya 3 (Crimea, Ukraine): New Inter-disciplinary Researches of the Layers 5-2, 6-1 and 6-2. In: V. P. Chabai (Ed.) Archaeologi-cal Almanac 20, «Donbass», Donetsk, 187-202.


taBleS

core category N % N %

flake/blade core, simple 1 8.33 2 16.66

flake/blade core, multiple 1 8.33

blade core, simple 3 25 3 25

bladelet core, simple 2 16.67 6 50.01

bladelet core, multiple 2 16.67

bladelet core, bipolar 2 16.67

core chunk 1 8.33 1 8.33

total 12 100 12 100

Tab. 1 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Categories of cores.

Tab. 2 Kabazi V, level IV/2: Longest scales of blank products (all investigated blanks) - mean value = 40.45 mm.

longest scale dimensions N %

< 2 cm 1 0.53

2-2.99 cm 10 5.32

3-3.99 cm 98 52.13

4-4.99 cm 49 26.06

5-5.99 cm 19 10.11

6-6.99 cm 8 4.26

7-7.99 cm 3 1.60

total 188 100


< 2 cm 2 2.30

2-2.99 cm 24 27.59

3-3.99 cm 37 42.53

4-4.99 cm 14 16.09

5-5.99 cm 4 4.60

6-6.99 cm 2 2.30

7-7.99 cm 2 2.30

> 8 cm 2 2.30

total 87 100

Tab. 3 Kabazi V, level IV/3: Longest scales of blank products (all investigated blanks) - mean value = 37.05 mm.


< 2 cm 6 0.56

2-2.99 cm 62 5.77

3-3.99 cm 261 24.30

4-4.99 cm 348 32.40

5-5.99 cm 227 21.14

6-6.99 cm 160 14.90

7-7.99 cm 10 0.93

total 1,074 100

Tab. 4 Kabazi II, level II/8: Longest scales of blank products (all investigated blanks) - mean value = 45.93 mm.



< 1 cm 34 3.98

1-1.99 cm 233 27.28

2-2.99 cm 285 33.37

3-3.99 cm 171 20.02

4-4.99 cm 71 8.31

5-5.99 cm 35 4.10

6-6.99 cm 24 2.81

> 7 cm 1 0.12

total 854 100

Tab. 5 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Longest scales of blank products (all investigated blanks) - mean value = 27.07 mm.


< 1 cm 148 13.09

1-1.99 cm 468 41.38

2-2.99 cm 341 30.15

3-3.99 cm 99 8.75

4-4.99 cm 48 4.24

5-5.99 cm 17 1.50

6-6.99 cm 6 0.53

7-7.99 cm - -

8-8.99 cm 4 0.35

total 1131 100

Tab. 6 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Longest scales of blank products (all investigated blanks) - mean value = 20.34 mm.

blank-type N % N %

flake, simple 122 13.68 297 33.30

flake, transversal 16 1.79

flake, crested 6 0.67

flake, remnant crest 10 1.12

flake, cortical edge 5 0.56

flake, bifacial shaping 9 1.01

flake, < 3 cm 129 14.46

blade, simple 195 21.86 244 27.35

blade, crested 22 2.47

blade, remnant crest 10 1.12

blade, cortical edge 17 1.91

bladelet, simple 166 18.61 297 33.30

bladelet, crested 17 1.91

bladelet, cortical edge 3 0.34

microblade 100 11.21

bladelet, burin 11 1.23

burin spall 3 0.34 54 6.05

core tablet 6 0.67

retouch chip 5 0.56

chunk 5 0.56

not recognizable 26 2.91

no value 9 1.01

total 892 100 892 100

Tab. 7 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Categories of blank products.


blank-type N % N %

flake, simple 16 7.58 33 15.64



flake, cortical edge 2 0.95

flake, < 3 cm 5 2.37

blade, simple 37 17.54 45 21.33



blade, cortical edge 4 1.90

bladelet, simple 46 21.80 118 55.92

microblade 72 34.12

not regognizable 15 7.11 15 7.11

total 211 100 211 100

Tab. 8 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Categories of modified blanks.

active part

tool-type N % N % simple uni-facial

bi-facial

end end scraper, simple 3 1.42 18 8.53 3 - -

end scraper, nosed 1 0.47 1 - -

truncation, straight 5 2.37 5 - -

truncation, oblique 1 0.47 - 4 1

point, simple* 5 2.37 3 - -

Krems point 3 1.42 1 - -

burin burin, simple 2 0.95 4 1.90 2 - -

burin, multiple (dihedral) 1 0.47 1 - -

burin, on breakage 1 0.47 1 - -

edge lateral retouch, simple 33 15.64 156 73.93 33 - -

lateral retouch, bilateral 7 3.32 7 - -

lateral retouch, denticulate 1 0.47 1 - -

lateral retouch, notch 15 7.11 15 - -

alternating (Dufour bladelet) 82 38.86 82 - -

bilateral dorsal (Pseudo-Dufour bladelet)

6 2.84 6 - -

side scraper, simple 5 2.37 4 - 1

side scraper, double 1 0.47 1 - -

side scraper, déjeté 3 1.42 1 2 -

side scraper, convergent 1 0.47 1 - -

lateral retouch, bilateral; Krems point?

