Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 9, pp 4515–4538 | Cite as

Technology of Early Szeletian leaf point shaping: a refitting approach

  • Petr NerudaEmail author
  • Zdeňka Nerudová
Original Paper
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

The most precise method for reconstructing operational chains (chaîne opératoire) is the refitting of stone artefacts. Unfortunately, the sequences for forming a typical Szeletian artefact—a leaf point—were missing for a long time. Finds from the multilayer open-air site of Moravský Krumlov IV (Czech Republic) brought a unique opportunity to study Szeletian technology through refittings. The excavations of this site uncovered an in situ horizon in the uppermost archaeological layer 0 in sector IV-3 that has been classified as a workshop. On the basis of both technology and dating, the finds are related to the Szeletian. Spatial distribution of bifacial artefact refittings shows that pieces were produced in two distinct spots within the excavated area. An analysis of their deposition indicated an in situ position, and therefore, results of the technological analysis can be understood as significant. Refittings and surface morphological analyses demonstrate a specific manner of leaf point production based primarily on achieving a maximum reduction in thickness and a minimum reduction of their length and, especially, width. Although incomplete and unsuccessful artefacts are reminiscent of the Middle Palaeolithic Micoquian backed knives, the general production strategy tended towards the manufacture of rather symmetrical leaf points. It seems probable, therefore, that the described method of production of leaf points is characteristic for the Early Szeletian in Moravia.

Keywords

Szeletian Leaf point Refittings Operational chain Spatial distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was financially supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic through institutional financing of the long-term conceptual development of the research institution (the Moravian Museum, MK000094862) for the years 2019-2023. The workshop “The Big Puzzle 30 years after: A multidisciplinary, shared, Palaeolithic perspective” was kindly supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation Ref: Gr CONF-737.

References

  1. Callahan E (2006) Neolithic Danish Daggers: an experimental peek. In: Apel J, Knutsson K (eds) Skilled production and social reproduction. Aspects of traditional stone-tool technologies, Proceedings of a Symposium in Uppsala, August 20–24, 2003. SAU Stone Studies 2. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, pp 115–137Google Scholar
  2. Clarkson C, Vinicius L, Lahr MM (2006) Quantifying flake scar patterning on cores using 3D recording techniques. J Archaeol Sci 33:132–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cziesla E (1990) On refitting stone artefacts. In: Cziesla E, Eichoff S, Arts N, Winter D (eds) The big puzzle: international symposium on refitting stone artefacts, vol 1. Studies in modern archaeology, Bonn, pp 9–44Google Scholar
  4. Davies W, Nerudová Z (2009) Moravský Krumlov IV—its chronological place in a wider area. In: Neruda P, Nerudová Z (eds) Moravský Krumlov IV - vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě. Anthropos, vol 29 (N.S. 21). Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno, pp 84–90Google Scholar
  5. Hiscock P, Clarkson C (2005) Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. J Archaeol Sci 32:1015–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hofman JL (1981) The refitting of chipped-stone artifacts as an analytical and interpretive tool. Curr Anthropol 22:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kot M, Richter J (2012) Leafpoints or rather "leafknives"? A technological analysis of bifacially shaped artefacts from Mauern, Germany. Anthropologie (Brno) 50:361–375Google Scholar
  8. Kot MA (2014) The earliest Palaeolithic bifacial leafpoints in central and southern Europe: techno-functional approach. Quat Int 326–327:381–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Laughlin JP, Kelly RL (2010) Experimental analysis of the practical limits of lithic refitting. J Archaeol Sci 37:427–433.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lucas G (1999) Production expérimentale de lamelles torses : approche préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 96:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lycett SJ, Eren MI (2013) Levallois economics: an examination of ‘waste’ production in experimentally produced Levallois reduction sequences. J Archaeol Sci 40:2384–2392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.01.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Migal W, Urbanowski M (2006) Pradnik knives reuse - experimental approach. In: Wiśniewski T, Płonka A, Burdukiewicz JM (eds) The stone. Technique and technology, Wrocław, pp 73–89Google Scholar
  13. Migal W, Urbanowski M (2008) Narzędzia bifacjalne jako wskaźniki chronologiczne? Technologie środkowego paleolitu i wczesnej epoki brązu na przykładzie materiałów ze stanowiska Polany Kolonie II. In: Borkowski W, Libera J, Sałaciński S (eds) Materiały z konferencji w Orońsku "Krzemień Czekoladowy w Pradziejach", 08–10-12.2003, Studia nad gospodarką surowcami krzemiennymi w pradziejach. pp 215–244Google Scholar
  14. Nejman L et al (2011) New chronological evidence for the middle to upper Palaeolithic transition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia: new optically stimulated luminiscence dating results. Archaeometry 53:1044–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00586.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neruda P (2009) Stratigrafie sedimentů v Moravském Krumlově IV. In: Neruda P, Nerudová Z (eds) Moravský Krumlov IV - vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě, vol 29 (N.S. 21). Anthropos, vol 29 (N.S. 21). Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno, pp 53–83Google Scholar
  16. Neruda P, Nerudová Z (2005) The development of the production of lithic industry in the early upper Palaeolithic of Moravia. Archeologické rozhledy 57:263–292Google Scholar
  17. Neruda P, Nerudová Z (eds) (2009) Moravský Krumlov IV - vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě. Anthropos, vol 29 (N.S. 21). Moravské zemské muzeum, BrnoGoogle Scholar
  18. Neruda P, Nerudová Z (2010) Moravský Krumlov IV - a new multilayer Palaeolithic site in Moravia (Czech Republic). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 40:155–174Google Scholar
  19. Nerudová Z (2009) Archeologie szeletienské vrstvy 0 z Moravského Krumlova IV. In: Neruda P, Nerudová Z (eds) Moravský Krumlov IV - vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě vol 29 (N.S. 21). Anthropos, vol 29 (N.S. 21). Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno, pp 148–173Google Scholar
  20. Nerudová Z (2013) Palaeolithic settlement strategies in the Krumlov Forest area (South Moravia, Czech Republic) during MIS 3. Quat Int 294:61–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nerudová Z, Krásná S (2002) Remontáže bohunicienské industrie z lokality Brno-Bohunice, Kejbaly II. Acta Mus Moraviae Sci Soc 87:35–56Google Scholar
  22. Nerudová Z, Neruda P (2017) Technology of Moravian Early Szeletian leaf point shaping: a case study of refittings from Moravský Krumlov IV open-air site (Czech Republic). Quat Int 428(Part A):91–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pope M, Maxted A (2008) A refitting biface reduction scatter from Newhaven, East Sussex. Lithics: the journal of the Lithic Studies Society 29:55–63Google Scholar
  24. Přichystal A (2009) Kamenné suroviny v pravěku východní části střední Evropy, Brno. Masarykova univerzitaGoogle Scholar
  25. Škrdla P (1996) The Bohunician reduction strategy. Quaternaria Nova 6:93–107Google Scholar
  26. Škrdla P (2003a) Bohunician and Aurignacian technologies. Morphological description. In: Svoboda JA, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Stránská skála. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin, vol 47. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachutsetts, pp 65–76Google Scholar
  27. Škrdla P (2003b) Bohunician technology: a refitting approach. In: Svoboda JA, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Stránská skála. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin, vol 47. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachutsetts, pp 119–151Google Scholar
  28. Valoch K, Kočí A, Mook W, Opravil E, van der Plicht J, Smolíková L, Weber Z (1993) Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in Südmähren. Quartär 43(44):7–93.  https://doi.org/10.7485/QU43_01 Google Scholar
  29. Valoch K, Neruda P, Nerudová Z (2009) The Bohunician technology from the Stránská skála open-air site (the Czech Republic). In: Burdukiewicz JM, Cyrek K, Dyczek P, Szymczak K (eds) Understanding the past. Papers offered to Stefan K. Kozłowski. University of Warsaw, Warszawa, pp 387–404Google Scholar
  30. Valoch K, Nerudová Z, Neruda P (2000) Stránská skála III - Ateliers des Bohunicien. Památky archeologické 91:5–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moravian Museum – Historical MuseumAnthropos InstituteBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Moravian Museum – Historical MuseumCentre for Cultural AnthropologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations