Sort order:  

Status: 1 Treffer   •   Seite 1 von 1   •   10 Artikel pro Seite

2016-06-08 04:13:56   •   ID: 1283

Microlithism before the Holocene: some Examples

Figure 1
Microlithic Levallois Points: These are tiny and flat Levallois points (Fig 1; max 3 cm long, 11-15 mm thickness) from Israel. They show a "Chapeau de Gendarme" base and are essentially non retouched. One example is characterised by the "Concorde" design, common in "Tabun B" ensembles and rare in Europe.

Palaeolithic Microlithism: Microlithic tools are known since the East African Oldowan and Acheulian- see here: 2083 .

During the Middle Palaeolithic / MSA, Microlithism was a successful adaption of Homo sp., occurring around OIS 8-3 and used in different habitats, climatic zones and Environments.

This mode of lithic Savoir-Faire was independent of specific raw materials, made on flint, obsidian, quartz and quartzite and Basalt.

For sure Microlithism does not represent a „Tradition" but a versatile and flexible gesture of their makers.

Toolskits, already diversified during the the Levantine lower Palaeolithic, revealed ensembles, that were, instead of being centred on LCT based production of heavy duty tools, based on predominately microlithic operational sequences - for example at Revadim in Israel (Vendetti et al. 2019).

During the Yabroudian, at Qesem Cave tiny recycled flakes, removed from the ventral face of the parent-flake ('core-on-flake'), with little or no preparation were used as hand-held cutting tools as part of a diversified meat-processing Palaeolithic tool-kit.

Figure 2
In the Levant, Rust described an undated  “Micro-Mousterian”, which is technologically a microlithic Levantine Levallois-Mousterian from the Yabroud Rockshelter in Syria (Level 5; Figure 2).

This level had a 20 cm thickness and contained the industry over 10 sq m, intercalated between several strata with normal sized Levallois-Mousterian tools.

The 185 Levallois points are very small and show  intentional retouches in  most of the cases. They are 2-6 cm long and vary between slender and elongated and broad based triangular specimens.

Interestingly Rust also described many examples of smaller blades and bladelets in Level V, often with retouches and some with serrated edges (maybe created by post depositional disturbances), which he called "saws".

It remains unknown if these blades were made by a Levallois- or a specialized blade-core  technology. For Rust an industry of tiny irregular microlithic tools was the most characteristic element of the ensemble.

Figure 3
A microlithic Levallois-Mousterian has been described by H. Fleisch in the Lebanon. A similar industry is known from  from the costal  plain near Mt Carmel, embedded in the Kurkar-Hamra Succession** , where the specimens, that are shown in Figure 1  were found. The use of specialized cores in such ensembles has been documented, retouched tools are rare. Similar microliths have also been found in the Carmel region (Figure 3).

Microlithism during the Levantine Middle Paleolithic is not restricted to the costal zone as shown by the Microlithic Mousterian from the  open-air site of Quneitra (early MIS3). The retouched items display a great variety of types (over 60), with a dominancy of Levallois flakes, single convex side scrapers, notches, denticulates and retouched flakes (Oron et al. 2014).

This assemblage differs from other Levantine Mousterian sites in flake dimensions (shorter and thicker), very few points and naturally backed knives, and the exploitation of basalt as raw material.

Microlithic Middle Paleolithic ensembles are not rare and are known from Armenia, Greek, the Balkans, Italy, Central Europe and France.

While some of these ensembles clearly refer to constraints of material supply (for example, the "Pontinian" sites, which will discussed during a later post)- see 1468 , while other do not. Situated at  the crossroads between Asia Minor, the Near East and Europe, the lithic industry at Angeghakot at an altitude of 1800 m in the valley of the Vorotan (south-eastern Armenia) , mainly made from obsidian, has been identified as belonging to the Mousterian facies typical of the “Zagros-Taurus”, consisting of numerous Mousterian points, “Yerevan points”, microlithic tools, and the presence of the “truncating-facetting” technique.

In central Europe ensembles with small sized artifacts come from the last interglacial-see 1629 . These ensembles are usually called "Taubachian"(Moncel 2011; Neruda 2011).

They were usually produced by the recurrent centripetal Levallois method (Untertürkheim, Lehringen, Rabutz, Taubach),or by a discoid concept (Kulna, layer 11).

Bifacial tools are virtually absent. Scrapers are common, points are sometimes present, and notched/denticulated pieces are sometimes abundant. It is hotly debated if the small artefact size was voluntary or imposed by site function and by environmental conditions.

One of the best characterized microlithic Middle Paleolithic ensembles comes from the lower strata of the Sesselfelsgrotte (Altmühltal; Bavaria).

About 7 m of sedimentary deposit were excavated. An early Weichselian date is suggested for these assemblages which are typologically and technologically similar to contemporaneous western European Mousterian industries (Mousterian with micro-size tools, Ferrassie type Mousterian and Quina type Mousterian) (assemblage Ses-U-A04)(Freund 1968).

These occupations took place under interstadial conditions (oxygen-isotope stade 5c and 5a) with forest and open landscape (Weissmüller 1997). This brings us back to the possible function of microlithic Levallois points. 

Those with very small cross sectional areas/perimeters could have been served as projectile armatures. A surprising find from the Rhone region / France may underpin such assumptions.

The Neronian level (ca 55-50 k.a.) of Grotte Mandrin is characterized by an enormous sample of almost microlithic points of Levallois morphology.

At Mandrin in 80% of these points have a thickness of between 2 and 5 mm, and 60% of them have a width of between 16 and 25 (Metz 2015).

An impactological study of the Mandrin E points reveals that at least 15.5% of them were used as weapons, maybe indicative of an early bow and arrow technology.

**Kurkar is the term used in Palestinian Arabic and modern Hebrew for the rock type of which lithified sea sand dunes consist. The equivalent term used in Lebanon is ramleh. Kurkar is the regional name for an aeolian quartz sandstone with carbonate cement, in other words an eolianite or a calcarenite (calcareous sandstone or grainstone), found on the Levantine coast of the Mediterranean Sea in Turkey,  Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Gaza Stripand northern Sinai Peninsula (From: Wikipedia).

Suggested Readings:

G. Eichhorn: Die paläolithischen Funde von Taubach in den Museen zu Jena und Weimar : Festschrift zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Jena 1909.

Alfred Rust: die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. NF 8 / Offa-Bücher) Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1950. Figure 2 shows  Rusts Micro-Mousterian in the 5th row.

W. Weissmüller, Sesselfelsgrotte II - Die Silexartefakte der Unteren Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte (Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Mousterien). Quartär-Bibliothek Band 6; 1995.

Povenance: Collection Levenstein (ISR)



Resources and images in full resolution: