Mikoaj Urbanowski Szczecin University, Institute of history, archaeological department ul. Krakowska 71-79, 71-017 Szczecin, tel.

: (091) 444 33 00, fax: 444 33 01. e-mail.: m.urbanowski@univ.szczecin.pl

MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC HANDAXES : THE CASE OF WYLOTNE ROCKSHELTER 1 Background

Since the end of 18th century handaxes have been attracting scientists attention. Their interpretation as general-purpose, heavy-duty cutting tools, mostly connected with a big game butchery, seems to be best backed by the archaeological evidences. However, the number of other, sometimes exotic, interpretations is significant (cf. discussion and further literature in Nowell and Lee Chang, 2009; Whittaker and McCall, 2001). Not rejecting the classical proposals of their typological distinction and subdivisions (Bordes, 1981; Roe, 1981), for the majority of modern researchers the symmetry combined with bifacial technology is their most distinctive feature. Interpretation of their morphology as an effect of deliberate shaping, following a preexisting mental template creates more controversy (cf. discussion and further literature for example in: Wynn, 2002; Gowlet, 2006 versus McPherron, 2000; McNabb et al., 2004). Although in some regions, including Central Europe, they are absent or rare, they remain the most important tools of Lower Palaeolithic. It is a case also from European perspective, as their mass production can be observed here in archaeological record since at least OIS 12 (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999). Towards the end of Lower Palaeolithic we can notice a trend resulting in gradual asymmetrisation of these tools. Some usewear analysis suggest handaxes could be used asymmetrically (with the only one edge selected as a cutting edge) even as early as in OIS 11 (Fig. 1b). Interestingly, the clear changes in morphology of bifacial cutting tools, which allow to call them knives, can be traced not earlier than in OIS 8 (Fig. 1c). On the other hand, the fully symmetrical handaxes seem to be still present at the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic (Fig. 1a). This suggests that conceptualisation of asymmetry, reflected in many aspects of lithic technology including also debitage methods, may express rather a gradual development of human mental abilities than single invention. During the Late Middle Palaeolithic (LMP) an asymmetrisation in lithic technology has become dominant. The presence of fully symmetrical forms is limited to the single leaf-points - like implements known from a few assemblages like Knigsaue C (Mania and Toepfer, 1973) or Zwoleo (Schild et al, 2006). During that period industries with asymmetrical bifacial and unifacial knives, traditionally called Micoquian, are very common in the European Plain and bordering highland zone. The asymmetry between a back and a cutting edge seems to be the most distinctive feature of these tools, together with the other aspects of asymmetry as like plano-convexity, characteristic for Middle Palaeolithic tools in general.

In Central Europe the asymmetrical knives seem to be in that period an integral part of virtually all assemblages, which leaded some authors to the idea of general cultural unity between so called Micoquian and Mousterian (Richter 1997). Its worth to notice, that the general come-back of symmetrical forms is dated to the late OIS 3, a period of gradual erosion of Neanderthal model of culture. During that period two important cultural phenomena marked the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic boundary. First was the occurrence of Mousterian of Acheulian tradition (MTA) assemblages from SW France (Sorresi, 2002; 2004a; 2004b), second was the occurrence of leaf-points industries (see e.g.: Grakampf, 2001).

Fig. 1 Asymmetrisation of the big cutting tools. 1a) The fully symmetrical, giant (over 30cm) handaxe from Cuxton, England (Wenban-Smith 2004), roughly dated to the beginning of Middle Palaeolithic (OIS 10 - 8?). 1b) The HXN 1311 handaxe from Hoxne assemblage (Keely 1980), dated to OIS 11-10 (Grn & Schwarcz 2000). The traseological analysis revealed that its function - which was reconstructed as cutting meat - was restricted to only one edge, similarly to the Middle Palaeolithic knives. 1c) The Early Middle Palaeolithic knife from Binik cave assemblage A5 (Cyrek, 2002: Tabl. XXXI, Fig. 1), dated to OIS 8 (Saalian). Notice the characteristic shape of the basal part of the back.

