This article was downloaded by: [LeBouthillier, Tina] On: 29 July 2010 Access details: Sample Issue Voucher:

World ArchaeologyAccess Details: [subscription number 924882936] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World Archaeology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave, Southwest Germany
Joachim Hahna; Linda R. Owena a Institut fr Urgeschichte, Universitt Tbingen, Online publication date: 15 July 2010

To cite this Article Hahn, Joachim and Owen, Linda R.(1985) 'Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of

Geissenklsterle Cave, Southwest Germany', World Archaeology, 17: 1, 61 75 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave, Southwest Germany
Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

Introduction

Since 1973, a series of excavations has been carried out at Geissenklsterle cave in southwest Germany (Hahn et al. 1977). The cave at present lies 60 m above the floor of the Ach valley. The excavations have revealed a stratigraphy which includes an Early Mesolithic, a possible Magdalenian, and several Gravettian and Aurignacian layers. There are probably also Middle Palaeolithic remains, although these may no longer be in situ (Fig. 1). The chrono-stratigraphy (Laville and Hahn 1981) of this site is unique in southwest Germany, where the Aurignacian is especially rare. During the first exploratory excavation, conducted by E. Wagner, a trench was run through the cave. In the subsequent excavations, directed by J. Hahn, more detailed excavation methods were practised. The location of each artefact was recorded three dimensionally and entered on a plan. In addition, all sediments were sieved by quarter square metres. The refitting of stone and bone artefacts is one of the most important methods available for analyzing and controlling an archaeological stratigraphy and for reconstructing technology or human behaviour at a site (see for example Cahen 1980). At Geissenklsterle, Gravettian and Aurignacian assemblages could be extensively refitted for the first time. They have offered valuable information about Upper Palaeolithic blade technology. In addition, they have been an important tool for estimating the extent of disturbances in the cave, i.e. of horizontal and vertical displacement. Only when the extent of these disturbances is known can activity areas in the cave be discussed. Six of the refitted nodules, all of which were used for blade production, will be treated here in detail. No attempt is made to distinguish blades and microblades.

The Aurignacian nodules

Nodule Al is a cobble of dusky red radiolarite, with rolled cortex (Fig. 2, Al). The material is very fine-grained and quite homogeneous, but criss-crossed by several joint planes. It is estimated to have originally been 7 X 7 X 6 cm in size. World Archaeology Volume 17 No. 1 Studying stones

R.K.P. 1985 0043-8243/85/1701/61 $1.50/1

62

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

less cold & less humid

Figure 1 Geissenklsterle Cave: the sequence of geological horizons (GH) and archaeological horizons (AH), with reconstructions of climate, on the evidence of sedimentology, and of environment, on the evidence of rodent remains. A total of 26 artefacts could be refitted from nodule Al. A number of these had broken at a joint plane during knapping. In addition, at least 8 other artefacts, six of which are refitted together, probably belong to the same nodule although they could not be conjoined on to the core. The absent linking artefacts are mostly blades, which were quite possibly taken from the cave.

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave

63

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

A9

Figure 2 Reduction sequence of three Aurignacian cores (for key, see Fig. 4). The refitted pieces come from three archaeological layers (see Fig. 1): lib 8, lid 3 and III 15. That none of the pieces came from layers Iln and Ha, suggests that their original position was lower rather than higher, probably in layer III. The depths of the individual artefacts differ

