Zusammenfassung
Die Veränderung der Form lithischer Artefakte durch das Retuschieren ist ein zentrales technologisches Merkmal des Mittelpaläolithikums, und Retuscheure aus verschiedenen Materialien tauchen in den archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften häufig auf. Knochen- und sogenannte Bulb Retoucher (D = Bulbus Retuscheur: Steinabschläge, deren Bulbus zum Retuschieren genutzt wurde) sind die häufigsten Typen. Erstere werden oft als Ad-hoc-Werkzeuge mit kurzer Nutzungsdauer beschrieben, während Forschende die zweite Kategorie vorläufig als Artefakte identifizieren, die zum mobilen Werkzeugsatz gehören. Wir stellen hier zwei Bulb Retoucher aus den mittelpaläolithischen Schichten VIII/VII der Sirgensteinhöhle im Achtal der Schwäbischen Alb vor und diskutieren ihre allgemeinen Merkmale. Dies geschieht gemeinsam mit Knochen-Retuscheuren, die aus denselben archäologischen Schichten geborgen wurden. Die Daten zu Knochen- und Bulb Retoucher aus dem Sirgenstein unterstützen die vorgeschlagene komplementäre Verwendung der beiden Arten von Retuscheuren. Wir vermuten, dass die Eigenschaften von Knochen und Feuerstein, zusammen mit anderen Aspekten, die für die chaînes opératoires dieser beiden Materialien spezifisch sind, eine wichtige Rolle bei der Bestimmung der Eignung von Retuscheuren innerhalb der Werkzeugsätze gespielt haben . Ein Verständnis dafür kann dazu beitragen, die große Variabilität der Retuschier-Techniken zu erklären, die im Mittelpaläolithikum auftreten. Auf der Grundlage dieser Überlegungen unterstreicht unsere Studie die Bedeutung der Organisation der genutzten Technologie und des Potenzials von Retuscheuren für die Rekonstruktion vergangener Mobilität und Siedlungsdynamik.
Introduction
Among the most important changes occurring toward the end of the Lower Palaeolithic (LP), is the diffusion of the practice of fine retouching of lithic blanks and the development of specific tools for this purpose: retouchers. Although known in several LP contexts, it is with the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) that retouchers became a frequent component of the archaeological record. The best-known and most widespread type of MP retouchers are bone retouchers (Daujeard et al. 2018; Hutson et al. 2018; Moigne et al. 2016; Rosell et al. 2015; van Kolfschoten et al. 2015), followed by bulb retouchers (Centi et al. 2019; Mathias et al. 2023), pebbles (Cuartero and Bourguignon 2022; Nicoud 2010; Raynal et al. 2005; Veselsky 2008) and other stone retouchers (e.g., handaxes and cores; Thiébaut et al. 2010). Other types of retouchers, such as antlers, are only sporadically documented in the MP (Bello et al. 2016; Daujeard et al. 2018; Vitezović 2018), while the use of hardwood, which is reported ethnographically (e.g. Martellotta et al. 2021, 2022), cannot be ruled out based on the archaeological record. The high variability in retouching techniques during the MP represents a topic that has seldom been investigated. As a consequence, a full understanding of what factors led a knapper to adopt one type of retoucher instead of another has yet to be reached. Independent studies based on empirical observations and in-depth analysis of their features link bone and bulb retouchers to different mobility strategies and modes of site use. Bone retouchers have been interpreted as ad hoc tools used in residential contexts, while bulb retouchers are thought to be part of the toolkit used while on the move (Centi et al. 2019; Daujeard et al. 2014, 2018).
In the present study, we characterize bone and bulb retouchers to examine how mobility influences variability observed in MP retouching techniques. In addition, we report on a newly discovered assemblage of bulb retouchers from the MP layers VIII/VII of Sirgenstein, in the Ach Valley of the Swabian Jura in southwestern Germany. Bulb retouchers have been reported so far from a few sites in Western Europe, Orgnac 3 (level 6), La Combette, Brive-Laroche-Aérodrome and Vergisson in France, and Buhle and Balver Höhle in Germany (Jöris, pers. comm.; Mathias and Viallet 2018; Mathias et al. 2020, 2021, 2023; Pelegrin and Texier 2004), all ascribed to the MP. The Sirgenstein assemblage thus provides an important addition to the current dataset. We describe in detail Sirgenstein bulb retouchers and compare them with the bone retouchers from the same archaeological units based on published information (Münzel and Conard 2004; Toniato et al. 2018). The goal of this paper is to test the possible role of retouchers as proxies for types of occupation and mobility strategies and to understand whether, and to what extent, the characteristics of Sirgenstein retouchers fit into the framework described above. If bulb retouchers are indeed characteristic of mobile toolkit components and bone retouchers represent ad hoc tools, researchers could use these observations to help reconstruct past mobility and past technological systems.