Taking into account the above remarks, the Central European site, dated to the apogee of LMP, and claimed by its discoverer and subsequent researches as containing a rich assemblage of bifacial handaxes must attract a particular attention.

2 The site
The Wylotne Rockshelter is one of the most important and richest LMP assemblages from Poland (Chmielewski 1970, 1975; Kozowski ed., 2006). The excavation conducted by Waldemar Chmielewski yielded over 14.000 artefacts from 3 layers, dated to the early part of last glaciation (Madeyska 2006). Despite the careful exploration, the chance of obtaining a precise stratification for an early Vistulian cultural record was not confirmed by the refittings, as 29 from all 87 blocks revealed connections of artefacts coming from different layers. This level of unhomogenity is not surprising due to the scale of post-depositional disturbances, and probably not very different from the other LMP sites. The three inventories from layers 8/7, 6 and 5 may be analysed as one assemblage also because they represent similar morphological and technological features. They are strongly dominated by asymmetrical knives, however also the existence of handaxes was claimed. The knives show moderate to low level of reduction. The reconstruction of the site inner structure is difficult due to the disturbances and presumably repetitive character of settlement. Analysis of the solifluction flows suggest the main occupation zone was placed in the centre of the biggest chamber. The assemblage contains extraordinary high number of big and very big cutting tools and rough-outs when comparing to the other LMP cave sites. The small number of bones, representing typical early Vistulian phauna, reinforces the impression that the primary function of the site was an atelier. It was presumably connected with the exploitation of high-quality Jurassic flint accessible in the neighbourhood.

3 Objectives and Methods

3.1 Objectives
The aim of this study was to analyse the implements described as handaxes in order to verify whether they actually form a tool class separated from the asymmetrical knives by implementation of different mental template. According to a reductive assumption, that the Wylotne Rockshelter assemblage should fit into a techno-stylistic characteristics typical for Central European LMP assemblages, the expected result taken as a H0 hypothesis was supposed to be negative.

3.2 Sources
This contribution was based mostly on data coming from the publications of Wylotne assemblage. The analysed sample consists of all the implements published as the knives, handaxes, and scrapers. These artefacts are regarded here as the cutting tools, according to the well known observation that cutting was the main function for the most of the LMP flint implements (cf. Beyries 1987). To avoid inconsistencies, the typological classes distinguished by different researchers were used mainly as the starting point for the further analysis. In particular this was a case for the handaxes, as the aim of this contribution was to verify the criteria used for their distinguishing in Wylotne assemblage. On the other hand, the results of the analyses were described according to techno-morphometrical criteria, which seem to be a better base for tracing the real tool classes inside a variability of the cutting tools shapes and dimensions. Observation of artefacts dimensions differentiation in some other LMP sites (e.g. Jris, 2006) made possible to distinguish at least two size classes of the cutting tools. Big cutting tools (BCT) on a length-to-width chart are separated from the small cutting tools (SCT) by a clear gap (Fig. 2c). It results from the fact that the implements of the length of about 6cm are very rare in the archaeological record. The Wylotne assemblage partly fits into that pattern. However, its specificity concerns also the existence of the very large forms (including rough-outs), exceeding the typical upper length limit for the other LMP assemblages with big cutting tools, which is about 15-16 cm (cf. Fig. 2). Due to an impossibility of distinguishing separate layers, the data from all three layers had to be analysed as a one assemblage. Layers 8/7, 6 and 5, were studied by respectively M. Milewski (2006), M. Targosz (2006) and K. Jackowska (2006) and published in a Wylotne monography edited by S.K. Kozowski (2006). This publications contains data of 78 presumably handaxes, 157 bifacial knives, 51 flake knives and 330 scrapers. All this data was re-analysed, however due to some methodological differences between analyses of mentioned layers, for allometrical study (see Fig. 2) the sample was narrowed to the tools from layer 6 only. More precise analysis were based on 270 drawings

published in mentioned book, including 41 handaxes, 75 knives and 5 initial forms, selected as the most representative forms by mentioned authors, including 11 figures from the separate contribution concerning handaxes by T. Boroo (2006). This data was supported by authors own study on Wylotne Rockshelter collection and documentation of implements, including 36 unpublished cutting tools and one rough-out, digitally documented in different views.