64

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

considerably, from 317 to 355 cm below our datum point. Although it is an extreme case, there is a depth difference of 30 cm in square metre 37 alone. The horizontal distribution is more limited, although it does spread over several square metres (Fig. 3). Many of the pieces lay a considerable distance outside the main concentration, such as some small flakes in square 17. The core, which was found on the southeast edge of the artefact distribution, shows no relationship to the individual reduction phases. It is therefore improbable that the distribution of the refitted pieces represents the original knapping distribution, although this may be the case if the knapping was done in a standing position. It is, however, more probable that the pieces were dumped here and perhaps also subsequently moved short distances horizontally away from each other. The reduction phases may be summarized as follows: the cortex was first removed from both sides of the nodule, perhaps in order to test its quality. This was apparently done outside the excavation area and perhaps even outside the cave. Afterwards the first striking platform was created. A naturally straight edge, formed by the intersection of cortex and a joint plane, was used as a guide for the removal of the first blades. The platforms and the few crested blades show that an attempt was made to use the nodule economically. In order to save raw material, the angle between the fluted face and the platform was controlled in most cases by battering directed on to the former. It is interesting that the series of blades were always detached from right to left. Nodule A5 is of fine-grained homogeneous grey chert (Fig. 2, A5). A total of 17 artefacts from five archaeological layers could be refitted from this nodule: Ilab 1, lib 3, lid 4, HI 8 and Ilia 1. Most of the pieces lie relatively deep. The highest occurred in square metre 36, layer lib, although pieces were found 45 cm deeper in the adjoining square 37. The lowest piece was found near the back wall of the cave in square metre 48 at a depth of 355 cm below datum, but as the sediment is very loose here, it is possible that it may have slid down from its original place. Although the distribution of the majority of the pieces (Fig. 3) indicates a weak concentration in square metres 47, 48 and 38, individual pieces were scattered far away, e.g. in square metre 77. The core lay approximately one metre northwest of the concentration. Two conjoining blades lay in the centre of the concentration, whereas the other blades are scattered towards the northeast. The only tool, a truncated flake, lay in the west. This loose distribution makes an interpretation difficult. In general, it is clear that this core had only one single blade removal phase during which a limited number of blades was produced. Some of the blades are not prepared on the dorsal surfaces, but on the platforms themselves. It is also striking that the core was usually turned to the left, whereby a negative was chosen with a ridge suitable for guiding the next removal. At the end, an attempt was made to remove further blanks from the left as well as from the right side of the core. This sequence of reduction could be termed opportunistic. Nodule A9 (Fig. 2, A9) is of relatively smooth yellow-brown chert, probably from the local Tertiary loams, with characteristic large rough inclusions and joint planes. The reverse side of the core is covered by a rough cortex which has not experienced fluviatile rolling, while the front originally consisted of a joint piane which is partly covered by white spots of patination. With one exception, all the pieces from this nodule come from layer HI, although from different sub-layers. The one exception was found in level Ha in the same square metre, 77, where most of the other pieces occurred much deeper in levels III or Ilia. Incidentally, this is the only piece

 a
Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

o A1 A5

70

L60

^50
ON

Figure 3 Horizontal distribution of the components of three refitted Aurignacian cores at Geissenklsterle Cave.

66

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

which is rolled and which has edges damaged by solifluction or cryoturbation. This most probably indicates that the piece moved vertically, causing the edge damage. Most other pieces from nodule A9 were concentrated around a hearth in square 77, level Ilia, while a further 5 were found in the adjacent square 67. A single conjoinable piece lay further away, in square 47. The reduction of this nodule can be divided into three phases, each of which is characterized by the creation of a new platform. In each case the platform edges were prepared on the fluted face before the detaching of flakes/blades began. This preparation consisted of short battering, followed by a very fine battering, after which the edge was crushed in order to strengthen it. During the platform edge preparation, a very small protrusion on the striking platform was created. Although the rejuvenation flakes from the first platform were not found in the excavated area of the cave, it cannot be excluded that the whole reduction process took place in another area, which we have not yet excavated, perhaps near the hearth in square metre 77. There may also be a time difference, however short, between the second and third reduction phases of the core. In general, it is interesting that no true crested blades from this core were found. These were probably made unnecessary or only partially necessary by the presence of natural ridges between the cortex surfaces and the joint planes. The order of removal of blades or flakes varied in direction and took place within limited areas, in order to take advantage of the most suitable ridge. A movement from right to left seems to have been the most common. The core platform edge, even in the last working stage, was prepared along its whole extent. On the left, the battering proved to be too deep, making further removals here impossible. A total of 13 pieces, 7 blades, 4 flakes and 1 crested blade, were refitted from this nodule. A minimum of 25 other pieces, including 9 flakes, must have originally belonged to it. As one can see from these figures, at least one third of the original nodule is now missing. Only one blank from nodule A9 was retouched, with steep working on both lateral edges: morphologically, it resembles a carnate scraper, but the front has been left unretouched. Most of the refitted artefacts were distributed over a space a bit larger than a square metre (Fig. 3), with the core at the edge of this scatter. This close concentration, within which all the artefacts of the different platform phases form two separate smaller groups, can be interpreted as a knapping place. The small size of the spread even suggests that the knapping was carried out in a sitting position. The gap towards the southeast may well represent the actual position of the knapper, and the hearth on the northeast edge of the artefact distribution may have been in use at the time. However, as the excavation in this area is not yet completed, the interpretation of this concentration as an intact knapping site must be considered merely as a possibility at the present stage.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

The Gravettian nodules

Nodule Gl (Fig. 4, Gl) is of light grey Jurassic chert, which is homogeneous, fine-grained and smooth. A total of six pieces were refitted onto the core. They consist of a primary, unidirectionally crested blade, two complete microblades, two proximal microblade fragments and one proximal flake fragment. They came from the archaeological layers: Is 2, It 3, It/la 1. In addition, 117 other pieces clearly belong to the same core, though they cannot yet be refitted onto it.

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave

67

The majority of these came from the archaeological layer It, although several were also found in Is, la and Ib. The refitted pieces differ in their depths by 27 cm, the lowest coming from square metre 77 and the highest from square metre 65. Although the core and the crested blade were found close to each other in the north of the cave near the wall (Fig. 5) the other refitted pieces show no obvious patterning in distribution. The other refitted pieces were distributed in a wide arc around the large hearth. A second smaller concentration is found around the other hearth in square metre 26. These two concentrations are separated by an almost empty zone (squares 45 to 49). Since these square metres were part of the exploratory trench excavated by Wagner, this apparently empty zone may just be a product of the different excavation techniques. Nodule G2 (Fig. 4, G2) is of white, fine-grained chert with a series of very fine-grained thin grey and brown bands under the weathered cortex. A total of eight pieces from six blades were refitted together. They consist of a secondary right-sided crested blade with missing distal end, a burin (in two pieces) on a blade, with three burin spall negatives, two proximal blade fragments, with possible lateral retouch, one proximal blade fragment broken into two pieces and one distal blade fragment. They were found in the archaeological layers It 5, la 1, Ib 1 and (?) 1. Another 16 artefacts, including 10 blades and blade fragments can be recognized as coming from the same nodule. Amongst these, three of the blade fragments (2 proximal and 1 medial fragment) could also be refitted to each other. This series differs from the first in that it has cortex on the right and not on the left side. The majority of the pieces came from layer It, which also produced most of the finds in general. The larger refitted series spread over 30 cm in depth, the highest piece coming from square metre 87 and the lowest from square metre 76. The spatial distribution forms a wide, loose arc around the hearth as was also the case with Gl. Nodule G4 (Fig. 4, G4) is of yellowish-brown fine-grained chert with a weathered cortex. Two cores (G4A and G4B) were found, which both belong to this nodule. G4A is fractured into three pieces (perhaps due to frost). A possible core tablet, two proximal flake fragments and a proximal blade fragment which had broken at a joint plane, two complete blades, one proximal and one distal blade fragment, two complete flakes (one of which may be a nosed scraper), and two proximal flake fragments have all been refitted onto it. G4B is a blade core on a flake, one side of which is covered by cortex. A complete blade, one proximal and one distal blade fragment, and part of another blade, refitted from a proximal fragment (which incorporated a burin on a break) and a medial fragment, have been refitted on to it or can be shown to belong to it. In addition, 11 other artefacts appear to belong to the initial working of this nodule. All have cortex with a characteristic brown band underneath it, similar to that of core G4B. A series of five of these artefacts were refitted (3 flakes and 1 blade broken into 2 fragments). These were all assigned to layer It. A total of 45 other artefacts evidently belong to the same nodule, but could not be refitted on to the cores. Over half of the pieces, both refitted and unrefitted, were attributed to layer It. The other half were spread through Ir, Is, la and Ib. The pieces of the refitted core G4A range in depth from 236 cm in square metre 110 to 281 cm in square 86, a vertical difference of approximately 45 cm, part of which is due to the general slope of the layers towards the southwest. Those from G4B range from 230 cm in square metre 89 to 281 cm in square 58, slightly more than half a metre. The spatial distribution, both of the refitted pieces and of the material from the nodule that could not be refitted, is similar