1 0.47 1 - -

biface 1 0.47 - - 1

Tab. 9 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Tool-types (continuation next page).

*one unifacial surface shaped point with dorsal crest


active part

tool-type N % N % simple uni-facial

bi-facial

others scaled piece 2 0.95 21 9.95 - - -

use retouch, > 3 cm** 17 8.06 2 - -

use retouch, < 3 cm 2 0.95 - - -

end & edge

end scraper, simple; lateral retouch, simple

1 0.47 4 1.90 1 - -

end scraper, carinated; lateral retouch, simple

1 0.47 1 - -

truncation, straight;lateral retouch, simple

1 0.47 1 - -

truncation, straight; lateral retouch, notch

1 0.47 1 - -

edge & edge

lateral retouch, simple; lateral retouch, notch

1 0.47 4 1.90 1 - -

lateral retouch, notch; alternating (Dufour bladelet)

2 0.95 2 - -

side scraper, pointed 1 0.47 - 1 -

end & burin

burin, simple; borer 1 0.47 1 0.47 1 - -

edge & burin

burin, simple; lateral retouch, denticulate

1 0.47 1 0.47 1 - -

burin & burin

burin, simple; burin, on breakage

2 0.95 2 0.95 2 - -

total 211 100 211 100 182 7 3

Tab. 9 (continuation) Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Tool-types

**pieces with use retouch: 2 artefacts probably are tools with intentional edge modification.

core category N % N %

flake core, simple 1 3.57 6 21.43

flake core, multiple 2 7.14

flake core, indifferent 3 10.71

bladelet core, simple 12 42.86 20 71.43

bladelet core, multiple 5 17.86

bladelet core, bipolar 3 10.71

core chunk 2 7.14 2 7.14

total 28 100 28 100

Tab. 10 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Categories of cores.


blank-type N % N %

flake, simple 261 22.25 301 25.62



flake, with remnant crest 1 0.09

flake, with cortical edge 2 0.17

flake, surface shaping? 2 0.17

flake, resharpening 2 0.17

flake, < 3 cm 12 1.02

blade, simple 111 9.46 118 10.04


blade, with remnant crest 1 0.09

blade, with cortical edge 5 0.43

bladelet, simple 175 14.92 711 60.51


bladelet, with cortical edge 2 0.17

microblade 471 40.09


chunk 1 0.09 45 3.83

non-lamellar burin waste 1 0.09

blade, burin 1 0.09


total 1,175 100 1,175 100

Tab. 11 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Categories of blank products.

blank-type N % N %

flake, simple 22 14.67 28 18.67



flake, < 3 cm 1 0.67

blade, simple 26 17.33 29 19.33



blade, cortex 1 0.67

bladelet, simple 4 2.67 73 48.67


microblade 66 44.00


not recognizable 20 13.33 20 13.33

total 150 100 150 100

Tab. 12 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Categories of modified blanks.


active part

tool-type N % N %

end end scraper, simple 7 4.67 21 14.00

end scraper, crested 2 1.33

end scraper, nosed 2 1.33

truncation, straight 6 4.00

truncation, oblique 4 2.67

edge lateral retouch, simple 53 35.33 83 55.33

lateral retouch, bilateral 1 0.67

lateral retouch, denticulate 2 1.33

lateral retouch, notch 5 3.33

side scraper, simple 5 3.33

backed piece, simple 2 1.33

alternating (Dufour bladelet) 8 5.33

bi-lateral dorsal (Pseudo-Dufour bladelet)

7 4.67

burin burin, simple 2 1.33 10 6.67

burin, multiple (dihedral) 5 3.33

burin, crested 1 0.67

burin, on truncation 1 0.67

burin, on breakage 1 0.67

others use retouch, > 3 cm 18 12.00 28 18.67

use retouch, < 3 cm 10 6.67

end & edge

end scraper, simple; lateral retouch, simple

1 0.67 3 2.00

end scraper, simple; lateral retouch, bilateral

1 0.67

end scraper, simple; lateral retouch, circulating

1 0.67

end & burin

end scraper, simple; burin, multiple (dihedral)