Fig. 2 The allometrical study of Wylotne cutting tools from layer 6, based on data published by M. Targosz (2006) in comparison to the well researched inventories from Buhlen (Jris, 2001) and Ciemna cave (Urbanowski, 2004). 2a) The length (longer axis) to width (shorter one) relation of the tools described as handaxes (blue) and scrapers (pink). The group of handaxes contain significant amount of the very big forms, much bigger then in comparable group of big cutting tools from Ciemna or Buhlen (2c). This pattern may suggest that at least some of the handaxes are in fact the rough-outs. The artefacts described as the scrapers create two partly separated clouds of points. First (to the left) could be correlated with small cutting tools class, although there is no gap between the small and big tools as like in the other LMP inventories. The second concentration of points represents a class of small tools which has no analogy in Ciemna or Buhlen. Possibly, the knives were rejected in much better (less reduced) stage than in typical LMP sites, and there was no need to transform exhausted knives into small tools. Therefore the abundance of high-quality flint made it possible to produce small tools directly from the fresh blanks or nodules in preferable shapes and proportions. The atelier-like character of the site may be therefore responsible for that situation. 2b) The tools classified as the knives have much more analogies to the other LMP inventories. Interestingly, all the bifacial knives are longer than 6 cm (red dotted line), which seems to be a universal ergonomical limit for the big cutting tools. Some of the flake knives are located below that limit, which is represented by a gap into a continuous distribution of the knives dimensions. However, a fact, that the forms, which are clear enough to be classified as the knives fit into a pattern characteristic for the typical LMP sites is worth noticing. 2c) The graph of Buhlen and Ciemna cutting tools embraces the implements, which on typological ground could be classified as knives (bifacial and unifacial from either nodules or flakes) and scrapers. The graph presents two clear tools classes: big and small cutting tools. Both clouds of points represent the dimensions of the tools, which were typical for the last stage of their usage. Therefore these concentration may be called the waste zones. The gap in the middle is most probably connected with the process of transformation of some exhausted big forms into a small cutting tools group.

3.3 Methods
As the main research problem concerns here distinguishing handaxes and knives, its necessary to start with a precise definition of both forms of big cutting tools. For the researchers involved in earlier studies of Wylotne assemblages, the distinction of handaxes was based on description

proposed by F. Bordes (1981). Its not necessary to recall this classical work, however its worth to mention that the rules proposed by Bordes was purely typological ones. Moreover, they were based mostly on the knowledge of Western European Middle Palaeolithic, not entirely compliant with Central European LMP record. The authors took also into account the classical work of G. Bosinski (1967), referring also to handaxelike forms in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of Central Europe. He observed that tools crosssections in that period are rather plano-covex than lens-like, and the tools may be made unifacially from blanks, not only bifacially shaped. This observation leaded him to distinguishing the forms different from regular handaxes, called halbkeile, faustkeilblatt etc. The authors involved in Wylotne studies tried to combine that different views with personal intuitions concerning knives-handaxes distinguishing, which has effected in some inconsistencies between their contributions. To simplify that problem, in this paper the question of symmetry was chosen as a main factor of distinguishing between different cutting tool forms. As it was stated before, such choice results from the long discussed observations concerning the nature of handaxe morphology. A handaxe is hence understood here as a tool with two cutting edges of roughly the same length, laying symmetrically at the same angle to the tool axis, which is located between a tip (sharp or rounded in case of ovate handaxes) and a massive, also symmetrical base. On the contrary, a knife is understood here as a tool made and used with an asymmetrical way, with a clear division between sharp cutting edge and a back, which may be naturally steep or intentionally dulled, also in case of knives made from blanks. A tip is located at the top of cutting edge rather than between the edges. A cutting edge is usually straight, at last in case of the implements which are not heavily reduced. Knife may have so called half-back lying between a tip and a back, although this feature typical for LMP knives may be affected by significant level of variation.

