Blade Technology in Gravettian Germany

8/3/2019 Blade Technology in Gravettian Germany

1/16

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of GeissenklsterleCave, Southwest GermanyJoachim Hahna; Linda R. Owenaa 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 ofGeissenklsterle Cave, Southwest Germany', World Archaeology, 17: 1, 61 75

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950

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 orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould 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 directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979950http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333


2/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian andGravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave, SouthwestGermanyJoachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

IntroductionSince 19 73 , a series of excavations has been carried ou t at G eissenklsterle cave in southw estGermany (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 possibleMagdalenian, and several Gravettian and Aurignacian layers. There are probably also MiddlePalaeolithic 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 isespecially rare.

During the first exploratory excavation, conducted by E. Wagner, a trench was run throughthe cave. In the subsequent excavations, directed by J. Hahn, more detailed excavation methodswere practised. The location of each artefact was recorded three dimensionally and entered on aplan. 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 foranalyzing and controlling an archaeological stratigraphy and for reconstructing technology orhuman behaviour at a site (see for example Cahen 1980). At Geissenklsterle, Gravettian andAurignacian assemblages could be extensively refitted for the first time. They have offered valu-able information about Upper Palaeolithic blade technology. In addition, they have been animportant tool for estimating the extent of disturbances in the cave, i.e. of horizontal andvertical displacement. Only when the extent of these disturbances is known can activity areas inthe cave be discussed.Six of the refitted nodules, all of which were used for blade production, will be treated herein detail. No attempt is made to distinguish blades and microblades.

The Aurignacian no dulesNodule A l is a cobble of dusky red radiolarite, with rolled cortex (Fig. 2, A l) . The material isvery fine-grained and quite homo geneou s, but criss-crossed by several join t planes. It is estimatedto have originally been 7 X 7 X 6 cm in size.

WorldArchaeology Volume 17 No. 1 Studying stones R.K.P. 1985 0043-8243/85/1701/61 $1.50/1


3/16

62 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

1 less cold &less humid

Figure 1 Geissenklsterle Cave: the sequence of geological horizons (GH) and archaeologicalhorizons (AH), with reconstructions of climate, on the evidence of sedimentology, and ofenvironment, on the evidence of rodent remains.A to tal of 26 artefacts could be refitted from nodule A l . A number of these had broken at a

joint plane during knapping. In addition, at least 8 other artefacts, six of which are refitted to-gether, probably belong to the same nodule although they could no t be conjoined on to the core.The absent linking artefacts are mostly blades, which were quite possibly taken from the cave.


4/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave 63

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 waslower rather than higher, probably in layer III. The depths of the individual artefacts differ


5/16

64 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owenconsiderably, from 317 to 355 cm below our datum poin t. Although it is an extreme case, thereis a depth difference of 30 cm in square me tre 37 alon e.

The horizontal distribu tion is more limited, although it does spread over several square m etres(Fig. 3). Many of the pieces lay a considerable distance outside the main concentration, such assome small flakes in square 17. The co re, which was found on the southeast edge of the artefactdistribution, shows no relationship to the individual reduction phases. It is therefore improbablethat the distribution of the refitted pieces represents the original knapping distribution, althoughthis may be the case if the knapp ing was done in a standing po sition. It is, however, moreprobable that the pieces were dumped here and perhaps also subsequently moved short distanceshorizontally away from each other.

The reduction phases may be summarized as follows: the cortex was first removed from bothsides of the nodule, perhaps in order to test its quality. This was apparently done outside theexcavation area and perhaps even outside the cave. Afterwards the first striking platform wascreated. A naturally straight edge, formed by the intersection of cortex and a joint plane, wasused as a guide for the removal of the first blades. The platforms and the few crested bladesshow th at an attem pt 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 batteringdirected on to the former. It is interesting that the series of blades were always detached fromright to left.Nodule A5 is of fine-grained hom ogeneous grey chert (Fig. 2, A5 ). A total of 17 artefacts fromfive 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 d eep. The highest occurred in square metre 36 , layer l ib , althoug hpieces were found 45 cm deeper in the adjoining square 37. The lowest piece was found nearthe back wall of the cave in square metre 48 at a depth of 355 cm below datum, but as the sedi-ment is very loose here, it is possible th at it may have slid dow n from its original place.

Although the distribution of the majority of the pieces (Fig . 3) indicates a weak conc entrationin square metres 47, 48 and 38, individual pieces were scattered far away, e.g. in square metre77. The core lay approximately one metre northwest of the concentration. Two conjoiningblades lay in the cen tre of the conce ntration, whereas the other blades are scattered towards thenortheast. The only tool, a truncated flake, lay in the west. This loose distribution makes aninterpretation difficult.

In general, it is clear that this core had only one single blade removal phase during which alimited number of blades was produced. Some of the blades are not prepared on the dorsalsurfaces, but on the platforms themselves. It is also striking that the core was usually turned tothe left, whereby a negative was chosen with a ridge suitable for guiding the next removal. Atthe end, an attempt was made to remove further blanks from the left as well as from the rightside of the co re. This sequence of reduction could be termed opp ortunistic.Nodule A9 (Fig. 2, A9) is of relatively smooth yellow-brown chert, probably from the localTertiary loams, with characteristic large rough inclusions and joint planes. The reverse side ofthe core is covered by a rough cortex which has not experienced fluviatile rolling, while thefront 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 differentsub-layers. The one exception was found in level Ha in the same square metre, 77, where mostof the other pieces occurred much deeper in levels III or Ilia. Incidentally, this is the only piece


6/16

a

70 L 6 0 ^ 5 0Figure 3 Horizontal distribution of the components of three refitted Aurignacian cores at Geissenklsterle Cave.

o A1 A5

ON


7/16

66 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owenwhich is rolled and which has edges damaged by solifluction or cry otu rba tion . This most p robab lyindicates that the piece moved vertically, causing the edge damage. Most other pieces fromnodule A9 were concentrated around a hearth in square 77, level Ilia, while a further 5 werefound 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 characterizedby the creation of a new platform. In each case the platform edges were prepared on the flutedface 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 wascreated.

Although the rejuvenation flakes from the first platform were not found in the excavatedarea of the cave, it cannot be excluded that the whole reduction process took place in anotherarea, which we have n ot yet excavated, perhaps near the hearth in square metre 7 7. There mayalso be a time difference, however short, between the second and third reduction phases of thecore.

In general, it is interesting that no true crested blades from this core were found. These wereprobably made unnecessary or only partially necessary by the presence of natural ridges betweenthe cortex surfaces and the joint planes. The order of removal of blades or flakes varied indirection and took place within limited areas, in order to take advantage of the most suitableridge. A mo vement from right to left seems to have been the most com mon . The core platformedge, even in the last working stage, was prepared along its whole extent. On the left, the bat-tering 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 onecan see from these figures, at least one third of the original nodule is now missing. Only oneblank from nodule A9 was retouched, with steep working on both lateral edges: morphologi-cally, it resembles a carnate scraper, but the front h as been left unreto uche d.

Most of the refitted artefacts w ere distributed over a space a bit larger than a square m etre(Fig. 3), with the core at the edge of this scatter. This close concentration, within which all theartefacts of the different platform phases form two separate smaller groups, can be interpretedas a knapping place. The small size of the spread even suggests that the knapping was carriedout in a sitting position. The gap towards the southeast may well represent the actual positionof th e knappe r, and the hearth on the northeast edge of the artefact distribution may have beenin use at the time. However, as the excavation in this area is not yet comp leted, the interpretationof this concentration as an intact knapping site must be considered merely as a possibility at thepresent stage.

The Gravettian nodulesNodule Gl (Fig. 4 , G l) is of light grey Jurassic cher t, which is hom ogeneous, fine-grained andsmo oth. A total of six pieces were refitted onto the core. They consist of a primary , unidirection-ally crested blade, two complete microblades, two proximal microblade fragments and oneproximal flake fragment. They came from the archaeological layers: Is 2, It 3 , It/l a 1. In addition ,117 other pieces clearly belong to the same core, though they cannot yet be refitted onto it.


8/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and G ravettian of GeissenklsterleCave 67The majority of these came from the archaeological layer It, although several were also found inIs , la and Ib.