Bone and bulb retouchers general traits and mobility
Although bone retouchers have been known from the Swabian Caves and in other regions for many decades (Taute 1965), it was not until the 1990s that they became the focus of more intense systematic research. This class of tools exhibits a widespread geographic distribution and has been reported from numerous MP and Middle Stone Age sites in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Levant (Deujeard et al. 2014; Doyon et al. 2018; Hutson et al. 2018; Baumann et al. 2020; Turner et al. 2020). Paleolithic hunters and gatherers usually used long bone shafts as retouchers, although they occasionally employed other skeletal elements, including teeth (Abrams et al. 2014; Rendu et al. 2023). In most archaeological contexts, faunal elements selected for use as retouchers reflect the composition of the whole assemblage, suggesting that they were collected from the food waste available at the sites (Alonso-García et al. 2020; Costamagno et al. 2018; Daujeard et al. 2014, 2018; Hutson et al. 2018; Mallye et al. 2012; Moigne et al. 2015). The only constraints that seem to have played a role in the selection of bone blanks are linked to functional requirements (Costamagno et al. 2018; Daujeard et al. 2018; Mateo-Lomba et al. 2019; Rosell et al. 2015), such as the need for a comfortable grip on the tool and the resistance to percussion and pressure. The first requirement typically led to the selection of long bone shafts, and the second requirement led to the selection of thick bones and bone fragments. After the selection of bone blanks, Paleolithic hunter-gatherers generally used the bones as retouchers without further modification, although specific chaînes opératoires for the manufacture of such tools are documented in rare cases (Abrams et al. 2014; Mozota 2009). Several actualistic experiments show how the active areas of bone retouchers rapidly wear out after the production of just a single scraper-like retouched edge (Chase 1990; Mallye et al. 2012; Mozota 2018). This suggests that these tools were likely used for short retouching sessions and subsequently discarded, often close to where they were used. Based on these features, including patterns of opportunistic raw material procurement, lack of specific chaînes opératoires for their production, and short use-life, Daujeard and colleagues suggested that bone retouchers were most likely used in contexts of residential camps, where human occupations were intense and prolonged and where, considering the fast pace of exhaustion of these type of tools, bone raw materials suitable for retouching activities were readily available (Daujeard et al. 2014, 2018).
Bulb retouchers are flaked lithic artifacts whose bulb of percussion was used to strike and modify other blank edges (Adler 2002). This kind of artifacts and similar items have been currently reported from a few contexts in the final stages of the LP (Mathias et al. 2023; Venditti et al. 2023), but, similarly to bone retouchers, appear to become more common in the MP . The presence of these tools does not seem to be connected to any specific occupation context (e.g., open-air sites or cave sites), to any techno-complex, or to any particular geographical location, as their distribution ranges from the Caucasus to the Levant, North Africa, and Europe (Centi et al. 2019). Their geographical distribution, especially the areas where they are missing, likely reflects a research bias. Despite having been described for the first time some 70 years ago (Longo and Skakun 2005; Semenov 1953; Praslov 1968), bulb retouchers remain a poorly known phenomenon among researchers up to this day. So far researchers have identified bulb retouchers in archaeological contexts characterized by high frequencies of retouched artifacts, representing short episodes of human occupations in contexts of high mobility. Blanks used as bulb retouchers are in most cases intensely retouched artifacts (Fig. 1; Stepanchuk and Sytnyk 1999), often made of non-local raw materials and that often exhibit signs of multiple episodes of transformation. An experiment conducted by Centi et al. (2019) showed that even after the production of several scraper-like retouched edges and hundreds of strikes, the bulbar surfaces used as retouchers were still pristine and that a single retoucher could be used for the production of several retouched tools. Contrary to what was suggested until recently, these characteristics indicate that bulb retouchers were artifacts with relatively prolonged use lives, often transported by groups moving about the landscape.
The general characteristics of bone and bulb retouchers (Table 1) suggest that an important dichotomy exists between these two artifact categories: Bone retouchers likely represented ad hoc tools with low mobility, used and discarded in the same location; bulb retouchers more likely represented curated artifacts with long use-lives, often included in the mobile toolkit of hunter-gatherers.
The case study
Sirgenstein Cave is located in the Ach Valley between the towns of Blaubeuren and Schelklingen and stands ca 35 m above the valley bottom (Fig. 2). R.R. Schmidt (1910, 1912) excavated the site in 1906 and identified a sequence of 8 archaeological layers spanning from the MP to the Magdalenian. Layers VIII and VII are attributed to the MP and are the object of the present study. Each of the two layers yielded a single hearth and a small assemblage of lithic artifacts and faunal remains. The most common animal species identified is cave bear (Ursus spelaeus), followed by horse (Equus sp.), and, in minor number, by giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus) and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus; Münzel and Conard 2004). The density of lithic artifacts is low at 20 artifacts/m³, suggesting low intensity of site use and high mobility of the human groups responsible for the accumulation of the archaeological materials (Conard et al. 2012). Most lithic artifacts were manufactured with the Levallois method, exploiting local Jurassic chert (Çep 1996).
Materials and Methods
Several criteria can identify bulb retouchers: the most prominent and important feature for their identification is the presence of pitting marks on the ventral face, usually on the bulbar area, although not necessarily on the most prominent part of the bulb (Centi et al. 2019; Mathias et al. 2023). The pitting marks include elongated pits that often exhibit a preferred orientation, amorphous pits, crushing marks, and occasionally incipient cones. Bulb retouchers may also exhibit striations oriented perpendicularly or parallelly to the pits, and, less often, polishes. For this study, we screened the entire collection of lithic artifacts from Sirgenstein layers VIII/VII by eye, to identify potential bulb retouchers based on macroscopic traces such as pitting marks. The MP lithic assemblages of layer VIII/VII from Sirgenstein are housed in the collections of the Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology at the University of Tübingen and contain 704 artifacts. We examined and documented the bulb retouchers’ active areas and associated macroscopic traces, using an Olympus SZX7 stereomicroscope at the Material Culture Laboratory (MCL) of the Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen. We then described the bulb retouchers according to qualitative and quantitative attributes.
Sirgenstein bulb retouchers
Among the artifacts, we identified one bulb retoucher (item 603), and one artifact interpreted as a possible bulb retoucher (item 608), exhibiting remarkably similar characteristics. Although patinated, the two artifacts lack pseudo-retouch, abrasions, and other macroscopic post-depositional alterations (Fig. 3). In both cases, the pitting marks are identified on the bulbar area of the ventral face (Fig. 4). No other pitting or crushing marks are present on the rest of the ventral and the dorsal face of the two artifacts. Item 603 exhibits both linear elongated and amorphous pits, while the few pits identified on item 608 are all linear and elongated along a main axis (Fig. 5). Both appear on side-scrapers, one characterized by inverse retouch (Fig. 3). Both scrapers present regular, invasive, and intense retouching, suggesting that the tools might have been resharpened multiple times during their long use-life, before being discarded at the site. Both blanks are thick and robust, with a dense bulbar area particularly well-suited to be used for retouching. Their elongated shape with elongation indexes of 1.7 and 1.9 respectively might have facilitated a firm grip during retouching (item 603: 53 mm axis length, 32 mm axis width, 17 mm thickness at mid-point, weight 32.9 g; item 608: 42 mm axis length, 22 mm axis width, 22 mm thickness ad mid-point, weight 14.37 g).
Both artifacts are made on the same raw material, the Muschelkalk chert, which is abundant in secondary deposits in the Neckar riverbed. An alternative smaller secondary source is represented by deposits of the Brenz riverbed, where this type of chert has been sporadically observed (Çep 1996). Both sources are located ca 30-40 km away from Sirgenstein (Fig. 2). The two artifacts were likely not used intensively as retouchers, as they both bear only one active area with sparse pitting marks (Figs. 4 and 5) and lack the surface crushing often observed on particularly exhausted bulb retouchers (Centi et al. 2019).
The experiment conducted by Centi et al. (2019) highlighted, however, that bulb retouchers can be used for the production of multiple edges with a continuous scraper-like retouch before the first pitting marks start to develop on the bulbar surfaces, indicating that, despite their relatively low level of use marks, the bulb retouchers from Sirgenstein could have been used to produce or resharpen several tools.
While item 603 is more readily identifiable as a bulb retoucher, the fact that item 608 only bears the traces of a few pitting marks, makes its interpretation less obvious. However, the relatively good preservation of Sirgenstain material allows us to exclude post-depositional processes as the origin of the pitting marks. In addition, the location of the pitting marks exclusively on a small portion of the bulbar area and their elongated shape, reflect the ones observed in most archaeological bulb retouchers and the ones obtained experimentally (Centi et al. 2019; Mathias et al. 2023), allowing us to conclude that both Sirgenstein artifacts are likely the result of human retouching activity.
Discussion
Sirgenstein bulb and bone retouchers
The characteristics of the bulb retouchers from Sirgenstein fit well with what observed so far in other assemblages of bulb retouchers. Both bulb retouchers are intensely retouched artifacts, reflecting a trend observed in the majority of the sites where they have been identified so far (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The selection of blanks with a thick bulbar area is also common within assemblages of bulb retouchers, as this feature ensures that the retoucher will not break under the mechanical stress caused by strikes or the application of pressure. In addition, bulb retouchers from Sirgenstein occur on two of the very few artifacts in the lithic assemblage made from Muschelkalk chert, a raw material most likely deriving from non-local sources located at a distance of ca 30-40 km from the site. In the MP of the Swabian Jura Neanderthals typically used locally available Jurassic chert for tools. Artifacts made on non-local raw materials, such as the Muschelkalk chert, are rare not only at Sirgenstein but also in other MP sites of the area (Çep 2013), further reinforcing the hypothesis of their introduction as finished tools part of mobile toolkits. This observation is in line with what has been recorded so far in other assemblages of bulb retouchers, with high frequencies of these tools occurring on non-local raw material. This is the case, for example, at Quneitra and at Nesher Ramla, where the raw materials originate from 10 and > 20 km from the site respectively (Centi et al. 2019; Hovers 1990).