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

68

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

G4B

Figure 4 Reduction sequence of four Gravettian cores, with key for this figure and Fig. 2: a, preparation of trimming blade; b, preparation of platform; c, lateral preparation; d, blade removals; e, preparation of platform edge; f, core. to the other Gravettian nodules described above as it forms a wide arc around the hearth. The cortical pieces were found close together in square metres 87 and 88, which may have been the place where the nodule was originally prepared.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

to
re

r
o

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Figure 5 Horizontal distribution of the components of four refitted Gravettian cores at Geissenklsterle Cave.

70

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Distribution of the artefacts Horizontal distribution The Gravettian cores presented here all seem to lie around the main hearth in a loose arc. Only the cortical pieces from G4 were found closely together and may represent a knapping site. It is interesting that, in each case, the cores lay on the outside edge of the artefact distribution. There appears to be a definite movement between the main concentration around the larger hearth and the lesser concentration around the smaller hearth. This movement does not appear to be of natural origin, as it does not follow the slope of the layers. It is possible that the pieces were taken from one area to the other. Since the area to the front of the cave (square metres 75 to 45) was blocked by a large overhang during the Gravettian, it is also possible that the way to and from the cave entrance passed near the small hearth and that the pieces were brought to this area accidentally as people walked through the cave. In the Aurignacian, the lines that link conjoining artefacts run in the same direction, suggesting a more diagonal movement, whether accidental or intentional. The cores lie at the edge of the artefact distributions, as in the Gravettian. But the distributions show greater diversity and it is notable that the close association of the pieces from nodule A9 may indicate an intact knapping place. Vertical distribution The refitted artefacts from the Gravettian layers show a great deal of intermixture between the archaeological layers, as noted in the case of the nodules described above. In each case the refitted pieces came from several archaeological layers, although the majority always came from layer It. Depth differences of pieces from one nodule were as high as 50 cm. At present, there appears to be no basis for dividing the different Gravettian layers and they will be considered together. The Aurignacian nodules too were refitted with pieces from different archaeological layers. But levels III and II seem to represent two centres around which the refittings group. The fall of blocks from the cave roof and vertical movement, e.g. by frost heaving, seem to have caused the apparent mixing between the layers. Technological study of the artefacts The Aurignacian and Gravettian layers in the cave are clearly separated. Only isolated pieces have been refitted between the two technocomplexes and almost all of these came from the first exploratory excavation. In addition, the raw material types, although the same overall, show clear differences in terms of preference.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

Aurignacian Two different types of raw material were used for blade production in the Aurignacian layers: local chert and radiolarite, the former being much more common. Both were obtained from the