4 Analysis
4.1 Verification
The knife and handaxe definitions formed above are based on simple morphological criteria, although backed by the conclusions of long-lasting discussion concerning a mental phenomena underlying the evolving flint technology. They seem to be flexible enough to embrace all the forms distinguished respectively as handaxes and knives. To verify the correctness of handaxes distinguishing in Wylotne, the simple analysis was made. Its results are described above, details can be seen in the downloadable spreadsheet (Urbanowski 2009). It was focused on the presence of 4 features characterising in order of importance the level of symmetry in analysed artefacts. The first and the most important question concerned the character of the edges. For the symmetrically working tool, such as a handaxe, it is obvious, that both edges should be the sharp (working) ones. The second question concerned the length of the edges, to ensure in case of handaxes that both edges worked in the same way. The third question was focused on lateral symmetry of the edges according to a tool axis, to check whether the overall tool morphology was prepared according to an idea of symmetry. Last question concerned a base to check if it is perpendicular to a tool axis, which should divide a base into two roughly equal parts, as it should be in case of ideal handaxe. As the positive answers on any question yielded the 1 result and negative 0, the application of this simple analysis enabled to obtained a kind of rough statistical characteristics concerning the level of symmetry inside the big cutting tools of Wylotne. For the testing purposes first the sample of 30 artefacts described as knives from all layers was tested. As it was expected, the total quantity of the positive answers to the first, key question yielded a 0 result. Interestingly, the rest of the questions yielded some positive results: 7% of the knives showed roughly the same length of both edges (suggesting the lack of half-back), 27% had edges lying symmetrically at the both sides of a tool axis, and 40% had a base perpendicular to a tool axis. Such results are not contradicting the expectations taking into account the morphological diversity of flint artefacts, resulting e.g. from reduction or blank morphology, although they indicate relatively high level of a symmetry among the knives. These may explain why at least in some cases several big cutting tools were interpreted as handaxes. A wrong detection of a tool axis may affect the answers to the questions 3 and 4. It seems that definition of a tool axis is a key question concerning knife-handaxe determination. According the simplest definition, taken here for the compliance with the earlier study of Wylotne, it is a line connecting a tip with a base of a tool, which are regarded as two morphological extremities lying within the largest dimension of the tool. As it is shown at Fig. 3,

such understanding of a tool axis may lead to misinterpretation of a tool as a handaxe (Fig. 3a). This kind of misunderstanding is even more probable in case of the very regular knives, which have a flat base connected with a back at the right angle (Fig. 1c). This mistake may happen, however, only if we ignore much more important features concerning the character of the edges (cf. question 1 and 2), which simply distinguishes asymmetrical from symmetrical tools. Also the analysis of the flat retouch may be helpful. The cutting edges have usually old (with a bulbar parts mostly destroyed), flat and relatively big removals on their ventral surfaces combined with younger, smaller negatives on the dorsal one. On the contrary, the backs also in case of the tools made on blanks have often a steep retouch towards the ventral surface. Therefore, the technological analysis seems to be essential for a proper interpretation of a tool. First, it makes possible to detect a real tool axis, which in case of the knives is parallel to the cutting edge (3b). Second, it makes possible to reconstruct the primary form of the tool (cf. Fig. 3c), which helps in better understanding of the Palaeolithic knappers intentions.

Fig. 3 The sample of knives from Wylotne Rockshelter. 3a) The characteristic knife with a sharp tip (pictures based on Chmielewski, 1975), oriented in a handaxe-like way, where a tool axis is detected between the most remote points of the outline of the tool. 3b) The same tool oriented in a knife-like way, with the tool axis following the cutting edge. This orientation seems to be most appropriate according to an emic attitude, as it is in accordance with the way this tool was used. 3c) The same tool oriented according to a primary form, with a reconstruction (grey colour) of these parts of the tool which were removed during a reduction. The level of reduction as like the range of the removed part of the tool can be reconstructed due to an analysis of the ventral scar pattern and the angle between the cutting edge and the base (Migal and Urbanowski 2006). 3d,e,f,g) The knives from different layers (after Kozowski ed., 2006) showing similar level of reduction, effecting also in morphological similarities. One of them (g) was also described as a handaxe. h) Big knife showing a little level of reduction, therefore probably close to a primary form of at least some of the Wylotne knives.