Besides the two bulb retouchers described above, Sirgenstein layers VIII/VII yielded an assemblage of four bone retouchers studied and described in Münzel and Conard (2004) and Toniato et al. (2018). This should be viewed as a minimum number, since the excavation methods and recovery in 1912, were far from today’s standards and because part of the faunal assemblage excavated in 1906 has been lost (Münzel and Conard 2004; Bertacchi et al. 2021). The bone retouchers occur all on ungulates bones, two on bone shafts of equids (Equus sp.) and two on bone shafts of cervids (Megaloceros giganteus), respectively the second and third most common families represented at the site. The most common animal remains at Sirgenstein belong to cave bears (Ursus spelaeus); however, most of these remains are likely derived from animals that naturally died during hibernation in the cave (Münzel and Conard 2004). The selection of bones from animals who died from natural causes, or from animal remains accumulated by carnivores is, in general, rare or absent during the MP (Daujeard et al. 2014). This observation likely reflects the preference for using fresh bones, still maintaining their elasticity for retouchers (Hutson et al. 2018; Mallye et al. 2012; Rosell et al. 2011; Sévêque and Auguste 2018; Vincent 1993). At Sirgenstein, older bones of cave bears were likely not selected since they were not of optimal preservation to use as retouching tools. Blanks used as bone retoucher at Sirgenstein reflect the freshly killed faunal assemblage, a pattern common to most of the other known MP bone retoucher collections (Costamagno et al. 2018; Daujeard et al. 2014, 2018). The choice of elongated bone shafts also fits with what was observed in other assemblages, where these types of blanks were commonly selected by virtue of their better ergonomic and grip qualities (Costamagno et al. 2018). Only one of Sirgenstein bone retouchers exhibits a single active area, while the others present marks on two or three different locations, suggesting more intense use. This data departs from what is generally observed, as bone retouchers frequently exhibit a single active area (Daujeard et al. 2018). Mallye and colleagues point out that even the most intensely used areas of bone retouchers might have been used for the production of a maximum of one scraper, as, due to the poor mechanical resistance of bone at impact with stone, the active area of these tools deteriorate quickly (Mallye et al. 2012; MacGregor and Currey 1983). It is thus possible, that the bone retouchers from Sirgenstein might have been used to produce just a few retouched edges.
The data reported here show that bulb and bone retouchers from Sirgenstein are consistent with what has been generally observed for the MP. The bulb retouchers fit well within the definition of curated artifacts, transported over long distances and with relatively long use-lives, while bone retouchers likely served as ad hoc tools, selected from the fresh food waste available at the site, and used and discarded in the same location.
Retouchers and mobility
A mobile toolkit or “personal gear” represents a set of tools that hunter-gatherers carried with them while moving in the landscape, to cope with unforeseen situations or to meet predicted needs (e.g., procurement of animal resources whose time and location can be highly anticipated; Binford 1977, 1979; Kuhn 1992, 1994; Nelson 1991). Gearing-up represents a planned behavior, that mobile groups put in place to mitigate the effect of raw material and/or time stress. The fact that mobile toolkit components are transported (Kuhn 1994) implies that they might remain in circulation for a longer time compared to ad hoc tools and that they must possess some qualities that make them suitable for transportation. As a consequence, mobile toolkit components should be light weighed and not bulky, and provide a good ratio of utility per weight (Close 1996; Kuhn 1994; Nelson 1991; Shott 1986). In addition, as only a limited number of artifacts can be transported from one location to another, they should be versatile (i.e., effective for carrying out a variety of tasks) and flexible (i.e., suitable for shifting function in the course of their use-life; Bousman 1993; Kelly and Todd 1988; Kuhn 1995; Shott 1989). Bulb retouchers, mostly occurring on retouched formal tool types, indeed possess several of these qualities. Retouched artifacts were the type of tools most commonly transported over long distances during the MP, as attested by the high incidence of “exotic” raw material within this artifact class in numerous contexts (Costamagno et al. 2006; Kuhn 1995). Retouched flint blanks were often large and thick, allowing their owners to repeatedly re-sharpen them prolonging their use-lives, and to modify their shape and function in response to new needs (flexibility). The intentional selection of such blanks for transportation implies a certain degree of planning. The suitability of MP-retouched artifacts (including bulb-retouchers) for different purposes is further supported by use-wear studies highlighting traces relative to a wide array of tasks (Beyries 1987, 1988; Centi et al. 2019; Shea 1991). Finally, the mechanical properties of flint assured that the bulb retouchers’ active areas could have been used repeatedly before being worn out and that breakage during use would only rarely occur. Bulb retouchers, and retouched blanks in general, possess thus a high utility/weight ratio, making them ideal tools for the mobile toolkit of hunter-gatherers (Kuhn 1994, 1995).
On the contrary, bone retouchers lack most of the qualities of a good mobile toolkit component. Although being light weighed and not bulky, the utility/weight ratio for this type of tool remains low. Bone shafts were not employed in other tasks besides retouching, and their shape was not modified to serve other purposes. In addition, the rapid pace at which bone surfaces wear out shortens the use-life of the single bone retoucher specimens, implying that a large number of spares should have been transported to face unexpected retouching needs, making impractical and unlikely their inclusion in the mobile toolkit (Costamagno et al. 2018; Daujeard et al. 2014, 2018; Hutson et al. 2018; Mallye et al. 2012; Martellotta et al. 2020; Moigne et al. 2016).
Despite the economic advantages provided by the higher durability of bulb retouchers, their number in archaeological assemblages remains quite low (usually < 1 % of total lithic artifacts; see also Table 1), while bone retouchers appear to have been more commonly employed (in residential contexts their number can surpass 5 % of the total bones recovered; Daujeard et al., 2014). In addition, although flint blanks functional as bulb retouchers – i.e. large, thick and with blunt edges – could have been easily procured in most sites, they were rarely used for this purpose. Why choose less economically advantageous bone retouchers if blanks with a longer potential use-life were readily available? A possible explanation for this pattern is that bone retouchers possess, compared to bulb retouchers, critical mechanical qualities that enhance their effectiveness. It is indeed suggested that the high elasticity of fresh bone would represent an important advantage for obtaining a fine, flat, invasive retouch (Costamagno et al. 2018; Daujeard et al. 2014; Hutson et al. 2018; Mallye et al. 2012; Mateo-Lomba et al. 2019; Sévêque and Auguste 2018), particularly suited for the resharpening of tool edges. It is thus possible that, whenever raw material was abundant and easily procurable, and a high utility/weight ratio would not be beneficial, bone retouchers might have been preferentially employed. The eventual drying out of bone shafts, and their consequent loss of elasticity – the main advantage of this material – might represent another factor that affected the degree of low mobility and short use-lives of these tools.
Bulb retouchers, curated or opportunistic artifacts?
At this stage of research, as detailed information on bulb retoucher assemblages is still rare, it is difficult to define if blanks used as bulb retouchers were curated because they were multiple-purpose tools or because they were particularly suitable for retouching. At the moment two main hypotheses can be put forward:
- Bulb retouchers seem to have been curated because the blanks that were used in the retouching activity were curated in the first place. If bone retouchers performed better than bulb retouchers, then the latter would have been used only in contexts where fresh shafts of bone would not have been available, like in logistical forays away from the residential camp. Hunter-gatherers moving about the landscape would have thus used for their retouching needs readily available tools, i.e., flint blanks part of their mobile toolkit. In this sense, the use of bulb retouchers can be seen as opportunistic behavior.
- Bulb retouchers were curated to be retouchers. It is possible that thick blanks with a pronounced, dense bulb of percussion were set aside and selected specifically for transportation in advance, in this case denoting a certain degree of planning and the awareness that retouching activities might take place once away from the main habitation hub. These blanks were nonetheless used also for other activities as multi-purpose tools.
The main difference between these two hypotheses is the intentionality. In both cases, we expect a preference for multi-purpose tools to be transported as part of the mobile toolkit, i.e., large blanks, suitable to be used in different activities and for resharpening. In both cases, we expect that mobile toolkit components were used for retouching activities while away from the residential camp when better-suited bone retouchers would not be readily at hand. Yet, according to the first hypothesis, individuals opportunistically exploited multi-purpose mobile tools for retouching to cope with an unforeseen need. In the second hypothesis, individuals predicted a possible need for retouchers where fresh bone would not be available and intentionally selected for transportation blanks with thick and dense enough bulbs to be possibly used in retouching activities. Summarising, we are dealing with a juxtaposition between an opportunistic behavior sensu Nelson (i.e., not planned 1991: 65), and a programmed strategy. More data on bulb retoucher assemblages and their contexts is needed in order to fully understand which of these two hypotheses is closest to reflecting the behavior of MP people.
Conclusions
Several lines of evidence suggest that, bulb and bone retouchers may have been used in a complementary way, according to the different mobility strategies adopted by hunter-gatherers. Bone retouchers tend to be present in residential settings occupied for prolonged periods, where the in situ consumption of animal resources would have resulted in abundant fresh bone fragments available for use. Bulb retouchers may have been used during logistical forays or in contexts of high residential mobility, where individuals relied more heavily on a provisioning of individuals rather than a provisioning of place strategy and were more likely to be equipped with tools characterized by the high return of utility and weight. The possible role of bulb retouchers in the mobile toolkit is suggested by the intensity of the retouch visible on most of the blanks and by the exotic raw material in which they were manufactured. Sirgenstein bulb retouchers fit well in the proposed scenario and their characteristics met the expectations in terms of blank selection and raw material use. The fact that Sirgenstein bulb retouchers possess similar characteristics to the ones from other geographically and chronologically separated contexts (e.g., Nesher Ramla and Quneitra in the Levant) suggests that these are not affected by the local contingencies of the Ach valley, but rather that the use of retouched, multiple-purpose tools in retouching activities while away from the residential camp was a relatively widespread behavior, as was common the use of bone retouchers in habitation sites. The possible complementary use of organic and inorganic retouchers has roots in the latest stages of the LP, where, bulb and other stone retouchers have been documented alongside organic ones at Qesem Cave in the Levant (Blasco et al. 2013; Mathias et al. 2023; Rosell et al. 2015) and Schöningen in Germany (Julien et al. 2015; van Kolfschoten et al. 2015; Venditti et al. 2023; Voormolen 2008). This technological milestone occurred concurrently with the diffusion of fine-retouching of lithic tools, which prompted a boost in the diversification of tool types and retouching techniques, an advantageous behaviour that would consolidate during the MP.