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave

71

gravels of the former Danube, which accounts for example for the secondary yellow-brown coloring on the chert. The maximum dimension of both of the worked radiolarite nodules was at least 70 mm, and that of the largest chert nodule at least 95 mm. The largest chert blades (longest 127 mm) were made from a brown chert not knapped in the cave. Despite the extensive refittings - not only the three nodules presented here - the cortex flakes that belong to the first platform preparations could not be found. This implies that they were struck outside the excavated area, possibly outside the cave. This could mean that raw material was tested for its knapping qualities where it was found. The occurrence of frostshattered worked nodules in the cave shows however that this was not always the case and that some inferior quality material was also brought into the site. The Aurignacian cores do not appear to have been worked to a specific form. As far as can be seen from the refits, nodules were chosen which already possessed a natural ridge, such as the edge between cortex and a joint plane. Since the first flakes removed to create the platform are missing, nothing more can be said about this stage. The correction of the flaking angle, i.e. the creation of a new platform, was generally done from the fluted face by removing a number of small flakes. Joint planes were presumably also used as a basis for the creation of a platform. The preparation of the distal end of the core, according to the evidence of complete blades and fragments, shows that the optimal oval to pointed oval core form was carefully maintained throughout the process of core reduction. The majority of the crested blades are unidirectional and occur mostly in the later reduction stages of the cores. As a rule the edge of the platform was strengthened: short stepped scars suggest that this part of the preparation was carried out by light tapping with a hammer stone. The direction of this working was usually from the platform on to the fluted face, which explains why most of the blades have plain or unfaceted butts. No grinding or 'scrubbing' of the edge of the platform seems to have been carried out. It appears that a protrusion on the platform edge was often deliberately created in the course of platform edge preparation, from which blades could be more easily struck. The blades, which have as a rule flat bulbs of percussion and lips on the ventral platform edge, were probably struck off with a soft hammer. The Aurignacian cores described in this paper were reduced in the following manner. The small size of the nodules appears to have influenced the core preparation and led to an opportunistic reduction strategy. No extensive core preparation could be carried out as this would have led to too great a loss of nodule size. In general, the blades were struck off in one direction as long as the fluted face allowed this. Most of the recognizable blade cores therefore have one platform and one fluted face. Occasionally however blades were first removed from one surface and then a new platform was created on the opposite end from which blades were removed from a different area of the core's surface. It also seems that the knappers attempted to use the cores to the point of complete exhaustion, even though only small stepped or hinged flakes were removed at the end. This can be seen on the third example described here, A9 (see Fig. 2). True blades were rarely refitted onto the blade cores, with the exception of the one radiolarite core where the blades broke on a joint plane during production. It is of course clear that only the less successful cores and their waste can be refitted without difficulty, whereas a reduction process that went well cannot be reconstructed so easily because of the missing blades, taken away for use.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

72

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

Gravettian More than a thousand blades and blade fragments have been recovered from the Gravettian layers of the Geissenklsterle Cave. As in the Aurignacian, local chert and radiolarite were used for the production of blades. In the Gravettian, radiolarite was more common, making up more than 40 per cent of the recovered blades and blade fragments. The largest chert nodule from these layers was at least 155 mm long, the largest blade 81.5 mm long. The size of the radiolarite nodules is more difficult to estimate as few of their products have as yet been refitted. In fact, although radiolarite blades are very common, the number of recognizable radiolarite blade cores is very small. The largest radiolarite blade is 85.2 mm long. Evidence that the nodules might have been tested before being brought to the cave comes from an almost completely refitted nodule of easily recognizable brown chert. Although the refitted pieces with the exception of two flakes, were found in close association, no flakes at all from the initial removal of the cortex were found within the cave. As can be seen in the case of nodule G4, cortex removal and initial core preparation also occurred within the cave, as a discretely located episode. The Gravettian blade cores were flaked to specific forms. Their keels were rounded and the sides often trimmed back. Crested blades, usually one-sided, were used as guide-ridges. They were often only retouched distally and served merely to reshape the core's keel. As a rule, the platforms were created by the removal of a single flake, struck from the fluted surface. Refitting shows that platform rejuvenation was frequent. When platform rejuvenation was unsuccessful, or when a working face was made unusable by hinge fractures, the core would be turned over and a second platform created on the opposite side. The cores were used as much as possible and were very small when finally discarded. Platform edges were normally battered in such a way that the scars occur on the fluted face. Slightly more than 10 per cent of the blades also show grinding on the platform edge. This varies from core to core. Of the blade cores presented here, Gl and G2 had ground platform edges, but G4 did not. This may suggest that they were made by different flint knappers. The edge preparation in general created rounded, smooth platform edges. The blades are regular in shape with flat bulbs of percussion. Lips are uncommon, but more than 45 per cent have raillure (bulbar) scars.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

