337

Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 35 (2005), 337-351

Microlithic technology in the Stone Age

JAN MICHAŁ BURDUKIEWICZ

Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity of Wroclaw, 50139 Wroclaw, Poland

Prehistorians pay much attention to shape of artefacts, which is still a basic attribute in typological approach. Another attribute – the size of artefacts – is usually less important, but in some cases dimensions were used to discriminate particular sets of artefacts. Already by the end of 19th century, in early archaeological literature, appeared an expression – microlithic – as description of very small stone artefacts.

G. de Mortillet used term “microlithic” for “petit silex à contours geometrique”, which were very common finds from period known lately as Mesolithic (Mortillet 1896:577).Somewhat later E. Cartailhac (1905:190) used term “silex pygmées” for microliths. The last term is still used by some French prehistorians (Orliac 1988). This way for Mesolithic microliths are the most important two attributes: small size and geometric shape. In the biggest archaeological encyclopaedia from first half of 20th century, “Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte“ J. Kostrzewski (1924-32) described some Upper Palaeolithic industries in Poland as ʻmicrolithicʼ.

The term microlithic in recent archaeological vocabulary is generally connected with Mesolithic artefacts defined as “inserts, frequently geometric, which size is shorter than40 mm, and thickness less than 4 mm. If they are very small (length is shorter than 20 mm and width below 10 mm) they are called pygmies” (Orliac 1988). However, some much earlier sites delivered also some small artefacts, which have been described as “micro”. Recently such artefacts are as well known from Middle and Lower Palaeolithic (Burdukiewicz and Ronen 2003).

Besides archaeology, the term “microlithic” is used in other disciplines. For example in petrography or in crystallography such expression is used as “microlithic matrix

338 BURDUKIEWICZ

of the inclusions” (Koppen and Schreiber 1999). In computer industry it serves as term in semiconductor technology or just name for computer companies (MicroLithic Technologies, Norfolk, UK). In medicine “microlith” is applied as a term for microscopic calculus or concretion rupturing of blood vessels (Fast Health Medical Dictionary). The term “microlith” appears also in chemical industry as a name for very small grain size of a certain pigments (http://www.ask.com). In France one textile company produces glass fibre under restricted name Microlith®. Such broad usage of term “microlithic” shouldlead to misunderstanding and it has to be better defined in prehistory.

MICROLITHS AND OTHER STONE ARTEFACTSThe most numerous microliths, up to 30% in lithic assemblages, are known from Mesolithic and some Neolithic sites. If in lithic assemblage are distinguished microlithic artefacts, they are usually much smaller than other non-microlithic ones, it means “normal size” artefacts. However, the size was so important in some cases that archaeologists singled out three “stylistic stages” according to artefact dimensions: • Microlithic – very small artefacts, usually shorter than 3 cm and geometric in shape;• Mediolithic – artefacts between 3 and 10 cm long, but in average they are mostly ca.

5-6 cm long.• Macrolithic – big and very big artefacts, usually longer than 10 cm (Balcer 1983:22).

Such classification displays a meaning of artefact’s size in the Neolithic period inCentral Europe.Of course, such classification should be connected with particular taxonomic units

restricted in space and time. The attribute of size, small or large, is related to some standard dimensions. Small artefacts are present everywhere, but rather as waste material in stone processing, not as intended blanks or tools. In the Mesolithic, and sometime in other periods, microliths become visible as the most wanted products.

ʻMediolithic ̓ artefacts are more or less ʻnormal ̓ size for nearly whole Stone Age assemblages. Archaeologists rarely defined their size, because they are so common. Theʻmacrolithic ̓artefacts were distinguished in that cases, when they were seen as diagnostic feature of several stone assemblages in a certain area or period. For example some German archaeologists had distinguished so called ʻlarge tool ̓(grobgeräratigen) and ʻsmall tool ̓(kleingeräratigen) cultures (see Zotz 1938). Such division was later abandoned as general system because appeared that ̒ large tools ̓and ̒ small tools ̓belong to the same taxonomic units. ʻLarge tools ̓correspond frequently to the workshop sites and ʻsmall tools ̓match up to the living sites.

The division of the Stone Age assemblages according to size of artefacts is still used in China, where “assemblages are recognised as representative of two different cultures

339MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

or industries, the small and large tool traditions, placed within an ancestral-descendant framework” (Keates 2000).

Microliths appeared also in other numerous publications, usually by contrast to ʻnormal ̓size artefacts. For example A. Rust distinguished so called ̒ microlithic elements ̓(Mikroformen) in the Late Upper Palaeolithic Hamburgian culture in Northern Europe. Unfortunately, a single common feature of the ʻmicrolithic elements ̓was small size. There were included such inconsistent small tools as perforators, backed points, truncated pieces and even some wastes like burin spalls (Rust 1937). Later A. Rust, analyzing Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from rockshelter of Yabrud I (Syria), distinguished some side scrapers, which were smaller comparing to ʻnormal ̓size tools and he introduced term ʻMicromousterian ̓(Rust 1950). Another German archaeologist, V. Toepfer (1960) used term ʻMicrolithic Mousterian ̓to describe exceptionally small size of artefacts from Bilzingsleben, previously dated to Middle Palaeolithic period.

In other region of the world, for example in Southern Africa, geometric microliths appeared already in Howieson s̓ Poort dated into the Middle Stone Age, between 90-50 ka BP. Some prehistorians, like J. Deacon (1984) argued that they were produced as inserts to composite tools. Microliths have been also found in quite another environment and period. In American Arctic and Greenland was distinguished a Microlithic Tradition, called ̒ Arctic Small Tool Tradition ̓(Irving 1957). Such taxonomic unit existed since 5 ka to 1.5 ka BP. It is described by usage abundance of very small blades chipped from polyhedral cores. Such microlithic technology appeared in previously during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene in N.E. Asia and expanded into eastern Beringia at the end of the last glacial maximum.

MESOLITHIC MICROLITHSThe best known are microliths from Mesolithic period. Such artefacts are usually very abundant in Mesolithic assemblages, for example in North European Duvensee culture amount of microliths varied from 10 to 60 percent (Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1975:308). In addition Mesolithic microliths are geometric in shape: triangle, trapezoid or semicircle, etc. They are seen by several archaeologists as type fossils for several Mesolithic taxonomic units. A variety of Mesolithic microliths is really remarkable.

Possible usage of the microliths during the Mesolithic period is exemplified by severalextraordinary finds of composite tools made of bone, antler or wood with lithic inserts.Such artefacts, preserved in favourable circumstances, show a complexity of human technological thought during Mesolithic period. Some examples of such composite knifes are known from Early Atlantic sites. In grave no 100 of the Mesolithic cemetery in Oleni Ostrov (Red Deer Island) on Ladoga Lake (North-Western Russia) and in Bloksbjerg (Denmark) had been found composite knifes (Clark 1975; Gurina 1956).

340 BURDUKIEWICZ

The knife from Oleni Ostrov is almost complete, except partly damaged basis (Fig. 1:1). It was made from long fragment of a large bone shaped as very elongated triangle with an oval hole ca. 1 cm in diameter, located near the base. On both edges were preserved flint inserts put in narrow grooves made on both edges of the knife: 7 narrow flint bladesin one edge and 6 in the second one. One insert was missing (Fig. 1:1). Whole length of the knife is 33 cm and flint blades were inserted in central part of 17 cm of total length.The inserts were made of flint blades from 1 to 5 cm, which were not retouched exceptthree pieces. They were retouched entire or partly and forming nearly parallel edge to the bone handle. They were put in quite deep groove and glued by resin. The knife was also decorated by several transversal zigzag lines on flat sides (Fig. 1:1). Several damages onboth edges of the knife may be evidence for usage of the knife (Gurina 1965:105). There are known also other specimens of knifes, however, they are very rare and worse preserved. Such find are known Early Mesolithic site Kunda in Estonia and Late Mesolithic site inSerovo (East Baltic region; see Gurina 1956:106).

Another similar composite knife was found by E. Westerby (1921-23) in Danish site Bloksbjerg on Zealand Island (Clark 1975:172). The knife handle was also made from split metatarsal bones of red deer, grooved on either edge to insert flint bladelets held securein resin. Unfortunately, in case of this knife were preserved two bladelets and other are missing (Fig. 1:2). The knife from Bloksbjerg is slightly narrower, with almost parallel edges in central part and broaden basis, also with oval hole. The hole was probably used to hang knifes by belt.

Figure 1: Mesolithic composite knifes of early Atlantic age. 1 – Oleni Ostrov, grave 100, Lake Ladoga, Russia (after Gurina 1956); 2 – Bloksbjerg, Zealand, Denmark (after Clark 1975).

341MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

Different types of composite tools from the Mesolithic period are composite points. Such points are quite numerous and were already classified in thirties of 20th century byG. Clark (1936). They were found on several sites of North European Lowland. The best example of such point was found almost fifteen years ago in Tlokowo near Olsztyn (NEPoland) and later published in depth by Z. Sulgostowska and M.J. Hoffmann (1993) and M. Winiarska-Kabacinska (1993).

The Tlokowo point, dated into Early Mesolithic was made of radius bone of big artiodactylous animal. The point is 18.6 cm long, spindle in shape and oval in section. On both edges were made narrow grooves, except distal and proximal ends (Fig. 2). In both grooves had been inserted 16 flint blades, which are preserved on one edge andpartly in the second one (missing or broken 5 inserts). The inserts belong to triangles (12 specimens) and so called Borki bladelets (4 specimens), which are bladelet fragments, usually in part retouched, seen as diagnostic forms for Kunda culture (Sulgostowska and Hoffmann 1993). The inserts were made of narrow bladelets removed possibly from single platform core.

The inserts shaped in distal pointed part the sharp edges, parallel to the bone handle. They were inserted very closely each other. In central and proximal part the bladelets were loosely inserted forming isolated barbs like by harpoons. Some of them were partly damaged on one edge, possibly during usage. The X-ray analysis has showed that remnants of bladelets glued in the grooves are still there (Fig. 2:2). The glue was made of birch resin with various admixtures (Sulgostowska and Hoffmann 1993). Microwear

Figure 2: Early Mesolithic bone point with flint inserts from Tlokowo, NE Poland: 1 – general view of the point, 2 – design of the point according to X-ray analysis (after Sulgostowska and Hoffmann 1993).

342 BURDUKIEWICZ

analysis showed traces of contact with soft material (meat?) and usage scars (Winiarska-Kabacinska 1993), possibly for spearing fish (Sulgostowska and Hoffmann 1993). Similarpoints with one or two grooves and lithic inserts are known from several Mesolithic sites in Eastern Europe.

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC INSERTSFinds of Upper Palaeolithic composite tools are much scanter than in Mesolithic. However, there are some finds of composite knifes and points. Very similar knife to that from OleniOstrov is known from much remote site in space and time – Tchernoozerie II, located on left bank of Irtysh River, in Western Siberian Lowland and almost twice older (Abramova 1984:334). The knife from Tchernoozerie, made of large animal rib, is ca. 40 cm long and broken into several fragments. The proximal end is missing. In narrow grooves from both edges were inserted numerous small quartz blades, partly gone. This find is datedby radiocarbon into 14500±500 years BP (Abramova 1984:315).

Several finds of bone or antler handles with groove on one edge had been found inother Upper Palaeolithic Siberian sites, like Kokorevo I, Afontova Gora and Oshurkovo (Abramova 1982, 1984). Unfortunately, except two distal fragments of knifes from Kokorevo I lithic inserts were not preserved. Spatial and temporal distance between Mesolithic composite knifes in Eastern Baltic area and Upper Palaeolithic knifes in Siberia is important argument for independent, convergent invention of such tools in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.

Longer time archaeologists believed that the oldest composite points came from Late Upper Palaeolithic. One of the first known were bone points with lithic inserts found intwenties of 20th century by V.I. Gromov and others in several sites at Afontova Gora near Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, which are dated by 14C ca. 20 ka BP (Abramova 1982, 1984).