While bone retouchers have been widely investigated in the last decades with numerous dedicated works and conferences, and their role as ad hoc, expedient tools is generally accepted by the scientific community, detailed reports on bulb retoucher assemblages remain rare, and their role as mobile toolkit components has only been documented in a limited number of cases, to which Sirgenstein represents a welcomed addition. Even though bulb retouchers patterns of blank selection are usually reported or can be inferred from pictures and drawings in the publications (see Fig. 1), other types of information useful for their identification as mobile toolkit components, such as raw material composition, intensity of the pitting marks, and possible instances of change of function of the items (i.e., recycling) are seldom available. In addition, direct comparisons between frequencies of bulb and bone retouchers from reported assemblages are currently problematic: in some cases, data on faunal assemblages have not been published, or studies were conducted before the identification of bone retouchers became a common praxis in faunal analysis, or again, faunal assemblages are partially biased, as excavations occurred when systematic collection of findings and wet sieving were not routinely done (Yeshurun et al. 2018).
More detailed studies on these two categories of tools are needed to better understand the suggested dichotomy between bulb and bone retouchers, and their complementarity. Studies involving assemblages from sites excavated with modern techniques, and differently interpreted in terms of both residential camps and short-term stays are essential for testing the premises discussed here. Finally, future investigations on Palaeolithic retouchers would profit from addressing the influence of the mechanical properties of different raw materials on their performance. This research would contribute to clarifying some key aspects of the scenarios proposed here and would help to illuminate the sources of variability in retouching techniques. More generally, such nuanced work on the link between technology and mobility will allow researchers to determine better how Palaeolithic hunters and gatherers produced and curated their tool kits, while adding important insights into the organization of complementary organic and inorganic technologies in Stone Age contexts.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the University of Tübingen and the Foundation for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology. We thank Berrin Çep, for the fruitful insights into raw material use at Sirgenstein, João Marreiros for the constructive discussion on the bulb retouchers macro traces, and Natasha Singh for her assistance at the Material Culture Laboratory. Our gratitude goes to Gema Chacón and Flavia Venditti for their helpful comments on the manuscript. Many thanks to Iris Groman-Yaroslavsky for sharing images of experimental bulb retouchers.
References
Abrams, G., Bello, S. M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S., and Bonjean, D. 2014: When Neanderthals used cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains: Bone retouchers from unit 5 of Scladina Cave (Belgium). Quaternary International 326-327, 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.022.
Adler, D. S. 2002: Late Middle Palaeolithic patterns of lithic reduction, mobility, and land use in the Southern Caucasus. PhD Thesis, Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Alonso-García, P., Navazo Ruiz, M., and Blasco, R. 2020: Use and selection of bone fragments in the north of the Iberian Peninsula during the Middle Palaeolithic: Bone retouchers from level 4 of Prado Vargas (Burgos, Spain). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12, 218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01097-z.
Baumann, M., Plisson, H., Rendu, W., Maury, S., Kolobova, K., and Krivoshapkin, A. 2020: The Neandertal bone industry at Chagyrskaya cave, Altai region, Russia. Quaternary International 559, 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.019.
Bello, S. M., Delbarre, G., De Groote, I., and Parfitt, S. A. 2016: A newly discovered antler flint-knapping hammer and the question of their rarity in the Palaeolithic archaeological record: Reality or bias? Quaternary International 403, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.094.
Bertacchi, A., Starkovich, B. M., and Conard, N. J. 2021: The zooarchaeology of Sirgenstein Cave: A Middle and Upper Paleolithic site in the Swabian Jura, SW Germany. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology 4, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00075-8.
Beyries, S. 1987: Variabilité de l’industrie lithique au Moustérien: Approche fonctionnelle sur quelques gisements françai, BAR International Series 328. Oxford.
Beyries, S. 1988: Functional variability of lithic sets in the Middle Palaeolithic. In: H. L. Dibble and A. Montet-White (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, University Museum Monograph 54. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 213–225.
Binford, L. R. 1977: Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of Archaeological formation processes. In: R. V. S. Wright (ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 24–36.
Binford, L. R. 1979: Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.35.3.3629902.
Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fernández Peris, J., Gopher, A., and Barkai, R. 2013. Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8(10). e76780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076780.
Bousman, C. B. 1993: Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology 18, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2009.028151.
Centi, L., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Friedman, N., Oron, M., Prévost, M., and Zaidner, Y. 2019: The bulb retouchers in the Levant: New insights into Middle Palaeolithic retouching techniques and mobile tool-kit composition. PLoS One 14, 1–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone0218859.
Çep, B. 1996: Die Steinartefakte der Schichten VIII/VII und VI des Sirgensteins bei Weiler. In: I. Campen, J. Hahn, and M. Uerpmann (eds.), Spuren der Jagd-die Jagd nach Spuren: Festschrift für Hansjürgen Müller-Beck. Vol. 11. Mo Vince Verlag, Tübingen, 207–216.
Çep, B. 2013: Home base or supply location? Spatial behaviour during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Ach and Blau Valley near Blaubeuren. Quartär 60, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.7485/QU60_3.
Chabai, V. P. 2004: Chokurcha I Unit IV: Artifacts. In: V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal, and A. E. Marks (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. Liège: ERAUL, 377–416.
Chase, P. G. 1990: Tool-making tools and Middle Paleolithic behavior. Current Anthropology 31, 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1086/203869.
Close, A. E. 1996: Carry that weight: The use of stone and transportation. Current Anthropology 37, 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1086/204517.