After testing the knives, all 78 complete forms described as handaxes were analysed by the same method. The results are summarised here:

1. 13% of the artefacts had two sharp edges (no back-cutting edge opposition) 2. 30% had both edges of roughly the same length (no half-back) 3. 53% had edges laterally symmetrical according to a tool axis 4. 63% had the bases perpendicular to a tool axis, which divided it into a two roughly equal parts

However the number of artefacts meeting the first, most important criterion seems to be far to little to prove the thesis of hand-axe dominated assemblage, these results still needs some explanation. As it will be mentioned later (see chapter 4.3), the average size of the artefacts claimed to be handaxes in comparison to the other tools (cf. Fig. 2a) suggests that this category must contain a significant number of incorrectly categorised rough-outs. Also some small flake forms should be treated with caution, as their blank morphology may too strictly determine the resulting shapes towards a handaxe-like forms. If we exclude both cases then, only one artefact from the analysed sample will meet the first handaxe criterion. Interestingly, this implement (Boroo, 2006, plate 102) present rather the features of a leaf-point than a handaxe, which is far less surprising at the Late Middle Palaeolithic site. Therefore analysis of the drawings of Wylotne implements shows, that number of the of implements which fit into the above proposed handaxe definition is extremely low. However, the majority (65%) of the implements claimed to be handaxes present different aspects of symmetry - in particular 63% meet the 4th criterion. Probably even more striking feature of Wylotne knives is the popularity of sharp tips (criterion 3), which, in combination with an incorrect determination of a tool axis may be responsible for misclassification of the knives as the handaxes. Taking into account the definitions formulated above, there is hence no reason to describe most of the Wylotne cutting tools as the handaxes. This conclusion follows an intuitive opinion, that handaxes and knives are two aspects of the same big cutting tool idea, belonging to respectively Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, therefore their co-occurrence was not common, and limited rather to the Early than Late Middle Palaeolithic. However, even if we follow an opinion, that the handaxes and knives are forms of big cutting tools separated diachronically, not synchronically or functionally, we should take a closer look at the forms of the knives with semi-symmetrical and sharp tips, which probably leaded the researchers of the site to the conclusion about presence of handaxes.

4.2 Explanation I: reduction

However most of the Middle-European LMP knives had the tips rather rounded and asymmetrical, the presence of different forms may be a question of stylistic variation. To confirm that assumption, the other factors affecting the shape of the knives should be first excluded. Since the works of H.

Dibble (1984) the reduction is regarded as one of the important factors influencing the shape of the flint tools, and creating a difference between a primary intentional form and a waste, deposited in an archaeological layer. The brief look at the cutting tools from Wylotne Rockshelter suggests the low or moderate level of reduction. However, if we exclude the group of the biggest artefacts (over 15-16cm), we can find a significant number of implements bearing the signs of reduction. The knives selected at the Fig. 3 represent relatively large forms with the sharp tips, popular in the Wylotne assemblage. Basing on the experimental works concerning reduction of the knives (Migal and Urbanowski 2006), the clear traces of moderate reduction (Fig. 3c) can be found in their scar pattern. The character of reduction is simple, the knives were used and then resharped alongside the cutting edge, with the most intense reduction close to the tip of the tool. As it can be traced from the direction of the negatives, their primary form must have been much bigger, which is shown at the reconstruction (Fig. 3c). The directions of big removals at the ventral side are usually perpendicular to the primary cutting edge, therefore they can be used to trace it. Also the angle between the base and the cutting edge can be helpful in reconstruction of the primary form, as initially it is often close to 90. A brief examination of the biggest, not reduced implements suggests that a tip of the primary form could be elongated and more rounded (e.g. Fig. 3h). Therefore, at least in case of some knives, the course of reduction could resulted in changing the primary morphology. It is difficult to judge, whether that shift was just a reduction side-effect, or consciously applied procedure, where a change in size is connected with a change in function and morphology of the knife. Interestingly, the form with sharp tips are not common below the small-to-big cutting tools boundary, which is located somewhere about 6 cm (Fig. 2a). Anyway, the morphological shift is an important difference according to the other LMP inventories, where it seems that there was a clear intention to protect a shape of a knife during all its usage (Migal and Urbanowski 2006).