Good example of composite point was preserved in another Upper Palaeolithic site Ostrovskaya (known as well as Talicki site) near Perm, Ural, Russia (Abramova 1982). It is rather heavy point, up to 2 cm width, but original length is not known (Fig. 3:1). The bone point is only partly preserved, with missing tiny distal part and possibly large proximal part. In opposite to Mesolithic composite points there were inserted typical backed blades. The bone handle is poorly preserved, except of a core part. Exterior part with grooves was decomposed but the lithic inserts are still glued with remain of handle.

The composite points with lithic inserts become more frequent during existence of the Magdalenian technocomplex. Numerous bone points with one or two grooves, called in French ‘sagaie à rainure’ are seen as type fossil for the Middle Magdalenian. During excavations in Lascaux cave had been found several backed bladelets covered partly by

343MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

remains of glue, which was used to stick together with bone point, which should be dated ca. 17 ka BP (Allain 1979). Good examples of well preserved Magdalenian composite point with lithic inserts were found in Grotte Blanchard, Saint-Marcel, Dep. Indre and Pincevent, Dep. Seine-et-Marne, France. There several points made of reindeer antlers had been found. Some points were up to 50 cm long (Leroi-Gourhan 1984:73). A few of them at Pincevent were preserved no more than in part. The most interesting is a distal part of the antler point with two grooves and inserted bladelets (Fig. 3:2). In opposite to other bone points with lithic inserts the Pincevent point is round in transversal section. The Pincevent site is dated by radiocarbon ca. 12 ka BP and by TL 13.8 ka BP (Valentin and Pigeot 2000).

Some archaeologists investigating the Solutrean points suggest possibility that they had been hafted even earlier that Magdalenian ‘sagaie à rainure’ (Geneste and Plisson 1993). Such hafting on arrow head is known from Late Palaeolithic site Stellmoor (Rust 1943) and was common during this period (Fischer et al. 1984).

Upper Palaeolithic inserts are usually small, but they are in average longer as Mesolithic ones. In opposite to Mesolithic pieces the Upper Palaeolithic microliths are not so regular in shape. There are much rarer triangles, segments and trapeze-like artefacts except some finds in the SouthernAfrica. In Upper Palaeolithic the inserts were mainly backed bladeletsmade of longer blades divided into several fragments.

Figure 3: Upper Palaeolithic bone points with backed blade inserts: 1 – Ostrovskaja site, Perm, Ural, Russia (according to Abramova 1982), 2 – Pincevent, Dep. Seine-et-Marne, France (after Leroi-Gourhan 1984).

344 BURDUKIEWICZ

MIDDLE AND LOWER PALAEOLITHIC INSERTSRecent advance in archaeological research brought new view about origin of the composite tools. It starts to be clear that idea of composite tools or hafting of the lithics is much older than it was believed. Since longer time are known lithic assemblages with artefacts of very small size. These curious finds, described as ʻMicromousterianʼ or ʻTaubachianʼ,given an opportunity to K. Valoch (1977) to build up a proposal of presence microlithic tools in the Middle and Lower Palaeolithic. However, it was not clear, how so small tools had been used in such remote time, because it was believed that composite tools appeared not earlier than in Upper Palaeolithic.

Unfortunately, older finds of composite tools, hafts or glue are exceptionally infrequent,however such examples are known from the Middle Palaeolithic period. One of the most interesting finds of resin hafts of the Middle Palaeolithic age are known from twoKönigsaue sites (Fig. 4) in southern part of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany (Mania and Toepfer 1973). Another, more recent finds come from the Levant Middle Palaeolithic sites, wherebitumen as a material for hafting was used (Boëda et al. 1998; Friedman et al. 1994/5).