Conard, N. J., Bolus, M., and Münzel, S. C. 2012: Middle Paleolithic land use, spatial organization and settlement intensity in the Swabian Jura, southwestern Germany. Quaternary International 247, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.05.043.
Costamagno, S., Liliane, M., Cédric, B., Bernard, V., and Bruno, M. 2006: Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): A Mousterian reindeer hunting camp? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 466–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2006.03.008.
Costamagno, S., Bouruignon, L., Soulier, M.-C., Meignen, L., Beauval, C., Rendu, W., Mussini, C., Mann, A., and Maureille, B. 2018: Bone retouchers and site function in the Quina Mousterian: The case of Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France). In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, E. Turner, and A. Villaluenga (eds.), The origins of bone tool technologies. RGZM – TAGUNGEN, 165–196.
Cuartero, F. and Bourguignon, L. 2022: Percuteurs et retouchoirs au Paléolithique moyen en péninsule Ibérique: caractérisation et mode de fonctionnement. In: C. Viallet, L. Bourguignon, C. Lemorini, and I. Ortega (eds.), La percussion lancée au Paléolithique: identification de son usage, types d’outils associés et étendue chronologique. Comptes Rendus Palevol 21(14), 273–301. https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2022v21a14.
Daujeard, C., Moncel, M.-H., Fiore, I., Tagliacozzo, A., Bindon, P., and Raynal, J.-P. 2014: Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: Variability and functionality. Quaternary International 326-327, 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.022.
Daujeard, C., Valensi, P., Fiore, I., Moigne, A. M., Tagliacozzo, A., Moncel, M. H., Santagata, C., Cauche, D., and Raynal, J. P. 2018: A reappraisal of Lower to Middle Palaeolithic bone retouchers from southeastern France (MIS 11 to 3). In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The origins of bone tool technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 93-132.
Doyon, L., Li, Z., Li, H., and d’Errico, F. 2018: Discovery of circa 115,000-year-old bone retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0194318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194318.
Hovers, E. 1990: The exploitation of raw material at the Mousterian site of Quneitra. In: N. Goren-Inbar (ed.), Quneitra: A Mousterian site on the Golan Heights, Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 150–167.
Hutson, J. M., García-Moreno, A., Noack, E. S., Turner, E., Villaluenga, A., and Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S. 2018: The origins of bone tool technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz.
Julien, M.-A., Hardy, B., Stahlschmidt, M. C., Urban, B., Serangeli, J., and Conard, N. J. 2015: Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic bone industry from Schöningen 12 II: A multi-proxy study. Journal of Human Evolution 89, 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.006.
Kelly, R. L. and Todd, L. C. 1988: Coming into the country: Early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53, 231–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/281017.
Kolosov, Y. G. and Stepanchuk, V. N. 1997: New type of Middle Palaeolithic Industry in Eastern Crimea. Arceologické Rozhl. XLIX, 124–145.
Kuhn, S. L. 1992: On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48 (3), 185-214. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.48.3.3630634.
Kuhn, S. L. 1994: A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59, 426–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/282456.
Kuhn, S. L. 1995: Mousterian lithic technology. An ecological perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longo, L. and Skakun, N. 2005: The roots of use-wear analysis: Selected papers of S. A. Semenov. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona. ed, Sezione Scienze dell’uomo. Verona, Italy
MacGregor, A. G. and Currey, J. D. 1983: Mechanical properties as conditioning factors in the bone and antler industry of the 3rd to the 13th century AD. Journal of Archaeological Science 10, 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(83)90129-2.
Mallye, J. B., Thiébaut, C., Mourre, V., Costamagno, S., Claud, É., and Weisbecker, P. 2012: The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: Experimentation and identification of marks. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.018.
Mateo-Lomba, P., Rivals, F., Blasco, R., and Rosell, J. 2019: The use of bones as retouchers at Unit III of Teixoneres Cave (MIS 3; Moià, Barcelona, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 27, 101980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101980.
Martellotta, E. F., Delpiano, D., Govoni, M., Nannini, N., Duches, R., and Peresani, M. 2020: The use of bone retouchers in a Mousterian context of Discoid lithic technology. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12, 228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01155-6.
Martellotta, E. F., Wilkins, J., Brumm, A., and Langley, M. C. 2021: New data from old collections: Retouch-induced marks on Australian hardwood boomerangs. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37, 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102967.
Martellotta, E. F., Brumm, A., and Langley, M. C. 2022: Tales of multifunctionality: a systematic quantitative literature review of boomerangs used as retouchers in Australian Aboriginal cultures. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 30, 310–334 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09561-x.
Mathias, C. and Viallet, C. 2018: On the possible use of flake-bulbs for retouch during the early Middle Palaeolithic in southeastern France: First results of an experimental approach. Butlletí Arqueòlogic 40, 323–328.
Mathias, C., Viallet, C., Fernandes, P., Ajas, A., Delvigne, V., Gauvrit-Roux, E., Lahaye, C., Plater, J.-P., Ru ́e, M., Turq, A., Monin, G., and Bernard-Guelle, S. 2020: The Middle Paleolithic sites of Brive-Laroche-A ́erodrome and their lithic assemblages: A new key-site for the understanding of Neanderthal movement dynamics and technical behavior in Southwestern France. ESHE Meeting published abstracts 75.