Comparison of the Aurignacian and Gravettian blade cores Analysis of the refitted blade cores, and of the blade cores and blades in general, have shown considerable differences between the Aurignacian and Gravettian in Geissenklsterle Cave. Although the same raw materials were used, radiolarite was much more common in the Gravettian where it made up more than 40 per cent of the blades and blade fragments. It also appears to have come from a different source than that used by the Aurignacians. The size of the radiolarite blades in both technocomplexes was similar (the largest approximately 80 mm long) and appears to have been determined by the size of the nodules. In the Aurignacian, there are considerably larger chert blades. The longest are 127 mm, compared to 80 mm in the Gravettian. Core preparation varied considerably. In comparison to the Gravettian cores, which had rounded keels and trimmed back sides as a rule, the Aurignacian cores were less elaborately

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave

73

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

prepared. In the Aurignacian, natural ridges and edges were used as guides for blade production wherever possible, crested blades being used mainly in the later stages of the core reduction. This probably explains the larger percentage of crested blades in later Gravettian layers (11 per cent are primary or secondary crested blades as compared to 8 per cent in the Aurignacian). The Aurignacian core platforms were normally made by removing several flakes, usually struck from the fluted face. The platform edges were generally battered on to the fluted face, in such a way that a slight protrusion on the edge was created. In contrast, the Gravettian core platforms were usually smooth, created by the removal of a single flake struck from the fluted face. The platform edges were battered on to the fluted face and then crushed or ground to produce a smooth rounded edge. 75 per cent of the Gravettian blades have plain butts, but only 66 per cent of the Aurignacian blades. The majority of cores in both the Aurignacian and the Gravettian have one platform and one fluted face, though in each case some do have two platforms and two fluted faces. In the Aurignacian there are also a large number of cores without any recognizable form. In the Gravettian, some cores exist with two platforms and only one fluted face. The Aurignacian blades, in general, have flat bulbs of percussion. Over 70 per cent have protruding lips on the ventral platform edge, and about 50 per cent have raillure scars. The Gravettian blades also have flat bulbs of percussion and frequent raillure scars; less than a quarter, however, have lipped platforms. In addition, blades which have removed part of the core at their distal ends (plunging blades) are considerably more common in the Gravettian (7.5 per cent) than in the Aurignacian (2.5 per cent). There are thus numerous differences between the Aurignacian and Gravettian blade technologies at Geissenklsterle. It is possible that they are the product of two different production techniques: direct percussion with a soft hammer in the Aurignacian and indirect percussion in the Gravettian. This hypothesis is supported by finds at the site of antler percussion instruments in the Aurignacian and punches in the Gravettian.

External comparisons Comparisons with other contemporaneous assemblages are at present not possible, because there are not yet sufficient technological analyses based on refits. However, the Magdalenian of the Paris basin and the late palaeolithic site of Meer in Belgium have been analysed on similar lines to those used here. In the Magdalenian of Pincevent (Cahen et al. 1980) a specific technique was used to produce blades. The abandoned cores have the following forms: (a) with a fluted face and a prepared back; (b) with one fluted face and a flat back surface; (c) shapeless cores with several fluted faces, backs and platforms. The evidence of refits at Pincevent demonstrates that cores in category (c) once belonged to (a) or (b). The ideal form of the pre-core is biconvex, created by two crests. The two crested ridges play different roles in the blade production. One serves as a guiding ridge for the production of the blades, the other for the correction or renewal of the angle between the fluted face and the platform. The latter platform correction is carried out from the fluted face, so that the flakes which achieved it carry remains of the crest on their distal ends. This ideal form for cores has of course to be adapted to the individual shape of the nodules. The crest preparation varies, it is least developed on the back which can also consist of cortex.