4.3 Explanation II: production

The above observations do not exhaust the possible reasons of handaxe-like forms occurrence in Wylotne assemblage, especially if the group of the biggest artefacts is concerned. That group, which is virtually intact by the reduction, contains significantly high number of the handaxe-like forms (Fig. 2a). The fact, that this class of artefacts contains numerous rough-outs cannot be a complete explanation, as in other LMP sites the knives initial forms dont have a handaxe-like morphologies. The implement from Wylotne, visible in Fig 4.a is a good illustration of that problem. The presence of such forms could suggest that the handaxe production eventually did occur at the site. However, this

thesis also needs a verification by falsifying the H0 hypothesis, that such forms of rough-outs are effects of specific method of knife production.

Fig. 4 The Wylotne method of bifacial knife shaping 4a) The preform of handaxe-like morphology. The invisible surface was shaped in a way suggesting it was planned to be a dorsal surface. Notice an atypically protruding part of the edge (marked with a dotted line), which was probably intended to be removed after preliminary bifacial shaping of a whole implement. 4b and c) Selected products of the Wylotne method with characteristic backs shaped by a partial removal of the preform edge (Fig. 4c after Kozowski ed., 2006).

If we follow this assumption, we should analyse the assemblage looking for the knives which could be made from handaxe-like rough-outs. The intuition suggests they should have a kind of broken back, which would effect from braking a part of handaxe-like rough-out (Fig. 4a). Interestingly, in the Wylotne assemblage we can find a significant number of such forms, illustrated at Fig. 4b and 4c. This observation encourage to looking for direct evidences of hypothetical procedure of reworking handaxe-like preform into a knife. Two from 87 blocks refitted by M. Milewski (2006), M. Targosz (2006) and K. Jackowska (2006) may be such evidences. One of them, presented at Fig 5. shows the signs of two stages of a knife preparation. First is connected with a preform of handaxe-like morphology. The part, which is intended to be removed is slightly more protruding, as it can be visible at the rough-out from Fig. 4a. The next stage implies breaking of the protruding part, which creates a knife with straight or slightly conceive back, situated at right angles to the ventral surface of the tool. The complete technological story of this implement can be read from scar pattern analysis (Urbanowski 2008). The study, presented at Fig. 6 yielded two important observations. First is connected with tracing of a special preparation procedure, isolating this part of the preform, which is intended to be broken (Fig 7, stages II and B). The traces of this procedure can be visible in some unfinished implements form Wylotne, as like the ones presented at Fig. 7b-d. Particularly interesting

observations are connected with the breaking itself, as the traces of that procedure left quite peculiar traces, different from the ones left by a standard flaking. This intriguing problem, however, is a question of different study, which will be published elsewhere.

Fig. 5 The Wylotne method. The refitting presents the most important aspects of that method. As it can be read from the negatives, the first stage of production was connected with a preform of handaxe-like morphology. After its production it was reworked into a knife by a procedure of back removal (red line shows the removed back).

The described method of knives production, which can be called here the Wylotne method, may look as unnecessary complication of the standard method of bifacial knife shaping.

Fig. 6 The Wylotne method: The refitting from Fig. 5 a reconstruction of technological history. As it can be seen on a diagram, the back removal procedure (III) is located in the middle of the whole sequence, and preceded by a shaping of the handaxe-like preform. The procedure is directly preceded by a special preparations, including thinning and weakening of the flint alongside the projected line of a back detachment (B1-B2). The method of scar pattern analysis and its graphical presentation was described in details elsewhere (Urbanowski 2008).

