Abstract :
[en] Cores and tools are essential for understanding the lithic assemblages of the Upper Paleolithic. However, carinated pieces, which are of central interest in the Aurignacian, are mostly defined by typological criteria. How researchers interpret these criteria varies greatly and has significant influence on the interpretation of sites and their functions. In the case of carinated artifacts and non-carinated end-scrapers, there is no unambiguous definition. Consequently, we are not using an a priori typological definition for grouping the artifacts. This article answers the question of whether a distinction between the two can be made linked to the morphology of the artifacts using a combination of functional analysis, refits, and morphological analysis. To pursue this question, we examine the Aurignacian assemblages of Vogelherd in the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany. The two Aurignacian horizons IV and V are rich both in non-carinated end-scrapers (n = 807) and carinated artifacts (n = 163) providing a perfect case study for clarifying this enduring debate. We first sorted the assemblages into minimal raw material units using the physical properties of the raw materials and then identified several refitting sequences, of which sixteen are presented here. These refits permit a range of new observations combining morphological and microscopic analyses to facilitate a robust technofunctional interpretation. Based on these results, we view carinated artifacts as cores, which provide insight into the production of bladelets, bladelet tools, and their life histories. In contrast, we view end-scrapers as tools that highlight the specific tasks carried out on site. Our results show that traceological analyses can be used to overcome the weaknesses and ambiguity of typological approaches. This research illuminates the actions and behaviors of Paleolithic agents, thereby increasing the relevance of prehistoric artifact assemblages. At the same time, these results bring innovative technologies characterizing the Aurignacian into clearer focus and contribute to a better understanding of the potential differences in how expanding populations of modern humans in the early Upper Paleolithic employed technology relative to the Neanderthals of the late Middle Paleolithic.
Funding text :
We would like to thank Mohsen Zeidi and Alexander Janas for their work at Vogelherd, as well as the technicians and excavators. Research at Vogelherd was supported by the University T\u00FCbingen, the Verein f\u00FCr Eiszeitkunst im Lonetal, the Ministry of Science in Baden-W\u00FCrttemberg, the city Niederstotzingen and the Senckenberg Centre of Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which improved the manuscript considerably.
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
0