The refitted pieces differ in their depths by 27 cm, the lowest coming from square metre 77and the highest from square metre 65. Although the core and the crested blade were foundclose to each other in the north of the cave near the wall (Fig. 5) the other refitted pieces showno obvious patterning in distribution. The other refitted pieces were distributed in a wide arcaround the large hearth. A second smaller concentration is found around the other hearth insquare metre 26. These two concentrations are separated by an almost empty zone (squares 45to 49). Since these square metres were part of the exploratory trench excavated by Wagner, thisapparently em pty zone may just be a produ ct of the different excavation technique s.Nodule G2 (Fig. 4, G 2) is of wh ite, fine-grained chert with a series of very fine-grained thin greyand brown bands under the weathered cortex. A total of eight pieces from six blades were refit-ted together. They consist of a secondary right-sided crested blade with missing distal end, aburin (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 onedistal 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 comingfrom the same no dule. Amongst these, three of the blade fragments (2 proxim al and 1 medialfragment) could also be refitted to each other. This series differs from the first in that it hascortex 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 indepth, 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 h earth as was also the case with G l .Nodule G4 (Fig. 4, G4) is of yellowish-brown fine-grained chert with a weathered cortex. Twocores (G4A and G 4B) were foun d, w hich both belong to this nodule. G4A is fractured into threepieces (perhaps due to frost). A possible core tablet, two proximal flake fragments and a proxi-mal blade fragment which had broken at a join t plane, two complete blades, one proximal andone distal blade fragment, two com plete flakes (one of which may be a nosed scraper), and twoproximal flake fragments have all been refitted onto it. G4B is a blade core on a flake, one sideof which is covered by cortex. A complete blade, one proximal and one distal blade fragment,and p art of an other blade, refitted from a proximal fragment (which incorporated a burin on abreak) and a medial fragment, have been refitted on to it or can be shown to belong to it. Inaddition, 11 other artefacts appear to belong to the initial working of this nodule. All havecortex with a characteristic brow n band unde rneath it, similar t o tha t of core G4B . A series offive of these artefacts were refitted (3 flakes and 1 blade broken into 2 fragments). These wereall assigned to layer It .

A total of 45 other artefacts evidently belong to the same nodule, but could not be refittedon to the cores. Over half of the pieces, both refitted and unrefitted, w ere attributed to layer It .The o ther half were spread thro ugh Ir, Is, la and Ib.

The pieces of the refitted core G4A range in depth from 236 cm in square metre 110 to 281cm in square 86, a vertical difference of approximately 45 cm, part of which is due to thegeneral slope of the layers towards the southwest. Those from G4B range from 230 cm in squaremetre 89 to 28 1 cm in square 5 8, slightly more tha n half a m etre. The spatial distribution, b othof the refitted pieces and of the material from the nodule that could not be refitted, is similar


9/16

68 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. Owen

G4B

Figure 4 Red uction sequence of four Gravettian cores , with key for this figure and Fig. 2: a, pre p-aration of trimm ing blade; b, preparation of platform; c, lateral prepara tion; 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. Thecortical pieces were found close together in square metres 87 and 8 8, which may have been theplace where the nodule was originally prepared.


10/16

torero

81

70 60 50 40 30 20 10Figure 5 Horizontal dist ribut ion of the components of four refi t ted Gravet t ian cores at Geissenklsterle Cave.


11/16

70 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. OwenDistribution of the artefactsHorizontal distributionThe Gravettian cores presented here all seem to lie around the main hearth in a loose arc. Onlythe cortical pieces from G4 were found closely together and may represent a knapping site. It isinteresting 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 largerhearth and the lesser con centration around the smaller hearth. This movem ent does not appearto be of natural origin, as it does not follow the slope of the layers. It is possible that the pieceswere taken from one area to the other. Since the area to the front of the cave (square metres 75to 45) was blocked by a large overhang during the Gravettian, it is also possible that the way toand from the cave entrance passed near the small hearth and that the pieces were brought tothis area accidentally as people walked through the cave.

In the Aurignacian, th e lines tha t link conjoining artefacts run in the same direction, suggestinga more diagonal movement, whether accidental or intentional. The cores lie at the edge of theartefact distribu tions, as in the Gravettian. But the distribu tions show greater diversity and it isnotable that the close association of the pieces from nodule A9 may indicate an intact knappingplace.

Vertical distributionThe refitted artefacts from the Gravettian layers show a great deal of intermixture between thearchaeological layers, as noted in the case of the nodules described above. In each case therefitted pieces came from several archaeological layers, althoug h the majority always came fromlayer It . Dep th differences of pieces from one nodu le were as high as 50 cm. At presen t, thereappears to be no basis for dividing the different Gravettian layers and they will be consideredtogether.

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 ofblocks from the cave roof and vertical movement, e.g. by frost heaving, seem to have caused theapparent m ixing between the layers.

Technological study of the artefactsThe Aurignacian and Gravettian layers in the cave are clearly separated. Only isolated pieceshave been refitted between the two technocomplexes and almost all of these came from thefirst exploratory excavation. In addition, the raw material types, although the same overall,show clear differences in terms of preference.

AurignacianTwo different type s of raw material were used for blade produc tion in the Aurignacian layers:local chert and radiolarite, the former being much more co mm on. Both were obtained from the


12/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave 71

t least 70 mm, and that of the largest chert nodule at least 95 mm. The largest chert bladesst 127 mm ) were made from a brown chert not knapped in the cave.

