Author's personal copy - roceeh.net · Author's personal copy discussion of the Aurignacian on a...

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in theAurignacian of southwest Germany

Bruce L. Hardy a,*, Michael Bolus b, Nicholas J. Conard b

a Department of Anthropology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USAb Institut fur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte und Archaologie des Mittelalters, Universitat Tubingen, Schloss Hohentubingen, 72070, Tubingen, Germany

Received 23 October 2006; accepted 1 October 2007

Abstract

The early Upper Paleolithic of Europe is associated with the appearance of blade/bladelet technology (e.g., Aurignacian). These industriesinclude a wider range of formal tool types than seen in the Middle Paleolithic. Greater diversity in tool types is often interpreted as specializedtools created for specific tasks. This, in turn, is said to reflect dramatic behavioral shifts between Neandertals and modern humans. In order to testprevious interpretations, it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of early Upper Paleolithic stone-tool function. Toward this end, analysesof microscopic residue and use-wear were undertaken on 109 stone tools from three Aurignacian sites in southwest Germany (Hohle Fels, Gei-ßenklosterle, and Vogelherd). These cave sites evidenced remarkable residue preservation, with approximately 82% of the sample showing someform of functional evidence. Residues observed included hair, feathers, bone/antler, wood, plant tissue, phytoliths, starch grains, and resin. Theresults suggest that tool typology is not strongly linked to the processing of specific materials. For example, endscrapers from the sample showevidence of processing wood, charred wood, plants, starchy plants, birds, bone/antler, and animals (hair). Hairs are found on tools typologicallyclassified as blades, flakes, borers, pointed blades, and combination tools (nosed endscraper-borer, burin-laterally-retouched blade). In the earlyUpper Paleolithic of southwest Germany, a wide range of tool types appears to have been used to process a diverse array of materials. Theseresults suggest that the interpretation of behavioral patterns from stone tools must consider more than tool typology.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Modern humans; Residue analysis; Stone tool typology; Upper Paleolithic; Use-wear analysis

Introduction

The recent literature in paleoanthropology is replete withdiscussions and arguments concerning the appearance of‘‘modern’’ human behavior. Ultimately, these arguments at-tempt to address the demise of the Neandertals and the roleHomo sapiens had in that demise. Through time, the list oftraits that has been used to define ‘‘modern’’ has changed.For example, logistically organized hunting, blade technology,and long-distance transport of raw materials were once

considered to be hallmarks of modern human behavior (Zilh~ao,2007). A growing consensus now places the appearance ofthese behaviors in the Middle Paleolithic (Revillion and Tuf-freau, 1994; Marean and Kim, 1998; Bar-Yosef and Kuhn,1999; Bar-Yosef, 2004; Burke, 2004). Similarly, shaped bonetools, shell ornaments, and abstract markings and symbolictraces are now dated to the Middle Stone Age of Africa ratherthan the Upper Paleolithic of Europe (Henshilwood et al., 2001,2002, 2004; d’Errico et al., 2005). Recently, the definition of‘‘modern’’ has shifted to an emphasis on the symbolic natureof ‘‘modern’’ behavior (e.g., Wadley, 2001; Henshilwood andMarean, 2003; Zilh~ao, 2007), with Conard (2006: 296) stating:‘‘The key component of fully modern cultural behavior iscommunication within a symbolically organized world andthe ability to manipulate symbols in diverse social contexts.’’

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ740 427 5886; fax: þ740 427 5815.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.L. Hardy), Michael.Bolus@

uni-tuebingen.de (M. Bolus), [email protected] (N.J. Conard).

0047-2484/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.10.003

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662


While the search for behavioral modernity continues, Nean-dertals and early modern humans were not necessarily behav-iorally or biologically homogeneous (Delporte, 1998;McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Bon, 2002; Clark, 2002; Hardy,2004; Conard, 2005, 2006). Furthermore, our understanding ofbasic Paleolithic behaviors such as subsistence and tool use isincomplete at best. Our ability to effectively understand thedifferences in behavior between Neandertals and modern hu-mans is dependent on our ability to accurately reconstructthese basic behaviors. As such, the debate over the appearanceof ‘‘modern’’ behaviors can benefit from more ‘‘nuts and boltsapproaches to defining modernity’’ (Conard, 2006: 298). Sincestone tools are typically the most abundant cultural artifacts atPaleolithic sites, and since their precise uses and functions arestill relatively poorly understood, they offer an excellent me-dium for investigating ‘‘nuts and bolts’’ behaviors.

Due partially to their ubiquity, stone artifacts are often usedas identifiers of cultural groups (Conard, 2006). This is particu-larly true of the Aurignacian, a stone-tool industry that appearedin Europe ca. 40,000 years ago and that is seen by many re-searchers as marking a ‘‘revolution’’ in human behavior. Oneof the most commonly identified features of this ‘‘revolution’’is the greater degree of standardization and artifact-type diver-sity (also called richness) of stone-tool assemblages (Mellars,1989a, 1989b, 1996; Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Thackeray,1992; Klein, 1995, 1999; Knight et al., 1995; Ambrose, 1998;Milo, 1998; Deacon, 2001). The amount of richness in stone-tool assemblages is typically measured by the number of differ-ent tool types that are recognizable (Grayson and Cole, 1998;Bar-Yosef, 2002). Commonly, the number of different tool typesis based on the types enumerated by Bordes (1961) for theMiddle Paleoltihic and de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot(1953) for the Upper Paleolithic. The use of two distinct typo-logical systems for the two time periods has the effect of reifyinga behavioral distinction between the two time periods (Markset al., 2001; Riel-Salvatore and Clark, 2001; Riel-Salvatoreand Barton, 2004).

We are certainly not the first to point out that artifact types,as defined by archaeologists, may not match real categoriesfrom the past. Artifact variability has been attributed to,among other things, intensity of artifact use (Barton, 1990),differential reduction sequences (e.g., Dibble, 1984, 1987,1988, 1995), the shape of tool blanks (Kuhn, 1991, 1992),evolving mental capacities (McPherron, 2000), platform andflake size (Shott et al., 1999), differences in artifact function(e.g., Shea, 1989, 1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990), and thesubjectivity of archaeological classification systems (Bisson,2000). Despite the repeated demonstration that typologicalcategories can be explained by a variety of variables, andthat the greater degree of artifact richness and standardizationfor the Upper Paleolithic has been questioned (Grayson andCole, 1998; Marks et al., 2001), increased artifact diversityin the Upper Paleolithic is still commonly cited as evidenceof behavioral change and modernity (e.g., Mellars, 2005).While there is clearly a change in technology and typology be-tween the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, the degree to whichthis change has been used to infer behavioral differences

may be unwarranted. In many ways, this use of typology toform behavioral inferences demonstrates Paleolithic archaeol-ogists’ heavy reliance on stone-tool typology.

While seen as a necessary methodological tool crucial tosorting the most ubiquitous and durable recovered artifactsfrom archaeological sites (indeed, not infrequently the onlyones), most practitioners in the field also recognize thatclassification carries with it the danger of built-in assump-tions, channeling interpretations into predictable directions,and thus creating theoretical problems even in the act ofcreating order (Tomaskova, 2005:79).

Typologies consist of categories that have been defined byarchaeologists to impose order and allow comparisons betweendifferent artifact assemblages. These categories or types reflectan essentialist view of the archaeological record; the categorieswe have created as modern archaeologists do not necessarily re-flect meaningful categories in the Paleolithic. Although stone-tool typology is a necessary and useful methodological tool,it provides insufficient insight in reconstructing past behavior.In order to understand the role stone tools played in the changesassociated with the Middle-Upper Paleoltihic transition, it isfirst necessary to understand stone tool function.