One fragment of resin haft had been found in lower, 3rd layer of Aschersleben Lake, called Königsaue A (Fig. 4:1a-c), associated with Mocoquian lithic assemblage, dated stratigraphically ca. 80 ka BP. (Koller et al. 2001). This piece is made of small size (length

Figure 4: Königsaue, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Adhesives used for hafting. 1a – Piece of birch pitch from Königsaue A, 1b – size ca. 3:1, 1c – possible hafting of a flint piece (2.7 x 2 cm – Micoquian);2a – Piece of birch pitch from Königsaue B, 2 b – size ca. 3:1 (2.3 x 1.4 cm – Mousterian) (after Mania, Toepfer 1973).

345MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

2.7 cm) of hardened lump of tar, partly destroyed, with well visible imprint of the flintinsert, grain of wood and finger prints (Fig. 4:1a-c). According to finders of the site, D.Mania and V. Toepfer (1973) the tar was used to join lithic piece with wood haft.

The second resin piece was found in layer 5 of Aschersleben Lake, called Königsaue B (Fig. 4:2a-b), associated with Mousterian lithic assemblage, dated into second Weichselian interstadial, ca. 80 ka (Koller et al. 2001). This piece of hardened tar is smaller (length 2.3 cm) and formed as bean-like but broken from one end and imprint of wood (Fig. 4:2b). In that case the lamp of tar was also used to join lithic piece with wooden haft.

Detail chemical analyse of both pieces from Aschersleben Lake has given interesting results. They had been made of birch pitch with possible admixture of pine resin of amber. The most interesting statement is that for receiving good quality glue or tar Neanderthals used temperature between 340-400o C to get betulin (Koller et al. 2001:110).

Another, but much older find of flint flake with resin trace was lastly found in lowerlayer of lignite mine at Neumark-Nord near Halle in Saxony-Anhalt (Mania et al. 2002). In the layer with lake sediment from warm period of Saalian Complex, dated ca 200 ka ago, D. Mania team found small flint flake with remnant of pitch on one side (Fig. 5). Simple, non-retouched flake was covered on one side by well preserved organic material glued tothe flint. Recently it is the oldest example of usage of glue to hold lithic insert. According

Figure 5: Neumark-Nord, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Early Middle Palaeolithic flake withoak pitch (after Mania et al. 2002).

346 BURDUKIEWICZ

to chemical analysis of J. Koller from München University (personal communication during the Conference in Halle 2003) this material is a pitch of cork oak (Quercus suber L.). Such material of Mediterranean plant in Central Germany is rather unexpected. Prof. J. Koller presumes that it was probably imported from longer distance.

Since few years are known new finds of the Lower Palaeolithic age, which mayindicate much earlier usage of hafting lithic artefacts as it was up to that time believed. During archaeological research in deep layers of large open lignite mine in Schöningen, near Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany had been found several wooden spears dated ca. 400-450 ka ago (Thieme 2003). In another site Schöningen 12, had been found four wooden implements made from branches of the silver fir were found, which have diagonal

Figure 6: Site Schöningen 12, Lover Saxony, Germany. 1 – Cleft haft from branch of the common silver fir (Abies alba) with a diagonal groove cut, 2 – possible reconstruction of the oldest known composite tool with lithic insert (original flint point from the site) (afterThieme 2003).

347MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

grooves on both ends, explicable as cleft hafts for small flint artefacts. The hafts are 32.2,19.1, 17 and 12 cm long and they have a diagonal groove cut into one end for inserting small flint tools (Fig. 6).

Since longer time are known mysterious sites of the Lower Palaeolithic age in Eurasia (Burdukiewicz and Ronen 2003), which are quite different than pebble-tool or handaxe tradition (Valoch 1977). These sites delivered almost exclusively very small artefacts, which a difficult to held and operate in the fingers. The most possible solution is that theseartefacts had been hafted as it may be concluded according to Schöningen finds. Stoneartefacts are much more resistant to disintegration than organogenic tools. In the Stone Age archaeology lithics are the most representative and diagnostic features for taxonomic units. In exceptional cases have been found complete tools composed of organic material with small stone inserts.

The artefacts of Middle and Lower Palaeolithic, which should be called microlithic, are rather different from those of Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic age. A common feature of all microliths is small size of artefacts. Some of them are quite regular, close in shape to standard triangles, etc., nevertheless standardisation in earlier periods is much lower. In addition manufacture of small artefacts during Middle and Lower Palaeolithic based on flake technology, while during the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic prevailed stronglyblade technology.

FINAL REMARKSThe problem of microlithic technology appears to be much more complex than it was previously seen. Microliths are much more variable and existed much longer than Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic, over 1 million years. The most important features of these artefacts are remarkably small size and usage of them as inserts into bone, wooden or resin handles.

New discoveries enable to confirm usage of composite tools not only during theMesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic periods but also much earlier. The handles from Middle and Lower Palaeolithic sites are still very rare, but presence of several sites with microlithic artefacts in Eurasia from Israel in the south to Poland and Germany in the north and up to China in the east makes it much more probable. Further research should be focused on sites with sediments preserving organogenic materials like Aschersleben Lake or Schöningen. There are still rare chemical examinations of resin and tar remains showing similarities and differences in preparing gluing materials, like it was lastly made for Königsaue.

Evolution of the microlithic technology in the light of discoveries of composite tools or their fragments starts to be much more complex problem. In former approaches various

348 BURDUKIEWICZ

types ̓microliths have usually been seen as diagnostic artefacts for several Mesolithic or Upper Palaeolithic cultures or effect of human adaptation to forest environments during Late Glacial and Holocene. Before solving this controversy it is necessary to develop detail technological analysis, and environmental investigations.

SUMMARYThe shape of artefacts is still a basic attribute in typological approach. Another attribute – the size of artefacts – is usually less important, but in some cases dimensions were used to discriminate particular sets of artefacts. Expression – microlithic – appeared as a description of very small stone artefacts since 19th century. The term microlithic in recent archaeological vocabulary is generally connected with Mesolithic artefacts defined as “inserts, frequently geometric, which size is shorter than 40 mm, andthickness less than 4 mm". Such artefacts are recently also known from Middle and Lower Palaeolithic.

The most numerous microliths are known from Mesolithic and some Neolithic sites. In lithic assemblages microlithic artefacts are usually distinguished if they are much smaller than other “normal size” artefacts. However, the size was so important in some cases that archaeologists singled out three “stylistic stages” according to artefact dimensions. Microliths appeared also in other numerous publications, usually by contrast to ʻnormal ̓size artefacts, like ʻMicromousterian ̓(Rust 1950) or ʻMicrolithic Mousterian ̓(Toepfer 1960). Such microlithic taxonomic units have been distinguished in the Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa, as well as in the Late Holocene as ʻArctic Small Tool Tradition ̓in American Arctic and Greenland. Such microlithic technology appeared in previously during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene in N.E. Asia and expanded into eastern Beringia at the end of the last glacial maximum.

Possible usage of the microliths during the Mesolithic period is exemplified by severalextraordinary finds of composite tools made of bone, antler or wood with lithic inserts.Such artefacts, preserved in favourable circumstances, show a complexity of human technological thought during Mesolithic period. Finds of Upper Palaeolithic composite tools are much scanter than in Mesolithic. However, there are some finds of compositeknifes and points.

Longer time archaeologists believed that the oldest composite points came from Late Upper Palaeolithic. Some archaeologists investigating the Solutrean points suggest possibility that they had been hafted even earlier that Magdalenian ʻsagaie à rainureʼ. Upper Palaeolithic inserts are usually small, but they are in average longer than Mesolithic ones. In opposite to Mesolithic pieces the Upper Palaeolithic microliths are not so regular in shape. There are much rarer triangles, segments and trapeze-like artefacts except some

349MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

finds in the Southern Africa. During Upper Palaeolithic the inserts were mainly backedbladelets made of longer blades broken into several fragments.