However it has a sense, if we took into account some rules of the knives morphology, which were strictly followed throughout the LMP period. One of the most important was a plano-convexity of the cutting tools, another was connected with a straight back of the knives, which should be located at the right angles to the flat ventral surface. The combination of both requirements is difficult to introduce during a standard soft-hammer shaping, as this method effects rather in lens-like than plano-convex tools cross-sections. Therefore, the idea of braking one side of the lens-like preform seems to be an interesting solution of that problem (Fig. 7a).

Fig. 7 The Wylotne method: a summary. 7a) Schematic presentation of the bifacial edge removal idea. Necessary preparations comprise one or two initial notches, as like the thinning of this part of a tool, which is intended to be removed. The removal changes the bifacial handaxe-like edge into a flat back, which is located at 90 angles to the flat, ventral surface. 7b-d) Presentation of the artefacts with the traces of unfinished Wylotne method. One of these forms (c) may be significantly reduced, which may suggest that this method was also used during a reduction, not only production of the tools.

4.4 Final conclusions and discussion

The method of the knives production described above seems to be extensively used at the Wylotne Rockshelter site, as about 15% of the implements analysed here have traces of its application. Brief study suggests, that it could be used not only for the production, but also during a reduction sequence, as it can be traced on some smaller forms (Fig. 7c). Although this impression needs a further verification, it may be an important explanation for the problem of the morphological shift during a reduction, mentioned in chapter 4.2. If that assumption was true, that shift should be regarded as a somehow controlled process, in which the possible space for changes is limited by subsequent procedures of back breaking.

As it seems, the specific methods of production and reduction of the big cutting tools may be responsible for the occurrences of handaxe-like forms. Therefore, an opinion that Wylotne could belong to a particularly old stage inside Micoquian tradition cannot be longer supported by this set of evidences. In fact, a brief look at the other LMP inventories suggests that these methods may be present not only in the Wylotne assemblage. Therefore the most important conclusion of that contribution concerns the Neanderthals itself. It yields another evidence of the enormous complexity of their flint technology, as well as their creativity and flexibility.

5 References

Beyries, S., 1987, Variabilit de l'industrie lithique au Moustrien : approche fonctionnelle sur quelques gisements franais, BAR International Series, Vol. 328, Oxford. Bordes, F., 1981, Typologie du Palolithique ancien et moyen, CNRS, Cahiers du Quaternaire, 1 Paris. Boroo, T., 2006, Typology and classification of handaxes from Wylotne site in Ojcow. In Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland, edited by S.K. Kozowski, PAU, Krakow. Bosinski, G., 1967, Die mittelpalolitischen Funde im westlichen Mittleuropa. Fundamenta, Reihe A, Band 4, Bohlau Verlag, Koln-Graz. Chmielewski, W., 1970, Wyniki badao w schronisku Wylotnym w Ojcowie, Sprawozdania Archeologiczne Vol. 22: 49-55. Chmielewski, W., 1975, Paleolit rodkowy i Grny. In Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, t.1, Paleolit i Mezolit, edited by W. Chmielewski, W. Hensel, Warsaw: 9-158. Cyrek, K., (ed.), 2002, Jaskinia Binik, Rekonstrukcja zasiedlenia jaskini na tle zmian rodowiska przyrodniczego, Uniwersytet Mikoaja Kopernika, Toruo. Dibble, H.L., 1984, Interpreting typological variation of Middle Palaeolithic scrapers, function, style or sequence of reduction?, Journal of Field Archaeology Vol. 11: 431-436. Gowlett, J.A.J., 2006, The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard, edited by N. Goren-Inbar, and G. Sharon, London: 201-222.

Grakampf, S., 2001, Die mittelpalolitische Blattspitzen von Rrshein (Schwalmtal, Hessen), Grabung 1965, Master Thesis, Institut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte, Universitt zu Kln, Philosophische Fakultt, Kln. Grn, R., Schwarcz, H.P., 2000, Revised open system U-series/ESR age calculations for teeth from Stratum C at the Hoxnian interglacial type locality, England. Quaternary Geochronology, 19: 11511154. Jackowska, K., 2006, Wylotne Rockshelter, layer 5. In Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland, edited by S.K. Kozowski, PAU, Krakow. Jris, O., 2001, Der sptmittelpalolitische Fundplatz Buhlen (Grabungen 1966 - 69), Bonn. Jris , J., 2006, Bifacially backed knives (Keilmesser) in the Central European Middle Palaeolithic. In Axe Age, Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard, edited by N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon, London. Keely, L. H., 1980, Experimental Determination of Stone Tools Uses, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kozlowski, S.K., (ed.) 2006, Wylotne and Zwierzyniec Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland. PAU. Krakow. Madeyska, T., 2006, Sediments of Wylotne Rockshelter. In Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland, edited by S.K. Kozowski, PAU, Krakow. Mania, D., Toepfer, V., 1973, Knigsaue: Gliederung, kologie und mittelpalolitische Funde der letzten Eiszeit, Verffentlichungen des Landesmuseums fr Vorgeschichte in Halle 26, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin. McNabb, J., Binyon, F., Hazelwood, L., 2004, The Large Cutting Tools from the South African Acheulean and the Question of Social Traditions. Current Anthropology, Vol. 45, No. 5, December 2004: 653677. McPherron S.P., 2000, Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids, Journal of Archaeological Science (2000) 27: 655663. Migal, W., Urbanowski, M., 2006, Pradnik knives reused. Experimental approach. In The Stone. Technique and technology, edited by T. Winiewski, A. Ponka, J.M. Burdukiewicz, Wrocaw: 73-89.

Milewski, M., 2006, Micoquian-Pradnikian assemblage from Wylotne Rockshelter layer 8/7. In Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland, edited by S.K. Kozowski, PAU, Krakow. Nowell, A., Lee Chang, M., 2009, The Case Against Sexual Selection as an Explanation of Handaxe Morphology, PaleoAnthropology 2009: 7788. Richter J. 1997, Sesselfelsgrotte III. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verstndnis des Micoquien, Quartr-Blibliotek, Band 7. Roberts, M., Parfitt, S., (eds.) 1999, Boxgrove A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site At Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, English Heritage, Archaeological Report 17, London. Roe, D.A., 1981, The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain. In: Archaeology of Britain, edited by Barry Cunliffe, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London. Schild, R., (ed.) 2006, The Killing Fields of Zwoleo, A Middle Palaeolithic Kill-Butchery-Site in Central Poland, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. Soressi, M., 2002, Le Moustrien de tradition acheulenne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du facis partir de ltude compare de quatre sites : Pech-de-lAz I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux. Soressi, M., 2004a, From Mousterian of acheulian tradition type A to type B: technical tradition, raw material, task, or settlement dynamic changes? In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, edited by N. Conard, Vol. 2. Tbingen: 343-366. Soressi, M., 2004b, Late Mousterian lithic technology. In From Tools to Symbols, edited by L. Backwell and F. dErrico, University of Witswatersand Press, Johanesburg: 389-417. Targosz, M., 2006, Analysis of the flint material of the Micoquian-Pradnikian culture from layer 6 at Wylotne Rockshelter, Ojcow. In Wylotne and Zwierzyniec. Palaeolithic sites in Southern Poland, edited by S.K. Kozowski, PAU, Krakow. Urbanowski, M., 2004. Pradnik knives and techno-stylistic specificity of Micoquian, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, Warsaw. Urbanowski, M., 2008, Dokumentacja cyfrowa i analiza zabytkw krzemiennych. In Archeologia Rocznik Muzeum Grnolskiego w Bytomiu, edited by B. Badura, Vol.17, Muzeum Grnolskie, Bytom: 133-152.

Urbanowski, M., 2009, Supplementary data to: Middle Palaeolithic handaxes: the case of Wylotne Rockshelter, Szczecin, 10.10.2009, http://www.archeo.univ.szczecin.pl/wylotne/wylotne_data.xls Wenban-Smith, F., 2004. Handaxe typology and lower palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant Handaxes from cuxton, Lithics 25: 12-21. Whittaker, J.C., McCall, G., 2001, Handaxe-hurling hominids: An unlikely story, Current Anthropology, Vol. 42: 566572. Wynn, T., 2002, Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2002), 25:3. Cambridge: 389-402.