Aurignacian tool function: previous research

Previous analyses of early Upper Paleolithic stone-toolfunction are limited and often focus on analyzing specifictool types, such as burins. Hays and Lucas (2000) examinedburins and scrapers from Aurignacian levels at Le FlageoletI, France, dating to approximately 27 ka. Based on microwearand technological analyses, they concluded that many of theseartifacts, which are commonly classified typologically as tools,were exhausted cores rather than tools per se. Tomaskova(2000, 2005) analyzed Pavlovian/Gravettian artifacts fromthe sites of Pavlov and Willendorf II, which date betweenapproximately 26 and 30 ka. Artifacts from these sites donot exhibit a clear form-function relationship, leading Toma-skova (2005: 106) to conclude that these results contribute‘‘to a debate that re-examines the traditional concept of stonetools as discrete, functionally specific forms, finished accord-ing to an accepted, culturally predetermined pattern, and usedaccordingly.’’

Given the scarcity of functional analyses of Aurignacianstone tools, it is apparent that their use is not well understood.In an effort to begin to remedy that situation, we undertookresidue and use-wear analyses of Aurignacian artifacts fromthree sites in southwestern Germany: Hohle Fels, Vogelherd,and Geißenklosterle.

German sites

The Aurignacian in the Swabian Jura

With a number of rich cave sites, the Swabian Jura in south-western Germany represents the most important region for theAurignacian in Germany, and it is also a key region for the

649B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662


discussion of the Aurignacian on a European scale. The majorsites are situated in the Ach and Lone Valleys, some of themhaving long stratigraphies and often containing several Auri-gnacian layers, namely Bocksteinhohle, Bockstein-Torle, Hoh-lenstein-Stadel, Hohlenstein-Barenhohle, and Vogelherd in theLone Valley, and Brillenhohle, Sirgenstein, Geißenklosterle,and Hohle Fels in the Ach Valley (Fig. 1).

Detailed discussions of the context of the finds, the chrono-stratigraphy, organic and lithic technology, cultural affilia-tions, and interpretations of figurative art and musicalinstruments from the Swabian Aurignacian cannot be givenhere but can easily be found in many recent publications(Richter et al., 2000; Bolus, 2003, 2004; Conard, 2003; Con-ard and Bolus, 2003, 2006; Conard et al., 2003a,b, 2004a,b,2006; Teyssandier, 2003; Teyssandier and Liolios, 2003; Mun-zel and Conard, 2004; Conard, 2005; Niven, 2006; Teyssand-ier et al., 2006). The results from Vogelherd, Geißenklosterle,and Hohle Fels play a prominent role in establishing the Swa-bian caves and the Upper Danube region as a whole as an areaof central importance for the study of the Aurignacian.

Vogelherd

Vogelherd, excavated by Gustav Riek in 1931, is the mostimportant Aurignacian site in the Lone Valley (Riek, 1934).The excavator subdivided the Aurignacian deposits into twolayers (IV and V), but even with re-excavations in the oldbackdirt and the large number of finds gathered there (Conardand Malina, 2006), it will be very difficult if not impossible todecide whether this subdivision is valid. According to Riek,human fossils had been found at the base of the Aurignacianlayer V and thus were thought to be among the oldest fossilsof anatomically modern humans in Europe. Direct radiocarbondates, however, proved them to be only 5000 years old (Con-ard et al., 2004a), thus demonstrating that serious excavationerrors obviously occurred during the fieldwork in 1931.Some radiocarbon dates from anthropogenically modified

bones reach as far back as ca. 36,000 BP, while most of thedates range between ca. 32,000 and 33,000 BP (Conard andBolus, 2003, 2006).

Endscrapers and burins are frequent, but among these tooltypes, carinated endscrapers are uncommon, and nosed end-scrapers are a bit more frequent, while carinated and buskedburins are extremely rare. Spitzklingen (pointed blades) areabundant and one of the characteristics of the Vogelherd Auri-gnacian. The organic industry is rich and diverse with, amongothers, large numbers of split-based points. Personal orna-ments were nearly absent from Riek’s excavations, but thebackdirt yielded several typical Aurignacian ornaments suchas double-perforated ivory beads that had formerly only beenknown from the Aurignacian of the Ach Valley sites. Thefamous ivory figurines were the first examples of Aurignacianart that had been found in the Swabian Jura (see Hahn, 1986).

Geißenklosterle

Important fieldwork was carried out in Geißenklosterlecave in the Ach Valley by Joachim Hahn and others between1973 and 1991 and continued between 2000 and 2002 byNicholas Conard and colleagues. These excavations uncovereda long stratigraphy comprising layers from the Middle Paleo-lithic to the Mesolithic and later Holocene complexes. Whilethe Middle Paleolithic yielded only a few tools, generallybearing cryoretouches, the Aurignacian and Gravettian layerswere especially rich in finds.

The Aurignacian can be subdivided into a lower and an up-per Aurignacian complex (Hahn, 1988), which both representan early Swabian Aurignacian (Conard and Bolus, 2003). Thecluster of radiocarbon dates for the lower Aurignacian ofArchaeological Horizon (AH) III ranges between ca. 33,000and 37,000 BP (Conard and Bolus, 2006), while TL datesgive an age estimate of ca. 40,000 BP (Richter et al., 2000).With these dates, AH III of Geißenklosterle at present repre-sents the oldest Swabian Aurignacian. The upper Aurignacianof AH II has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 32,000e35,000 BPand TL dated to ca. 37,000 BP.

Both Aurignacian horizons are characterized by a unipolarblade technology (Hahn, 1988; Owen, 1988). The tool types inboth horizons are also very similar, though they differ consid-erably with regard to their frequency, as is, for instance, thecase with carinated and nosed endscrapers. Personal orna-ments are represented by perforated teeth and ivory pendants,and by double-perforated ivory beads, which date among theoldest ornaments in Europe. Among the diverse organic tools,split-based points are limited to AH II. Also limited to the up-per Aurignacian complex are musical instruments, representedby two bone flutes and one ivory flute (Conard et al., 2004a,b),and, finally, art objects represented by four ivory figurines anda painted piece of limestone.

Hohle Fels

The excavations at Hohle Fels have a long history dating backto Oscar Fraas and Theodor Hartmann’s work in 1870e1871.

Fig. 1. Map of southwestern Germany with the principal Aurignacian sites.

Ach Valley: (1) Sirgenstein, (2) Hohle Fels, (3) Geißenklosterle, and (4) Bril-

lenhohle; Lone Valley: (5) Bockstein (Bockstein-Hohle and Bockstein-Torle),

(6) Hohlenstein (Stadel and Barenhohle), and (7) Vogelherd.

650 B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662


They excavated areas of the large cave hall, unfortunatelywithout documentation. It was not until 1958e1960 thatGustav Riek, together with Gertrud Matschak, an amateur ar-chaeologist from Schelklingen, found undisturbed Paleolithicsediments within the tunnellike passage leading to the cavehall. In the northern nichelike annex of the passage, JoachimHahn excavated from 1977 to 1979 and then more or lesscontinuously from 1988 until his death in 1996. Since then,continuous excavations have been directed by NicholasConard.

The stratigraphic sequence from Hohle Fels, situated only2.5 km away from Geißenklosterle in the Ach Valley, is verysimilar to the one from that cave. As in Geißenklosterle, Mid-dle Paleolithic layers with low find density are overlain by anarchaeologically nearly sterile layer, followed by a long UpperPaleolithic sequence with a subdivided Aurignacian andGravettian and Magdalenian deposits. There are a large num-ber of radiocarbon dates (Conard and Bolus, 2006), which es-tablish a consistent chronological frame for the Aurignaciansubunits ranging between ca. 36,000 BP for AH V and ca.29,000 BP for AH IId, which, together with AH IIe, representsthe transitional stratum between Aurignacian and Gravettian.

As at Geißenklosterle, most of the stone-tool types appearthroughout the sequence, but again there are considerabledifferences in frequency, especially as far as Spitzklingen(pointed blades), endscrapers, and burins are concerned(Conard and Bolus, 2006). Organic tools are numerous anddiverse, as are personal ornaments. Figurative art is repre-sented by two unique ivory figurines from AH IV, a miniatureLowenmensch (lion man), one waterfowl, and a head fragmentof another ivory figurine from the transitional depositsmentioned previously (Conard, 2003).

Methods

A sample of 109 stone tools representing 39 different tooltypes were examined microscopically for the presence ofuse-related wear patterns or residues from the three early UpperPaleolithic sites in southwestern Germany (Geißenklosterle,n¼ 37; Vogelherd, n¼ 34; Hohle Fels, n¼ 39; see Table 1).All artifacts were examined with an Olympus BH micro-scope under bright-field incident light at magnifications rang-ing from 100 to 500 diameters. All wear patterns andresidues were photographed using a Nikon Coolpix 995 dig-ital camera, and their location on the surface was recorded ona line drawing of the artifact. Identifications of residues weremade by comparison with published materials and a compar-ative collection of experimental stone-tool replicas (Brunnerand Coman, 1974; Catling and Grayson, 1982; Beyries,1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Hoadley, 1990; Fullagar,1991; Teerink, 1991; Hather, 1993; Hardy, 1994; Brom,1986; Kardulias and Yerkes, 1996; Williamson, 1996; Hardyand Garufi, 1998; Pearsall, 2000; Haslam, 2004; Dove et al.,2005; Fullagar et al., 2006). Residue recognition was the pri-mary goal of the analysis; therefore, no special procedureswere conducted to clean the tools for the sake of renderinguse-wear patterns more visible. While this procedure may

limit the use-wear information obtained, it serves to maxi-mize the residues observed (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Hardyet al., 2001; Hardy, 2004). Potentially identifiable residues in-clude plant (plant tissue, plant fibers, starchy residue, epider-mal cell tissue, wood, raphides, phytoliths, resin) and animaltissues (muscle tissue, collagen, fat, bone/antler, blood, hair,and feathers) (Hardy et al., 2001; Lombard, 2004; Wadleyet al., 2004). Distribution of residues and use-wear on the ar-tifact surface were used to help demonstrate use-relatednessand to identify use-action (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Hardyet al., 2001; Lombard, 2004).

Use-wear patterns recorded included edge damage (micro-flake scars, edge rounding), striations, and polishes. Thesewere used to help identify use-action (Odell and Odell-Vereecken, 1980; Mansur-Franchomme, 1986). Due to thepotential overlap of polishes produced by different materials,use-wear polishes were categorized as either ‘‘soft’’ or

Table 1

Summary of tool types by site (GK: Geißenklosterle, VH: Vogelherd, HF:

Hohle Fels)

Tool type GK VH HF All sites

Blade 0 0 3 3

Blade fragment 1 1 3 5

Blade fragment with retouch 2 4 0 6

Blade with facial retouch 1 0 0 1

Bladelets 8 1 0 9

Borer 1 0 0 1

Double burin 1 0 0 1

Burin 0 1 6 7

Burin/other (combination tools) 1 1 1 3

Carinated scraper 2 0 0 2

Carinated burin 0 0 1 1

Carinated endscraper 1 0 0 1

Core 0 1 0 1

Crested blade 0 0 1 1

Endscraper 1 3 5 9

Endscraper with lateral retouch 0 1 1 2

Endscraper/burin 1 1 0 2

Endscraper/sidescraper 1 0 0 1

Flake 0 11 5 16

Flake retouched on all edges 1 1 0 2

Flake with Aurignacian retouch 0 1 0 1

Laterally retouched flake 1 0 1 1

Hook (zinken) 0 0 0 1

Nosed endscraper 3 0 1 3

Nosed endscraper/borer 1 0 1 2

Nosed endscraper/pointed blade 1 0 0 1

Pointed blade (spitzklinge) 7 3 2 12

Pointed blade with truncation 1 0 1 2

Pointed blade with endscraper 0 0 1 1

Pointed flake 0 0 1 1

Pointed fragment 0 1 0 1

Retouched flake 0 0 1 1

Sidescraper 0 0 1 1

Splintered piece 0 2 1 3

Transverse burin 0 0 1 1

Truncated blade 0 1 0 1

Truncated blade with lateral retouch 1 0 0 1

Truncated flake-burin 0 0 1 1

Total 37 34 39 109



‘‘hard/high silica’’ (e.g., Newcomer et al., 1986, 1988; Moss,1987; Bamforth, 1988; Hurcombe, 1988; Bamforth et al.,1990; Grace, 1990; Fullagar, 1991; Shea, 1992). Soft polishoften results from processing animal tissue such as skin andmeat. Hard/high-silica polish is produced when processingsoft plants with high silica content, such as reeds and grasses,and wood, bone/antler, and tilling soil. The amount of timea tool was used, silica content of the processed material, andpresence of water are all factors that can influence polish for-mation (Fullagar, 1991; Hardy, 2004). A combination of resi-due and use-wear analysis can provide complementary andcorroborative information, potentially producing more accu-rate results than either technique used alone (Hardy, 1998;Hardy and Kay, 1998; Hardy et al., 2001; Rots and William-son, 2004).

Handling artifacts

This study included freshly excavated artifacts, artifacts re-covered from water screening, and artifacts curated from ear-lier excavations. Freshly excavated artifacts came fromopportunistic sampling of ongoing excavations at the site ofHohle Fels. These artifacts were removed from the groundand placed in plastic bags until the time of analysis, andthey are referred to as ‘‘freshly excavated’’ in the analysis.In some cases, adhering sediments obscured the majority ofan artifact’s surface, making microscopic observation of thesurface extremely difficult. In cases such as these, the artifactwas immersed in a container of still water (referred to as‘‘still-water immersion,’’ or SWI). Much of the adhering sed-iment would release from the artifact surface. No scrubbing orbrushing was performed. The artifact was then allowed to air-dry prior to analysis. The site of Vogelherd was largely exca-vated previously, with numerous artifacts being dumped in atalus slope of backfill sediment. These sediments are beingwater-screened, with all artifacts being labeled and placed inplastic bags. Artifacts in the sample from Vogelherd arereferred to as ‘‘water-screened’’ and were treated by sprayingwith water. Excavations are complete at Geißenklosterle. Allsamples from this site consisted of artifacts that had beenlightly washed and placed in plastic bags or drawers prior toanalysis (referred to as ‘‘washed/labeled/curated,’’ or WLC).Generally, washing and handling of artifacts destined for res-idue analysis is kept to a minimum in order to avoid moderncontamination and to avoid loss of residues through cleaningprocedures (e.g., Loy, 1993; Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy,2004). However, recent studies suggest that residues can sur-vive cleaning procedures (e.g., Fullagar et al., 2006), and thesedifferentially handled specimens offered a chance to observethe effects of several curation and cleaning strategies.

Results

Overall, residues observed include hair, feathers, bone/ant-ler, plant tissue, plant fibers, starch grains, wood, phytoliths,pollen, and resin. Of the 109 artifacts examined, 64 (58.7%)had identifiable residues on their surfaces.