1 0.67 2 1.33

end scraper, carinated; burin, simple

1 0.67

edge & edge

lateral retouch, simple; backed, simple

1 0.67 1 0.67

edge & burin

burin, on truncation; lateral retouch, simple

1 0.67 2 1.33

burin, on truncation; lateral retouch, bilateral

1 0.67

total 150 100 150 100

Tab. 13 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Tool-types.


status artefact category

level mean max. N

l (mm) wi (mm) th (mm) we (g)

all, no limitation

artefact Gc1-2(a) - 16.62 4.71 - 892

Fb1-2 - 11.23 3.24 - 1,175

flake (> 1 cm) Gc1-2(a) - 23.74 5.69 4.41 297

Fb1-2 - 20.88 4.84 2.06 301

blade Gc1-2(a) - 17.14 4.90 3.65 244

Fb1-2 - 16.02 5.27 3.50 118

bladelet & microblade

Gc1-2(a) - 7.70 2.15 - 297

Fb1-2 - 5.77 1.62 - 711

only complete artefact Gc1-2(a) 29.51 22.69 6.87 - 242

Fb1-2 23.36 13.62 4.37 - 446

flake (> 1 cm) Gc1-2(a) 26.41 24.86 6.28 5.40 166

Fb1-2 22.80 21.21 5.29 3.15 168

blade Gc1-2(a) 44.06 17.10 5.83 5.39 33

Fb1-2 44.22 16.18 6.53 5.43 35

bladelet & microblade

Gc1-2(a) 25.42 8.86 2.94 0.44 25

Fb1-2 19.11 6.33 1.91 0.15 224

core Gc1-2(a) 41.40 37.90 30.09 46.10 10

Fb1-2 42.17 27.83 20.99 27.22 23

only modified flake Gc1-2(a) - 32.82 9.51 13.74 33

Fb1-2 - 26.33 8.99 4.33 28

blade Gc1-2(a) - 18.75 5.77 5.33 45

Fb1-2 - 18.27 7.39 7.33 29

Tab. 14 Siuren 1, levels Gc1-2 & Fb1-2: Mean scale dimensions and mean weights (l = length, wi = width, th = thicknes, we = weight).

core-type max. length (mm)

max. width (mm)

max. thick-ness (mm)

weight (g)

blade/flake core, simple 36 43 23 50

blade/flake core, multiple 47 44 23 45

blade core, multiple 41 47 39 72

blade core, multiple 50 49 44 85

bladelet core, simple 24 38.5 26 26

bladelet core, simple 37.5 33.5 19.5 21

bladelet core, simple 47 26 64 67

bladelet core, multiple 39 43 29 38

bladelet core, bipolar 37.5 22 10 9

bladelet core, bipolar 55 33 23.4 48

mean value blade/flake cores

41.5 43.5 23 47.5

blade cores 45.5 48 41.5 78.5

bladelet cores 40 32.67 28.65 34.83

Tab. 15 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Mean and absolute scale dimensions and weights of all cores.


core-type max. length (mm)

max. width (mm)

max. thick-ness (mm)

weight (g)

flake core, multiple 32 33 19.5 21

flake core, indifferent 33 30 26 25


flake core, simple 39 45 23.5 39






bladelet core, bipolar 34 26.5 20 16


bladelet core, simple 36 15 15.5 14



bladelet core, bipolar 40 25 23 16


bladelet core, multiple 45 24 14.7 14

bladelet core, simple 45 32 21.5 37


bladelet core, bipolar 48 43 18.5 45



bladelet core, multiple 65 18.5 7.5 11

mean value flake cores 43.17 37 23.67 41.67

bladelet cores 41.82 24.59 20.04 22.12

Tab. 16 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Mean and absolute scale dimensions and weights of all cores.

reconstructed raw volumes N %

no value 2 4.76

round nodule 5 11.90

flat round nodule 5 11.90

plaquette 4 9.52


total 42 100

Tab. 17 Siuren 1, level Gc1-2: Reconstructed raw volumes of raw material units at the time of import.

reconstructed raw volumes N %

round nodule 8 15.38

flat round nodule 13 25.00

plaquette 1 1.92


total 52 100

Tab. 18 Siuren 1, level Fb1-2: Reconstructed raw volumes of raw material units at the time of import.

Date post:	18-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyendien
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

FLAKES AND BLADES. THE ROLE OF FLAKE PRODUCTION IN THE AURIGNACIAN OF ... · THE ROLE OF FLAKE...

Documents