Recent advance in archaeological research has brought a new view about origin of the composite tools. It starts to be clear that idea of composite tools or hafting of the lithics is much older than it was believed. Two of the most interesting finds of resin hafts of theMiddle Palaeolithic age are known from two Königsaue sites in southern part of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Another, more recent finds come from the Levant Middle Palaeolithicsites, where bitumen as a material for hafting was used. Detail chemical analysis of both pieces from Aschersleben Lake has given interesting results. They had been made of birch pitch with possible admixture of pine resin of amber. The most interesting statement is that for receiving good quality glue or tar Neanderthals used temperature between 340-400o C to get betulin (Koller et al. 2001:110). Another, but much older find of flint flake withresin trace was lastly found in lower layer of lignite mine at Neumark-Nord near Halle in Saxony-Anhalt (Mania et al. 2002). In the layer with lake sediment from warm period of Saalian Complex, dated ca. 200 ka ago, was found small flint flake with remnant of pitch.Recently it is the oldest example of usage of glue to hold lithic insert.

Now finds of the Lower Palaeolithic age may indicate much earlier usage of haftinglithic artefacts as it was up to that time believed. During archaeological research in deep layers of large open lignite mine in Schöningen, near Hannover, Germany had been found several wooden spears dated ca. 400-450 ka ago (Thieme 2003). In another site Schöningen 12, had been found four wooden implements, which have diagonal grooves on both ends, explicable as cleft hafts for small flint artefacts. Since longer time are known mysterioussites of the Lower Palaeolithic age in Eurasia, which are quite different than pebble-tool or handaxe tradition. These sites delivered almost exclusively very small artefacts, which a difficult to held and operate in the fingers. The most possible solution is that these artefactshad been hafted as it may be concluded according to Schöningen finds.

Evolution of the microlithic technology in the light of discoveries of composite tools or their fragments starts to be much more complex problem. In former approaches various types ̓microliths have usually been seen as diagnostic artefacts for several Mesolithic or Upper Palaeolithic cultures or effect of human adaptation to forest environments during Late Glacial and Holocene. Before solving this controversy it is necessary to develop detail technological analysis, and environmental investigations.

REFERENCESAbramova Z.A. 1982. Zur Jag im Jungpaläolithikum. Nach Beispielen des jungpaläolithischen Fundplazes

Kokorevo I und in Sibirien, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 12:1-9.Abramova Z.A. 1984. Upper Palaeolithic of Asian part of USSR. In Boriskovski P.I. (ed.), Paleolithic

of the USSR, pp. 302-348. Moskva: Nauka (in Russian).

350 BURDUKIEWICZ

Allain J. 1979. L̓ industrie lithique et osseuse de Lascaux. In Leroi-Gourhan A. and Allain J. (eds.), Lascaux Iconnue. Gallia Prehistoire, supplement XII:87-120.

Allain J. and Descout J. 1957. A propos d'une baguette rainure armée de silex découverte dans le Magdalénien de Saint-Marcel. L'Anthropologie 61/5-6:503-512.

Balcer B. 1983. Wytwórczośc narzędzi kamiennych w neolicie ziem Polski. Wrocław: Ossolineum (in Polish with German summary).

Boëda E., Connan J. and Muhesen S. 1998. Bitumen as hafting material on Middle Paleolithic artifacts from the El Kowm Basin, Syria. In Akazawa T., Aoki K. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, pp. 181-204. New York: Plenum Press.

Burdukiewicz J.M. and Ronen A. (eds.), 2003. Research problems of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assemblages. In Burdukiewicz J.M. and Ronen A. (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, pp. 235-239. (BAR International Series 1115). Oxford.

Clark G. 1936. The Mesolithic settlement in Northern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark G. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deacon J. 1984. Later Stone Age people and their descendants in southern Africa. In Klein R.G. (ed.), Southern African Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments, pp. 221-328. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Fischer A., Hansen P.V. and Rasmussen P. 1984. Macro and micro wear traces on lithic projectile points, Journal of Danish Archaeology 3:19-44.

Geneste J.M. and Plisson H. 1993. Hunting technologies and human behavior: Lithic analysis of Solutrean shouldered points. In Kenecht H., Pike-Tay A. and White R. (eds.), Before Laxcaux. The Complete Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic, pp. 117-135. Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

Grahmann H. 1937. Die Gliederung des Paläolithikums und die Einordnung der ältesten Klingenkulturen Deutschlands, Forschungen und Fortschrtte 13:265-267.