Hair and feathers

Hair fragments are typically identified based on characteris-tics of the cutical and medulla and have been found on stonetools from archaeological contexts ranging from the Archaicof North America, ca. 2000e5000 years old (Loy, 1993; Sobo-lik, 1996), to the Middle Stone Age of South Africa (SibuduCave; Lombard, 2004, 2005) and the Middle Paleolithic of Eu-rope (Starosele; Conard and Bolus, 2002; Hardy 2004; Hardyet al., 2001; Hardy, 2004). Hair fragments occur on 18 of 109artifacts (16.5%) and are roughly equally distributed acrosssites. Hairs were identified by the presence of a medulla or bycuticular scale patterns. It is possible to identify hair to the spe-cies level based on diagnostic patterns of the medulla andscales; however, the correct identification of a small numberof hairs to species is extremely difficult (Brunner and Coman,1974; Teerink, 1991). Scale patterns, for example, differ de-pending on the type of hair being examined (shield hairs, guardhairs) and location on the hair itself (near the tip, near the root,etc.). Thus, although it was possible to observe different scalepatterns (including narrow diamond petal, broad petal, mosaic,broad petal diamond, irregular wave, and narrow diamond) andvarious medulla patterns (ladder, intermediate, and interrup-ted), it is difficult to accurately identify species without know-ing precisely from which hair type or position on the hair thefragments derive. Figure 2 illustrates a pointed blade fromGeißenklosterle (GK 1007) with hair fragments and soft polishsuggesting use in scraping hide. The pattern of the hairs fromthis tool (unicellular, irregular ladder medulla with a smooth,broad-petal-diamond scale pattern) is consistent with character-istics near the root of guard hair 2 among some mustelids (Teer-ink, 1991). Two mustelid species are found in small numbersamong the fauna at Geißenklosterle: polecat (Mustela putorius)and marten (Martes sp.) with a number of identified specimens(NISP) of one each (Munzel and Conard, 2004).

One of the difficulties of microscopic residue analysis is es-tablishing that the residues observed are related to use. In thiscase, the frequency and number of hairs, their distribution ona tool’s surface, and their co-occurrence with use-wear patternssuggests that they are related to use. Hair fragments were morecommon at these sites than at other Paleolithic sites examinedfor residues (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004; Lombard, 2004,2005), with artifacts often exhibiting multiple hair fragmentson their surfaces. Because animal residues often appear to pre-serve less well than plant residues (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy,2004; Lombard, 2004; Wadley et al., 2004), their high incidenceon these tools warrants further taphonomic investigation.

Fragments of downy barbules are potentially identifiable tothe family, genus, and sometimes species level (Chandler,1916; Brom, 1986; Dove and Peurach, 2002; Rogers et al.,2002; Dove et al., 2005) and have been identified on prehis-toric stone tools in varied contexts (Loy and Wood, 1989;Loy, 1993; Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004) Two feather frag-ments were found in this sample, identifiable by the presenceof nodes and internodes, as well as projecting barbs associatedwith the nodes. For example, a burin-laterally-retouched bladefrom Hohle Fels (HF 2505; Fig. 3) exhibits a downy barbule



fragment with an asymmetric prong at the node. This artifactexhibits both hair and feather fragments in association withpolish indicative of cutting a soft material. The patterning ofthe hair and feather fragments relative to the use-wear suggeststhat they are related to use. For both artifacts with feather frag-ments, insufficient diagnostic detail is present for more spe-cific identification.

Bone/antler

Bone deposits have typically been described as difficult toidentify due to their amorphous, greasy appearance, which

lacks structure (Jahren et al., 1997; Lombard, 2004). Archae-ological bone structure may be altered by a variety of diage-netic processes, including chemical, physical, and biologicalfactors (Guarino et al., 2006). Finally, bone histology is typi-cally viewed through thin sections cut transversely acrossthe bone and stained with a variety of procedures to makestructures more visible. Working bone with stone tools islikely to involve oblique cuts that do not follow typical histo-logical sections. Furthermore, since observations of residuesare typically made in situ (on the artifact surface) in order todetermine the patterning of residue distribution, staining pro-cedures are impractical. Despite these potential difficulties,

Fig. 2. Geißenklosterle 1007 (square 67): (A) hair trapped in matrix on tool surface; (B) hair with medulla visible; (C) soft polish; (D) hair with scales visible.



it is possible to recognize bone tissue as an opaque, white, usu-ally amorphous tissue. In some cases, structurally circular orovate voids are present, which may represent Haversian orVolksman’s canals (White, 1991). Antler is histologicallyvery similar to bone (Dobrowolska, 2002) and no attemptwas made to distinguish between the two.

Ten artifacts have possible bone/antler residues on their sur-faces. The pattern of distribution varies, but the residues tend tofall along or near one edge of the tool (Fig. 4). In two cases,hairs are also found on artifacts with bone/antler residue.Bone/antler residues may occur on artifacts for two reasons:(1) use of the artifact to modify bone/antler, or (2) use ofbone/antler as a percussor in the manufacture of the artifact.Distinguishing between these two sources is not always

possible, although further information derived from use-wearand distribution patterns can be useful. Table 2 lists the artifactswith bone/antler residue, the other functional evidence they ex-hibit, and the most likely interpretation for the presence of thebone/antler residue. The combination of evidence suggests thatfour artifacts show definite signs of bone/antler processing,three most likely result from use of bone/antler as a hammer,and three may come from either a hammer or processing source.

Plant tissue, plant fibers, phytoliths, pollen, resins

Plant tissues of various kinds are often recognizable bytheir birefringence, presence of recognizable cellular struc-ture, which is often lacking in animal tissue, or their

Fig. 3. Hohle Fels 2505 (square 78): (A and B) soft polish; (C) feather barbule with node; (D) hair with medulla.



association with other plant materials (starch grains, raphides,phytoliths, etc.) (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Lombard, 2004;Wadley et al., 2004). Plant fibers are long, thin cells thatmay occur singly or in bundles and are often characterizedby an open space or lumen in their interior (Catling and Gray-son, 1982). Plant fibers may occur in various parts of plantsand are often sclerenchyma tissue (Catling and Grayson,1982; Fahn, 1982).

Generalized plant tissue (recognizable plant tissue that can-not be further classified to cell type) occurs on 15 artifacts.Lack of diagnostic criteria prevents a detailed understandingof the significance of these residues beyond general plant-processing. A further eight artifacts have plant fibers on theirsurfaces. These, too, lack diagnostic criteria and therefore canonly be interpreted as representing generalized plant-processing.

Analysis of pollen grains and phytoliths is well established inarchaeology (for a summary, see Pearsall, 2000). A singlespherical pollen grain was observed on one artifact. It is not as-sociated with any other plant residues and is therefore not infor-mative as to artifact function. Two phytolithsdone rhomboidand one rectangulardwere found adhering to tool surfaces.These are associated with other plant tissue, but further identi-fication was not possible due to a lack of diagnostic anatomy.

Possible starch grains

The identification of starch grains through recognition ofa characteristic extinction cross under cross-polarized lighthas become a common practice in investigating archaeologicaltool function (e.g., Loy et al., 1992; Kealhoffer et al., 1999;Fullagar et al., 2006; Zarillo and Kooyman, 2006; Barton

Fig. 4. Hohle Fels 1404 (square 98): (A) bone/antler residue with hard/high-silica polish; (B) further magnification of A; (C) bone/antler residue with hard/high-

silica polish.



and Fullagar, 2006; Fullagar, 2006). A recent review by Has-lam (2004) suggested that artifact surfaces may aid in the pres-ervation of starchy residues. The same author, however,recently cautioned that starch grains examined in situ maybe confused with fungal spores known as conidia, whichmay also exhibit an extinction cross under cross-polarizedlight and resemble starch grains in size and shape (Haslam,2006). Conidia spores have thus far been identified in tropical,but not temperate, environments.