74

Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

During the reduction process, symmetry seldom remains. Often the fluted face is shifted to the side, so that the back crest is also on one side, although it is still used for the correction of the platform. At Pincevent, cores with one fluted face and two opposed platforms do not appear to represent a special technique, since the refits showed no alternating striking off from one platform to the other. For Meer, D. Cahen (in Van Noten 1978) describes two different methods of blade production: a classical and a simplified method. The simplified method consists of the preparation of the nodule, the creation of a single platform and the use of a natural ridge such as the edge between the often flat sides of the nodule and the small side. The classical method consists of the careful preparation of the nodule and the creation of a guiding ridge, as at Pincevent. Blades produced by this more elaborate method do not seem to have been made at the site itself at Meer, since both the necessary raw material and nodules of the right size are missing. At Verberie (F. Audouze et a!. 1981) blade technology generally corresponds to that of the Magdalenian in the Paris basin, with some possible local variation. The knappers of Verberie prepared the cylindrical nodules, whose complete length was to be used, in a pointed oval form as was usual, with the customary two crests. But in the case of at least one core, this was followed by the preparatory striking of short massive blades from two opposing platforms. This alternate use of the two platforms was only carried out in order to create a suitable single platform, from which the real blade production was then carried out. The difference between the preparatory and the genuine blades could be seen from the refits: the genuine blades could not all be refitted, since some were missing, whereas all the short preparatory blades were found with the waste. At Verberie one also finds a simplified blade production which took advantage of the natural form of the nodules without too much preparation. If we take the evidence from Geissenklsterle Cave, it is apparent that in the Aurignacian only a simplified core preparation and blade production took place. Even if no complete cores could be refitted, the Gravettian blade technology seems to be more evolved, even comparable to that of the Magdalenian. But if we look more closely at southwest German Magdalenian sites, another technological innovation seems to have taken place. The Magdalenian lithic technology is far more dependent on blade production and the use of blades as blanks than any of its predecessors: amongst the cores and dbitage, blade cores and blades are seemingly more frequent. But the number of crested blades has fallen even below the percentage known in the Aurignacian. This seems to indicate that the control of the raw material and of the core reduction was far more skilled in the Magdalenian than in the two preceding technocomplexes.

Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

Acknowledgments Linda Owen's work was supported by Stiftung Volkswagenwerk. We would also like to thank Hubert Berke for his help with the refitting, and Anne Scheer for her advice and suggestions. 2.xi.l984 Institut fr Urgeschichte Universitt Tbingen

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave References

75

Audouze, F., Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H. and Schmider, B. 1981. Le site magdalnien du Buisson Campin Verberie (Oise). Gallia Prhistoire. 24: 99-143. Cahen, D. 1980. Question de contemporanit: l'apport des remontages. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise. 77: 8: 230-2. Cahen, D., Karlin, C., Keeley, L. and Van Noten, F. 1980. Methodes d'analyse technique, spatiale et fonctionelle d'ensembles lithiques. Helinium. 20: 209-59. Hahn, J., von Koenigswald, W., Wagner, E. and Wille, W. 1977. Das Geissenklsterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis: eine altsteinzeitliche Hhlenstation der mittleren Alb. Fundberichte aus Bad.-Wurttemberg. 3: 14-37. Laville, H. and Hahn, J. 1981. Les dpots de Geissenklsterle et l'volution du climat en Jura souabe entre 36,000 et 23,000 B.P. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris. 292: 225-7.
Downloaded By: [LeBouthillier, Tina] At: 19:54 29 July 2010

Van Noten, F. L. (ed). 1978. Les chasseurs de Meer. (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses. 18). Brugge: De Tempel.

Abstract Hahn, Joachim and Owen, Linda R.

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave, Southwest Germany

This cave has produced a series of Aurignacian and Gravettian levels. In each case, numerous artefact refits between different archaeological layers indicate that strong post-depositional disturbances took place, whose exact nature is as yet unexplored. The technological information provided by the refits points to marked differences in both the raw material selection and the blade production processes for the two technocomplexes, Aurignacian and Gravettian, and these are enumerated and discussed. Other Upper Palaeolithic sites where artefact refits have been extensively studied are briefly considered, and certain refinements in blade technology introduced by the Magdalenians, both in the Paris basin and in Southwest Germany, are noted.