Gurina N.N. 1956. Oleneostrovski mogilnik, Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologgi SSSR 47. (in Russian).

Irving W.N. 1957. An archaeological survey of the Susitna Valley, Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 6:37-52.

Keates S.G. 2000. Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China. (BAR International Series 863). Oxford.

Koller J., Baumer U. and Mania D. 2001. Pitch in the Palaeolithic – Investigations of the Middle Palaeolithic ̒ resin remains ̓from Königsaue. In Wagner G.A. and Mania D. (eds.), Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa – Chronologie, Kultur, Umwelt, pp. 99-112. Aachen : Shaker

Koppen J. and Schreiber U. 1999. Magma mixing and chemical interdiffusion in the Westerwald (Germany) and the Massif Central (France). A petrographic and geochemical comparison. Journal of Conference Abstracts, Vol. 4 No. 1, Symposium O10, Geochemistry, 28th March – 1st April, 1999, Strasbourg [microlithic matrix.htm].

Kostrzewski J. 1928. Mikrolithische Feuersteinindustrie in Polen. In Ebert M. (ed.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, pp. 188-189. Berlin: Verlag Walter de Gruyter Co.

Kozłowski J.K. and Kozłowski S.K. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od XL do IV tysiąclecia p.n.e. Warszawa: PWN (in Polish).

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1983. Une tête de sagaie à armature de lamelles à dos à Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 80/5:154-155.

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1984. Pincevent. Campement magdalénien de chasseurs de rennes. Paris: Ministére de la Culture/Imprimerie national.

Mania D., Mania U. and Thomae M. 2002. Im Wildparadies des Geiseltales vor 200 000 Jahren. Artern: Interessen- und Förderverein «Geiseltalsee» e.V.

351MICROLITHIC TECHNOLOGY IN THE STONE AGE

Mania D. and Toepfer V. 1973. Königsaue. Giederung, Ökologie und mittelpaläolitische Funde der letzter Eiszeit. Veröffentlichungen des Lansesumuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle 26. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften

Montelius O. 1888. The Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times. New York: Haskell House Publishers (reprint).

Nuzhnyj D.1999. L̓ utilisation des microlithes géométriques et non géométriques comme armatures de projectils. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 86:88-96.

Orliac M. 1997. Microlithe. In Leroi-Gourhan A. (ed.), Dictionaire de la préhistoire. Paris: Quadrige/PUF.

Rust A. 1937. Das altsteinzeitliche Rentierjäger Meiendorf. Neumünster: Karl Wachholz Verlag.Rust A. 1950. Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Neumünster: Karl Wachholz Verlag.Sulgostowska Z. 1993. Mesolithic bone point with flint inserts from Tlokowo, Olsztyn Voivodeship – a

technological assessment. Archeologia Polski 38:75-88 (in Polish with English summary).Thieme H. 2003. The Lower Palaeolithic site Schöningen, Lower Saxony, Germany. In Burdukiewicz

J.M. and Ronen A. (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, pp. 9-27. (BAR International Series 1115). Oxford.

Toepfer V. 1960. Das letztinterglaziale mikrolithishe Paläolithikum von Bilzingsleben, Kr. Artern. Ausgrabungen und Funde 5:7-11.

Valentin B. and Pigeot N. 2000. Éléments pour une chronologie des occupations magdaléniennes dans le Bassin parisien. In Valentin B., Bodu P. and Christiansen M. (eds.), L'Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire : confrontation des modeles régionux de peuplement, pp. 253-271. Actes de la Table-ronde internationale de Nemours, 14-16 mai 1997. (Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d' Ile-de-France, no 7). Nemours: A.P.R.A.I.F.

Valoch K. 1977. Die Mikrolithik im Alt- und Mittelpaläolithikum. Ethnogrphisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 18:57-62.

Winiarska-Kabacinska M. 1993. Functional analysis of bone point with flint inserts from Tlokowo,Olsztyn Voivodeship. Archeologia Polski 38:89-93 (in Polish with English summary).

Zotz L. 1938. Zur Frage der Herkunft des grobgerätigen Mesolithikums. Altschlesien 7:197-199.