Despite the extensive refittings - no t only the three nodules presented here - the cortexoutside the excavated area, possibly outside the cave. This could mean that raw

hattered worked nodules in the cave shows however that this was not always the case and thatome 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 canbe seen from the refits, nodules were chosen which already possessed a natural ridge, such ashe edge betwe en corte x and a join t plane. Since the first flakes removed to create th e platform

f small flakes. Joint planes were presumably also used as a basis for the creation of a platform.

hroughout the process of core reduction. The majority of the crested blades are unidirectionalAs a rule the edge of the platform was strengthened: short stepped scars suggest that this

of the preparation was carried out by light tapping with a hamm er stone. The direction ofhe blades have plain or unfaceted butts. No grinding or 'scrubbing' of the edge of the platformeems to have been carried out.It appears that a protrusion on the platform edge was often deliberately created in the

have as a rule flat bulbs of percussion and lips on the v entral platform edge, were pro bablyThe Aurignacian cores described in this paper were reduced in the following manner. The

unistic reduction strategy. No extensive core preparation could be carried out as this would

nd then a new platform was created on the opposite end from which blades were removedom a different area of the core's surface. It also seems tha t the knappers atte m pted to use the

at the en d. This can be seen on the third example described here, A9 (see Fig. 2) .blades were rarely refitted on to the blade cores, with the exception of the one radiolarite

ore where the blades broke on a joint plane during production. It is of course clear that only

way for use.


13/16

72 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. OwenGravettianMore than a thousand blades and blade fragments have been recovered from the Gravettianlayers of the Geissenklsterle Cave. As in the Aurignacian, local chert and radiolarite were usedfor the produ ction of blades. In the Gravettian, radiolarite was more com mo n, making up morethan 40 per cent of the recovered blades and blade fragments. The largest chert nodule fromthese layers was at least 155 mm long, the largest blade 81.5 mm long. The size of the radio-larite nodules is more difficult to estimate as few of their pro ducts have as yet been refitted . Infact, although radiolarite blades are very common, the number of recognizable radiolarite bladecores 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 comesfrom an almost completely refitted nodule of easily recognizable brown chert. Although therefitted pieces with the exce ption of two flakes, were found in close association, no flakes at allfrom the initial removal of the cortex were found within the cave. As can be seen in the case ofnodu le G 4, cortex removal and initial core pre paration also occu rred w ithin the cave, as a dis-cretely located episode.The Gravettian blade cores were flaked to specific forms. Their keels were rounded and thesides often trimmed back. Crested blades, usually one-sided, were used as guide-ridges. Theywere often only retouched distally and served merely to reshape the core's keel. As a rule, theplatforms were created by the removal of a single flake, struck from the fluted surface. Refittingshows 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 overand a second platform created on the opposite side. The cores were used as much as possibleand 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. Thisvaries from core to core. Of the blade cores presented here, Gl and G2 had ground platformedges, but G4 did not. This may suggest that they were made by different flint knappers. Theedge preparation in general created rounded, smooth platform edges. The blades are regular inshape with flat bulbs of percussion. Lips are uncommon, but more than 45 per cent haveraillure (bulbar) scars.

Com parison of the Aurignacian and G ravettian blade coresAnalysis of the refitted blade cores, and of the blade cores and blades in general, have shownconsiderable differences between the A urignacian and G ravettian in Geissenklsterle Cave. Al-though the same raw m aterials were used, radiolarite was much m ore com mon in the Gravettianwhere it made up more than 40 per cent of the blades and blade fragments. It also appears tohave come from a different source than tha t used by t he A urignacians. The size of the radiolariteblades in both technocom plexes was similar (the largest approximately 80 m m long) and appearsto have been determined by th e size of the nod ules. In the Aurignacian, there are considerablylarger chert blades. The longest are 127 mm , compared to 80 mm in the G ravettian.

Core preparation varied considerably. In comparison to the Gravettian cores, which hadrounded keels and trimmed back sides as a rule, the Aurignacian cores were less elaborately


14/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and G ravettian of G eissenklsterle Cave 73

The Aurignacian core platforms were normally made by removing several flakes, usually

a smooth rounded edge. 75 per cent of the Gravettian blades have plain butt s, but onlyThe majority of cores in both the Aurignacian and the Gravettian have one platform and one

face, though in each case some do have two platforms and two fluted faces. In thettian, 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 pro-raillure scars. Theraillure scars; less than a

than in the Aurignacian (2.5 per cen t).There are thus numerous differences between the Aurignacian and Gravettian blade tech-

eissenklsterle. It is possible that they are the pro du ct of two different productionravettian. This hypothesis is supp orted by finds at the site of antler percussion in strum ents

ian and punches in the Gravettian.

et al. 1980) a specific technique

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

different roles in the blade prod ucti on . One serves as a guiding ridge for the produ ction ofblades, the other for the correction or renewal of the angle between the fluted face and the

This ideal form for cores has of course to be adapted to the individual shape of the nodules.