Starch grains were identified on only three artifacts in thesample. In all cases, they were found in association with otherplant tissue, but occurred near and not within plant cells.Given Haslam’s recent cautions and the fact that these putativestarch grains fall near the lower limits of microscope resolu-tion (<5 mm), we feel it best to not positively identify theseresidues as starch grains. Even if they are starch, their occur-rence on such a small number of artifacts suggests that pro-cessing of starchy plants with stone tools is at best a minoractivity at these sites.

Wood

The identification of wood residues depends on the pres-ence of diagnostic anatomical characteristics, such as longitu-dinal cells (vessel elements or tracheids) or pitting (Hoadley,1990; Hardy and Garufi, 1998). Eight artifacts exhibit plantcellular structure indicative of the longitudinal cells ofwood. Of these, two have bordered pits characteristic of gym-nosperms, or softwood. Figure 5 shows an unmodified flakewith wood fibers wrapped around the edge of the tool, suggest-ing a whittling use-action.

Charred plant

In several cases, identifiable plant tissue exhibited indica-tions of charring. Charred tissue included colors and textures

typical of archaeological charcoal, ranging from gray to blackand from dull to glossy (Hather, 1993). In one case, sufficientdiagnostic anatomy was preserved to identify bordered pitsfound in elongated cells typical of softwoods (gymnosperm).The distribution across the tool’s surface suggests whittlingof charred wood.

Functional correlation with tool types

In order to investigate if any of the tool types were corre-lated with specific functions (i.e., represented specializedtools), the 39 tool types present were collapsed into six largertypological categories. These included blades, retouchedblades, burins, endscrapers, flakes, and pointed blades. If anyof these tool categories represented specialized tools, wewould expect them to have been used on a single use-material,or at least on a narrow range of use-materials. Table 3 summa-rizes the results for these categories by use-material (for indi-vidual artifact details, see Table 4). All six categories showevidence of use on both plants and animals or birds. The num-ber of different use-materials per category ranges from two tofour specific use-materials. While this sample may not be rep-resentative of these typological categories across the Aurigna-cian, they present a picture of varied rather than specializedtool use at Geißenklosterle, Hohle Fels, and Vogelherd.

Discussion

The title of this paper refers to a Gary Larson cartoon thatreads ‘‘So what’s this? I asked for a hammer! A hammer! Thisis a crescent wrench!...Well, maybe it’s a hammer.Damnthese stone tools’’ (Larson, 1986: 172). This cartoon illus-trates a fundamental issue in Paleolithic archaeologydtheproblem of understanding stone-tool function. Paleolithic ar-chaeologists have often implicitly assumed that stone-tooltypes (which were created by archaeologists in the first place)correspond to unique tools with specialized uses. This is espe-cially true in the Upper Paleolithic, where an increase in num-ber of tool types is often seen as a reflection of increasinglyspecialized tool use. As mentioned above, however, theseclaims are made despite the fact that little direct functionalanalysis has been performed on early Upper Paleolithicartifacts.

For the Aurignacian of southern Germany, as representedby the samples from Geißenklosterle, Hohle Fels, and Vogel-herd, a simple equation of tool type or tool category witha particular function is overly simplistic. All of the tool cate-gories examined in this sample show use on multiple use-materials, including both plant and nonplant (animal orbird). Unmodified flakes show the widest range of uses, in-cluding processing of animal, plant, wood, and starchy plant.Burins show use on animal, bone, and plant, although theseresults may be misleading. While these use-materials wereall found on artifacts with burins, they were not always foundon the burin edge itself. Burins are typically thought of as en-graving tools (numerous researchers have questioned thisfunctional correlation; e.g., Barton et al., 1996; Hays and

Table 2

Summary of bone-residue evidence and interpretation (H/HS¼ hard/high-

silica material)

Artifact #/

Square #

Evidence Interpretation

GK 0/Sq. 46 Multiple fragments, striae,

H/HS polish, hair

Processing

GK 594/Sq. 89 Isolated fragment, H/HS polish Hammer

GK 630/Sq. 58 Multiple fragments, striae,

H/HS polish

Processing

HF 1220/Sq. 98 Multiple fragments, striae,

H/HS polish, hair

Processing

HF 1384/Sq. 98 Striae, polish, fragments

confined to retouched area

Hammer or processing

HF 1404/Sq. 98 Multiple fragments, H/HS polish Processing

HF 2701/Sq. 98 Isolated fragment, H/HS polish Hammer or processing

VH 10/Sq. 73/64 Multiple fragments, striae,

H/HS polish

Hammer or processing

VH 41/Sq. 71/62 Isolated fragments on

retouched edge

Hammer

VH 52/Sq. 48/66 Isolated fragments on

retouched edge

Hammer



Lucas, 2000; Tomaskova, 2005), but in this sample, many ofthe burin edges show no signs of use. Figure 3, for example,shows a laterally retouched blade used for processing both an-imal and bird tissue, but the burin edge was not used. Figure 4

similarly illustrates a carinated burin where the retouchededge was used to scrape or plane bone/antler, but the burinedge itself shows no signs of use. Hays and Lucas (2000)and Tomaskova (2005), among others, have suggested that bu-rins may often represent cores rather than tools and this ideais supported here.

The overall picture of tool use that emerges for this sampledemonstrates a wide range of resources being exploited bya wide range of tool types. Animal residues, including bone,hair, and feathers, along with their associated use-wear, suggesta wide range of animal-processing activities. A range of differ-ent plant types were also exploited, including soft plants, wood,and starchy material. All of these materials were worked by dif-ferent tool types. The one aspect of tool use that is conspicu-ously absent is evidence for hafting. Of the 109 artifacts

Table 3

Summary of use-material by typological category

Type Animal Bird Bone Plant Wood Starch Soft Hard Unknown

Blades U d d U U d U d U

Retouched

blades

U d d U d d U d U

Burin U d U U d d d U U

Endscrapers d U d U d d d U U

Flakes U d d U U U d d U

Pointed blades U d d U d d d U U

Fig. 5. Vogelherd 16 (square 48/66): (A) Wood fibers wrapped around edge; (B and C) long rectangular wood cells.



examined, only six show possible evidence of hafting. Haftingtraces include striae confined to the proximal third of an artifact,resin, and patterned plant material. Given the otherwise excel-lent preservation of functional evidence, these results suggestthat the majority of artifacts examined were hand-held, orthat hafting was performed in such a way that no traces wereleft behind.

Preservation issues

The cave sites in the Ach Valley are characterized by excel-lent preservation, including high collagen content in bone(Conard and Bolus, 2003). The residue preservation followsa similar pattern, and both plant and animal residues arewell preserved. Animal residues (particularly hair andfeathers) are often thought to be underrepresented due to dif-ferential preservation (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004).Whereas previous studies have shown only isolated hair orfeather fragments on a tool surface, the artifacts in the current

sample typically showed a dozen or more hair or feather frag-ments on an individual tool’s surface. Furthermore, residueswere found on all different categories of handling, includingthose that had been washed, labeled, and curated. This pro-vides further support to the idea that some residues may sur-vive some cleaning procedures (Fullagar et al., 2006). Thus,these results suggest that once a residue adheres to a tool sur-face, it is fairly robust and will not be easily removed. Despitethese results, we would still recommend erring on the side ofcaution and minimal handling of artifacts potentially destinedfor residue analysis.

Unfortunately, the precise mechanisms of adherence of res-idues to tool surfaces or of residue preservation in general re-main poorly understood. Further investigation of sites withgood residue preservation, such as the Ach Valley sites, in-cluding issues such as raw-material makeup, sedimentology,pH, depositional environment, etc., are clearly warranted. Fu-ture analysis of material from the ongoing excavation at HohleFels will attempt to address these issues of residue taphonomy.

Table 4

Summary of use-material by tool type (H/HS¼ hard/high-silica material)

Tool type Number Animal Bird Bone Charred

plant

H/HS H/HS

plant

Hide Plant Wood Soft Starchy

plant

Unknown

Blade 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Blade fragment 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

Blade fragment with retouch 6 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0

Blade with facial retouch 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Bladelets 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Borer 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Double burin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Burin 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Burin/other (combination tools) 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Carinated scraper 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Carinated burin 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Carinated endscraper 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Core 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Crested blade 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Endscraper 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 2

Endscraper with lateral retouch 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Endscraper/burin 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Endscraper/sidescraper 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flake 16 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 7

Flake retouched on all edges 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Flake with Aurignacian retouch 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Laterally retouched flake 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hook (zinken) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nosed endscraper 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Nosed endscraper/borer 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nosed endscraper/pointed blade 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pointed blade (spitzklinge) 12 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 2

Pointed blade with truncation 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Pointed blade with endscraper 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pointed flake 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Pointed fragment 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Retouched flake 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sidescraper 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Splintered piece 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Transverse burin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Truncated blade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Truncated blade with lateral retouch 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Truncated flake-burin 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Conclusions

The demonstration that residues can be detected and iden-tified despite a range of cleaning procedures suggests that thetype of analysis presented here may not be limited to freshlyexcavated artifacts. In spite of this finding, however, the au-thors urge archaeologists to handle artifacts as minimally aspossible, as any handling can potentially remove valuablefunctional information.

As mentioned previously, artifact diversity in the Upper Pa-leolithic is often cited as a trait that can be used to identifymodern human behavior (see Henshilwood and Marean,2003). While there is little dispute over the increased artifactdiversity in the Upper Paleolithic, the burin example above il-lustrates that our understanding of the meaning of artifact di-versity is limited. The burin has long been classified as animportant feature of Upper Paleolithic assemblages, yet it isclear that, at least in many cases, burin edges were not used.Discussions of changes in stone-tool industries between theMiddle and Upper Paleolithic continue to focus largely on tech-nological attributes of stone-tool production such as frequencyof formal tool types, core preparation techniques, and locationof retouch. While these certainly represent behavioral choicesin terms of stone-tool manufacture, they are only one aspectof the life of a stone tool (Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004).Given the limited nature of the archaeological record and theubiquity of stone tools at Paleolithic sites, it is vital that wetreat stone tools as more than just technological productions.Determining whether a stone tool is a hammer or a crescentwrench (or both, or something completely different) adds a nec-essary dimension to our understanding of stone tools and theirimportance in the lives of early modern humans.

The literature discussing the origins of modern humans andmodern human behavior continues to grow. The definition ofmodern behavior is contentious at best and includes everythingfrom burial of the dead and personal adornment to effectivelarge-mammal exploitation and blade technology (Henshil-wood and Marean, 2003). In this debate, however, we maybe putting the cart before the horse in terms of our ability toreconstruct past behavior. It is difficult to use changes in stonetools, for example, as evidence of behavioral ‘‘modernity’’when we do not have a complete understanding of what thesechanges mean. Understanding how changes in stone-tool tech-nology relate to other behaviors (e.g., tool use, resource ex-ploitation) is imperative if we are to move beyond the ideaof a simple ‘‘litmus test’’ or trait list for modern behavior.

Acknowledgments

We thank Kenyon College’s Labalme Fund for support ofthis research. Comments from two anonymous reviewershelped strengthen the manuscript.

References

Ambrose, S.H., 1998. Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production

in East Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 377e392.

Ambrose, S.H., Lorenz, K.G., 1990. Social and ecological models for the Mid-

dle Stone Age in southern Africa. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of

Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, pp. 3e33.

Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Paleolithic:

Functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In: Mellars, P.

(Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective.

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 389e418.

Bamforth, D., 1988. Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The in-

stitute results in context. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 11e23.

Bamforth, D., Burns, G., Woodman, C., 1990. Ambiguous use traces and blind

test results: New data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 17, 413e430.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

31, 363e393.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2004. Eat what is there: Hunting and gathering in the world of

Neanderthals and their neighbours. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 14, 333e342.

Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S., 1999. The big deal about blades: Laminar technolo-

gies and human evolution. Am. Anthropol. 101, 322e338.

Barton, C.M., 1990. Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle

Paleolithic. Am. Antiq. 92, 57e72.

Barton, C.M., Olszewski, D.I., Coinman, N.R., 1996. Beyond the graver:

Reconsidering burin function. J. Field. Archaeol. 23, 111e125.

Barton, H., Fullagar, R., 2006. Microscopy. In: Torrence, R., Barton, H.

(Eds.), Ancient Starch Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp.

47e52.

Beyries, S., 1988. Industries Lithiques: Traceologie et Technologie. British Ar-

chaeological Reports International Series, London.

Bisson, M., 2000. Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeol-

ogy? Why the typology of Francois Bordes must be replaced. J. Archaeol.

Meth. Theory 8, 1e48.

Bolus, M., 2003. The cultural context of the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura.

In: Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and

of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Im-

plications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueolo-

gia, Lisboa, pp. 153e163.

Bolus, M., 2004. Der Ubergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpalaolithikum in Eu-

ropa. Eine Bestandsaufnahme unter besonderer Berucksichtigung Mitte-

leuropas. Germania 82, 1e54.

Bon, F., 2002. L’Aurignacien entre Mer et Ocean : Reflexion sur l’Unite des

Phases Anciennes de l’Aurignacien dan le Sud de la France. Societe Pre-

historique Francaise, Paris.

Bordes, F., 1961. Typlogie du Paleolithique Inferieur et Moyen. Editions du

CNRS, Paris.

Brom, T., 1986. Microscopic identification of feathers and feather fragments of

palearctic birds. Bijdr. Dierkd. 56, 181e204.

Brunner, H., Coman, B.J., 1974. The Identification of Mammalian Hair. Inkata

Press, Melbourne.

Burke, A., 2004. The ecology of Neanderthals: Preface. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol.

14, 155e161.

Catling, D., Grayson, J., 1982. Identification of Vegetable Fibres. Chapman

and Hall, New York.

Chandler, A.C., 1916. A study of feathers, with reference to their taxonomic

significance. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 13, 243e446.

Clark, G.A., 2002. Neanderthal archaeology: Implications for our origins. Am.

Anthropol. 104, 50e67.

Conard, N.J., 2003. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany

and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426, 830e832.

Conard, N.J., 2005. Aurignacian art in Swabia and the beginnings of figurative

representations in Europe. In: Broglio, A., Dalmeri, G. (Eds.), Pitture

Paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri.

Memorie del Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona e 2A Serie, Sezione

Scienze dell’Uomo 9. Preistoria Alpina, Nr. Speciale. Museo Civico di

Storia Naturale di Verona e Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Verona,

pp. 82e88.

Conard, N.J., 2006. An overview of the patterns of behavioral change in Africa

and Eurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. In: d’Errico, F.,

Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Hu-

mans. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.



Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern

humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new

challenges. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 331e371.

Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in Eu-

ropean prehistory. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition

of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of

Prehistoric Research/Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp.

211e239.

Conard, N.J., Malina, M., 2006. Schmuck und vielleicht auch Musik am

Vogelherd bei Niederstotzingen-Stetten ob Lontal, Kreis-Heidenheim.

Archaol. Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wurttemberg 2005, 21e25.

Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., Goldberg, P., Munzel, S.C., 2006. The last Neander-

thals and first modern humans in the Swabian Jura. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.),

When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Meet. Kerns Verlag, Tubingen,

pp. 305e341.

Conard, N.J., Dippon, G., Goldberg, P., 2003a. Chronostratigraphy and archeo-

logical context of the Aurignacian deposits at Geißenklosterle. In:

Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of

the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Impli-

cations. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia,

Lisboa, pp. 165e176.

Conard, N.J., Grootes, P.M., Smith, F.H., 2004a. Unexpectedly recent dates for

human remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198e201.

Conard, N.J., Malina, N., Munzel, S.C., Seeberger, F., 2004b. Eine Mammutel-

fenbeinflote aus dem Aurignacien des Geißenklosterle. Neue Belege fur

eine musikalische Tradition im fruhen Jungpalaolithikum auf der Schwabi-

schen Alb. Archaol. Korrespondenzblatt 34, 447e462.

Conard, N.J., Niven, L.B., Mueller, K., Stuart, A.J., 2003b. The chronostratig-

raphy of the Upper Paleolithic deposits at Vogelherd. Mitteilungen der

Gesellschaft fur Urgeschichte 12, 73e86.

Deacon, H., 2001. Modern human emergence: An African archaeological per-

spective. In: Tobias, P.V., Raath, M.A., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Doyle, G.A.

(Eds.), Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia: Colloquia

in Human Biology and Paleoanthropology. University of Florence Press,

Florence, pp. 217e226.

Delporte, H., 1998. Les AurignaciensdPremiers Hommes Modernes. La Mai-

son des Roches, Paris.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., 2005. Nassar-ius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for symbolic

behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 3e24.

de Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1953. Essai d’adaptation des methodes

statistiques au Paleolithique Superieur, Premiers resultats. Bull. Soc.

Prehist. Fr. 51, 323e333.

Dibble, H.L., 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic

scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction? J. Field Archaeol.

11, 431e436.

Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphol-

ogy. Am. Antiq. 52, 109e117.

Dibble, H.L., 1988. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of

utilization of lithic resources in the French Mousterian. In: Dibble, H.,

Montet-White, A. (Eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia.

University Museum Monograph 54. University Museum Symposium

Series, vol. 1, Philadelphia, pp. 181e197.

Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarifi-

cation, and review of the evidence to date. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theory 2,

299e368.

Dobrowolska, A., 2002. Chemical composition of the red deer (Cervus ela-

phus) antlers, with a particular reference to toxic metal contents. Z. Jagd-

wiss. 48, 148e155.

Dove, C.J., Peurach, S.C., 2002. Microscopic analysis of feather and hair frag-

ments associated with human mummified remains from Kagamil Island,

Alaska. Ethnographical Series 20, 51e62.

Dove, C.J., Hare, P.G., Heacker, M., 2005. Identification of ancient feather

fragments found in melting alpine ice patches in southern Yukon. Arctic

58, 38e43.

Fahn, A., 1982. Plant Anatomy. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Fullagar, R., 1991. The role of silica in polish formation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 18,

1e24.

Fullagar, R., 2006. Starch on artifacts. In: Torrence, R., Barton, H. (Eds.),

Ancient Starch Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp. 177e204.

Fullagar, R., Field, J., Denham, T., Lentfer, C., 2006. Early and mid Holocene

tool-use and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.)

and other plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. J.

Archaeol. Sci. 33, 595e614.

Grace, R., 1990. The limitations and applications of use-wear analysis. Aun

14, 9e14.

Grayson, D.K., Cole, S.A., 1998. Stone tool assemblage richness during the

Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25,

927e938.

Guarino, F.M., Angelini, F., Vollono, C., Orefice, C., 2006. Bone preservation

in human remains from the Terme del Sarno at Pompeii using light micros-

copy and scanning electron microscopy. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 513e520.

Hahn, J., 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im

Aurignacien Suddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria 7. Verlag Archae-

ologica Venatoria, Tubingen.

Hahn, J., 1988. Die Geißenklosterle-Hohle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fund-

horizontbildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpalaolithikum und im Aurigna-

cien. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart.

Hardy, B.L., 1994. Investigations of stone tool function through use-wear, res-

idue and DNA analyses at the Middle Paleolithic site of La Quina, France.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.

Hardy, B.L., Garufi, G.T., 1998. Identification of woodworking on stone tools

through residue and use-wear analyses: Experimental results. J. Archaeol.

Sci. 25, 177e184.

Hardy, B.L., 1998. Microscopic residue analysis of stone tools from the Mid-

dle Paleolithic site of Starosele, Crimea, Ukraine. In: Monigal, K.,

Chabai, V. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic of the Western Crimea, Vol. 2.

Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de l’Universite de Liege, pp.

179e196.

Hardy, B.L., Kay, M., 1998. Stone tool function at Starosele. In: Monigal, K.,

Chabai, V. (Eds.), Combining use-wear and residue analyses. The Middle

Paleolithic of the Western Crimea, Vol. 2. Etudes et Recherches Archeolo-

giques de l’Universite de Liege, pp. 197e209.

Hardy, B.L., Kay, M., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K., 2001. Stone tool function at

the Paleolithic sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: Behavioral

implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 10972e10977.

Hardy, B.L., 2004. Neanderthal behaviour and stone tool function at the Mid-

dle Paleolithic site of La Quina, France. Antiquity 78, 547e565.

Haslam, M., 2004. The decomposition of starch grains in soils: Implications

for archaeological residue analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1715e1734.

Haslam, M., 2006. Potential misidentification of in situ archaeological tool-

residues: Starch and conidia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 114e121.

Hather, J., 1993. An Archaeobotanical Guide to Root and Tuber Identification,

Vol. I: Europe and South West Asia. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Hays, M., Lucas, G., 2000. A technological and functional analysis of cari-

nates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France. J. Field Archaeol. 27,

455e465.

Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W., 2003. The origin of modern human behav-

ior: Critique of the models and their test implications. Curr. Anthropol. 44,

627e651.

Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Marean, C., Milo, R., Yates, R., 2001. An early

bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South

Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbol-

ism and language. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631e678.

Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C.,

Duller, G.A.T., Mercier, N., Sealy, J.C., Valladas, H., Watts, I.,

Wintle, A.G., 2002. Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone

Age engravings from South Africa. Science 295, 1278e1280.

Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Van Niekerk, K., Jacobs, Z.,

2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404.

Hoadley, R., 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools.

Taunton Press, Newtown.

Hurcombe, L., 1988. Some criticisms and suggestions in response to New-

comer, et al. (1986). J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 1e10.

Jahren, A.H., Toth, N., Schick, K., Clark, J.D., Amundson, R.G., 1997. De-

termining stone tool use: Chemical and morphological analyses of



residues on experimentally manufactured stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24,

245e250.

Kardulias, N., Yerkes, R., 1996. Microwear and metric analysis of threshing

sledge flints from Greece and Cyprus. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 657e666.

Kealhoffer, L., Torrence, R., Fullagar, R., 1999. Integrating phytoliths within

use-wear/residue studies of stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 527e546.

Klein, R.G., 1995. Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins. J. World

Prehist. 9, 167e198.

Klein, R., 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins,

second ed. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Knight, C., Powers, C., Watts, I., 1995. The human symbolic revolution: A

Darwinian account. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 5, 75e114.

Kuhn, S.L., 1991. ‘‘Unpacking reduction’’: Lithic raw material economy in the

Mousterian of west-central Italy. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 10, 76e106.

Kuhn, S.L., 1992. Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian

scraper morphology. Am. Antiq. 57, 115e128.

Larson, G., 1986. The Far Side Gallery 2. Andrews McMeel, Kansas City.

Lombard, M., 2004. Distribution patterns of organic residues on Middle Stone

Age points from Sibudu Cave, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. S. Afr.

Archaeol. Bull. 59, 37e44.

Lombard, M., 2005. Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone

Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A multianalytical

approach. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 279e300.

Loy, T.H., Wood, A.R., 1989. Blood residue analysis at Cayonu Tepesi, Tur-

key. J. Field Archaeol. 16, 451e460.

Loy, T.H., Spriggs, M., Wickler, S., 1992. Direct evidence for human use of

plants 28,000 years ago: starch residues on stone artefacts from the north-

ern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66, 898e912.

Loy, T.H., 1993. The artifact as site: An example of the biomolecular analysis

of organic residues on prehistoric tools. World Archaeol. 25, 44e63.

Mansur-Franchomme, M.E., 1986. Microscopie du Materiel Lithique Prehis-

torique: Traces d’Utilisation, Alteration Naturelles, Accidentelles, et Tech-

nologiques. CNRS, Paris.

Marean, C., Kim, S.Y., 1998. Mousterian large-mammal remains from Kobeh

Cave: Behavioral implications for Neanderthals and early modern humans.

Curr. Anthropol. 39, S79eS113.

Marks, A.E., Hietala, H.J., Williams, J.K., 2001. Tool standardization in the

Middle and Upper Paleolithic: A closer look. Cambridge Archaeol. J.

11, 17e44.

McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpre-

tation of the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e

563.

McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of

early homininds. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 655e663.

Mellars, P., 1989a. Major issues in the origins of modern humans. Curr.

Anthropol. 30, 349e385.

Mellars, P., 1989b. Technological changes across the Middle-Upper Paleo-

lithic transition: Economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In:

Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and

Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh

University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 338e365.

Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective

from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mellars, P., 2005. The impossible coincidence: A single-species model for the

origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evol. Anthropol. 14, 12e27.

Milo, R., 1998. Evidence for hominid predation at Klasies River Mouth, South

Africa, and its implications for the behavior of early modern humans. J.


Moss, E.H., 1987. A review of ‘‘Investigating microwear polishes with blind

tests.’’ J. Archaeol. Sci. 14, 473e481.

Munzel, S.C., Conard, N.J., 2004. Change and continuity in subsistence in the

Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Ach Valley of Swabia (south-west

Germany). Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 14, 225e243.

Newcomer, M., Grace, R., Unger-Hamilton, R., 1986. Investigating microwear

polishes with blind tests. J. Archaeol. Sci. 13, 203e217.

Newcomer, M., Grace, R., Unger-Hamilton, R., 1988. Microwear methodol-

ogy: A reply to Moss, Hurcombe, and Bamforth. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15,

25e33.

Niven, L., 2006. The Palaeolithic Occupation of Vogelherd Cave: Implications

for the Subsistence Behavior of Late Neanderthals and Early Modern

Humans. Tubingen Publications in Prehistory. Kerns Verlag, Tubingen.

Odell, G., Odell-Vereecken, F., 1980. Verifying the reliability of lithic use-

wear assessments by ‘‘blind tests’’: The low-power approach. J. Field

Archaeol. 7, 87e120.

Owen, L.R., 1988. Blade and Microblade Technology: Selected Assem-

blages from the North American Arctic and the Upper Paleolithic of

Southwest Germany. British Archaeological Reports International Series,

Oxford.

Pearsall, D., 2000. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, second ed.

Academic Press, New York.

Revillion, S., Tuffreau, A. (Eds.), 1994. Les Industries Laminaires au Paleoli-

thique Moyen. CNRS, Paris.

Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000. Thermolumines-

cence, electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the late Middle and early

Upper Palaeolithic site of Geißenklosterle Cave in southern Germany. J.


Riek, G., 1934. Die Eiszeitjagerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I: Die Kul-

turen. Akademische Buchhandlung Franz F. Heine, Tubingen.

Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economic

behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. Am. Antiq. 69, 257e

274.

Riel-Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A., 2001. Grave markers: Middle and early Upper

Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contemporary Paleo-

lithic research. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 449e481.

Rogers, J.D., Dove, C.J., Heacker, M., Graves, G., 2002. Identification of

feathers in textiles from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. SE

Archaeol. 21, 245e251.

Rots, V., Williamson, B.S., 2004. Microwear and residue analyses in perspec-

tive: The contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. J. Archaeol. Sci.

31, 1287e1299.

Shea, J.J., 1988. Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. J.

Field Archaeol. 15, 441e450.

Shea, J.J., 1989. A functional study of the lithic industries associated with

hominid fossils in the Kebara and Qafzeh caves, Israel. In: Mellars, P.,

Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Per-

spectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press,

Edinburgh, pp. 611e625.

Shea, J.J., 1992. Lithic microwear analysis in archaeology. Evol. Anthropol. 1,

143e150.

Shott, M.J., Bradbury, A., Carr, P.J., Odell, G.H., 1999. Flake size from plat-

form attributes: Experimental and empirical approaches. J. Archaeol. Sci.

27, 877e894.

Sobolik, K.D., 1996. Lithic organic residue analysis: An example from the

Southwest Archaic. J. Field Archaeol. 23, 461e469.

Teerink, B.J., 1991. Hair of West European Mammals: Atlas and Identification

Key. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Teyssandier, N., 2003. Les debuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Discussion a

partir des sites de Geissenklosterle, Willendorf II, Krems-Hundssteig et

Bacho Kiro. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris X-Nanterre.

Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the

Swabian Alb: The relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklos-

terle (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In:

Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of

the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Impli-

cations. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia,

Lisboa, pp. 179e196.

Teyssandier, N., Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. The early Aurignacian in cen-

tral Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,

Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de

Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Por-

tugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 241e256.

Thackeray, A., 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the Limpopo River. J.

World Prehist. 6, 385e440.

Tomaskova, S., 2000. The Nature of Difference: History and Lithics at Two

Upper Paleolithic Sites in central Europe. British Archaeological Reports

International Series, Archaeopress, Oxford.



Tomaskova, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, technology, and interregional

comparison. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theory 12, 79e115.

Wadley, L., 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South Af-

rican perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 11,

201e221.

Wadley, L., Lombard, M., Williamson, B., 2004. The first residue analysis

blind tests: Results and lessons learnt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1491e

1501.

White, T.D., 1991. Human Osteology. Academic Press, New York.

Williamson, B.S., 1996. Preliminary stone tool residue analysis from Rose

Cottage Cave. S. Afr. J. Field Archaeol. 5, 36e44.

Zarillo, S., Kooyman, B., 2006. Evidence for berry and maize processing on

the Canadian Plains from starch grain analysis. Am. Antiq. 71, 473e499.

Zilh~ao, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological per-

spective on the origins of ‘‘behavioral modernity.’’ J. Archaeol. Res. 15,

1e54.


Author's personal copy - roceeh.net · Author's personal copy discussion of the Aurignacian on a...

Documents

Transcript of Author's personal copy - roceeh.net · Author's personal copy discussion of the Aurignacian on a...