15/16

74 Joachim Hahn and Linda R. OwenDuring the reduction process, symmetry seldom remains. Often the fluted face is shifted to theside, so that the back crest is also on one side, although it is still used for the correction of theplatform. At Pincevent, cores with one fluted face and two opposed platforms do not appear torepresent a special technique, since the refits showed no alternating striking off from one plat-form to the other.

For Meer, D. Cahen (in Van Noten 1978) describes two different methods of blade pro-duction: a classical and a simplified method. The simplified method consists of the preparationof the nodule, the creation of a single platform and the use of a natural ridge such as the edgebetween the often flat sides of the nodule and the small side. The classical method consists ofthe careful preparation of the nodule and the creation of a guiding ridge, as at Pincevent. Bladesproduced by this more elaborate method do not seem to have been made at the site itself atMeer, 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 tha t of th eMagdalenian in the Paris basin, with some possible local variation. The knappers of Verberieprepared the cylindrical nodules, whose complete length was to be used, in a pointed oval formas was usua l, with the custom ary two crests. But in the case of at least one core, this was followedby the preparatory striking of short massive blades from two opposing platforms. This alternateuse of the two platforms was only carried out in order to create a suitable single platform, fromwhich the real blade production was then carried out. The difference between the preparatoryand 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 naturalform of the nodules without too much preparation.

If we take the evidence from G eissenklsterle Cave, it is apparent th at in the Aurignacian onlya simplified core pre paratio n and blade pro duc tion to ok place . Even if no com plete cores could berefitted, the Gravettian blade technology seems to be more evolved, even comparable to that ofthe Magdalenian. But if we look more closely at southwest German Magdalenian sites, anothertechnological innovation seems to have taken place. The Magdalenian lithic technology is farmore dep endent 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 thenumber of crested blades has fallen even below the percentage known in the Aurignacian. Thisseems to indicate tha t the co ntrol of the raw material and of the core reduc tion was far mo reskilled in the Magdalenian than in the two preceding technocomplexes.

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

Universitt T bingen


16/16

Blade technology in the Aurignacian and G ravettian of GeissenklsterleCave 75ReferencesAu douze, F., Cahen, D ., Keeley, L . H. and Schmider, B. 198 1. Le site magdalnien du BuissonCampin Verberie (Oise). Gallia Prhistoire. 24: 99-143.Cahen, D. 1980. Question de contemporanit: l'apport des remontages. Bulletin de la SocitPrhistorique Franaise. 77: 8: 230-2.Cahen, D ., Karlin, C., Keeley, L. and Van N oten , F. 19 80. M ethodes d 'analyse te chn ique , spatialeet fonctionelle d'ensembles lithiques. Helinium . 20: 209-59.Hahn, J., von Koenigswald, W., Wagner, E. and Wille, W. 1977. Das Geissenklsterle beiBlaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis: eine altsteinzeitliche Hhlenstation der mittleren Alb. Fund-berichte aus Bad.-Wurttemberg. 3: 14-37.Laville, H. and Hahn, J. 1981. Les dpots de Geissenklsterle et l'volution du climat en Jurasouabe entre 36,000 et 23,000 B.P. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris. 292: 225-7.Van Noten, F. L. (ed). 1978. Les chasseurs de Meer. (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses.18). Brugge: De Tem pel.

AbstractHahn, Joachim and Owen, Linda R.Blade technology in the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Geissenklsterle Cave, Southwest GermanyThis cave has produced a series of Aurignacian and Gravettian levels. In each case, numerousartefact refits between different archaeological layers indicate that strong post-depositionaldisturbances took place, whose exact nature is as yet unexplored. The technological informationprovided by the refits points to marked differences in both the raw material selection and theblade production processes for the two technocomplexes, Aurignacian and Gravettian, andthese are enumerated and discussed. Other Upper Palaeolithic sites where artefact refits havebeen extensively studied are briefly considered, and certain refinements in blade technologyintroduced by the Magdalenians, both in the Paris basin and in Southwest Germany, are noted.

Documents

Blade Technology in Gravettian Germany