Mathias, C., Viallet, C., and Moigne, A.-M. 2021: Diversité des outils et des activités de percussion à la fin du MIS 9 dans le niveau 6 d’Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, France). In: C. Viallet, L. Bourguignon, C. Lemorini and I. Ortega† (eds), La percussion lancée au Paléolithique: identification de son usage, types d’outils associés et étendue chronologique. Comptes Rendus Palevol 20 (11), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a11.
Mathias, C., Lemorini, C., Marinelli, F., Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, S., Shemer, M., and Barkai, R. 2023: Bulb retouchers half a million years ago: New evidence from late Acheulean Jaljulia, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 47, 103821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103821.
Moigne, A. M., Valensi, P., Auguste, P., García-Solano, J., Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Barroso, C., and Moncel, M. H. 2016: Bone retouchers from Lower Palaeolithic sites: Terra Amata, Orgnac 3, Cagny-l’Epinette and Cueva del Angel. Quaternary International 409, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.059.
Mozota, M. 2009: El utillaje óseo musteriense del nivel “D” de Axlor (Dima, Vizcaya): análisis de la cadena operativa. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66, 27-46. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2009.09011.
Mozota, M. 2018: Experimental programmes with retouchers: where do we stand and where do we go now? In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A.Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 15–32.
Münzel, S. C. and Conard, N. J. 2004: Change and continuity in subsistence during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in the Ach Valley of Swabia (South-west Germany). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.758.
Nelson, M. C. 1991: The study of technological organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 57– 100.
Nicoud, E. 2010: Les chaînes opératoires sur galets en roches volcaniques et quartz dans l’industrie lithique du gisement Moustérien de champ grand (SaintMaurice-sur-Loire, Loire). Paleo. Numéro Spécial 1, 107–122.
Pelegrin, J. and Texier, P-J. 2004: Les techniques de taille de la pierre préhistorique. Dossiers d ́Archeologie 290, 26–33.
Praslov, N. D. 1968: Rannii Paleolit Severo-Vostochnogo Priazov’ya i Nizhnego Dona. (The Early Paleolithic of the North-Eastern Azov Valley and Low Don). Leningrad: Nauka.
Raynal, J-P., Le Corre-Le Beux, M., Santagata, C., Fernandes, P., Guadelli, J-L., Fiore, I., Tagliacozzo, A., Lemorini, C., Rhodes, E. J., Bertran, P., Kieffer, G., and Vivent, D. 2005: Paléolithique moyen dans le Sud du Massif central: les données du Velay (Haute-Loire, France). In: N. Molines, M.-H. Moncel, J.-L. Monnier (eds.), Données récentes sur les modalités de peuplement et sur le cadre chronostratigraphique, géologique et paléogéographique des industries du Paléolithique ancien et moyen en Europe. British Archaeological Reports International Series, S1364, 173–201.
Rendu, W., Renou, S., Koliasnikova, A., Baumann, M., Plisson, H., Discamps, E., Soulier, M.- C., Gicqueau, A., Augoyard, M., Bocquel, M., Guerin, G., Shnaider, S., and Kolobova, K. 2023: Neanderthal subsistence at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France): A kill site dominated by reindeer remains, but with a horse-laden diet? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.1085699.
Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Campeny, G., Díez, J. C., Alcalde, R. A., Menéndez, L., Arsuaga, J. L., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., and Carbonell, E. 2011: Bone as a technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 61, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.001.
Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Fernández Peris, J., Carbonell, E., Barkai, R., and Gopher, A. 2015: Recycling bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain), Bolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel). Quaternary International 361, 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.009.
Semenov, S. A. 1953: Lithic retouchers of the late Paleolithic. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 39.
Schmidt, R. R. 1910: Der Sirgenstein und die Diluvialen Kulturstätten Württembergs. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart.
Schmidt, R. R. 1912: Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart.
Sévêque, N. and Auguste, P. 2018: From west to east: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic bone retouchers in northern France. In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The origins of bone tool technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 133–164.
Shea, J. J. 1991: The behavioral significance of Levantine Mousterian variability. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.
Shott, M. J. 1986: Technological and settlement mobility: Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42(1), 15–51. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.42.1.3630378.
Shott, M. J. 1989: On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity 54, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/281329.
Stepanchuk, V. N. 1993: The Kiik-Koba Culture and some questions of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic study. Anthropologie XXXI/1-2, 45–64.
Stepanchuk, V. N. and Sytnyk, O. 1999: The Chaînes Opératoires of Levallois site Pronyatyn, Western Ukraine. Prehistoire Eur. 13, 33–67.
Taute, W. 1965: Retoucheure aus Knochen, Zahnbein und Stein vom Mittelpaläolithikum bis zum Neolithikum. Fundberichte aus Schwaben 17, 76–102.
Thiébaut, C., Claud, E., Mourre, V., Chacón, M. G., Asselin, G., Brenet, M., and Paravel, B. 2010: Le recyclage et la réutilisation de nucléus et de bifaces au Paléolithique moyen en Europe occidentale: quelles fonctions et quelles implications culturelles? P@lethnologie 2010, 3-41. https://doi.org/10.4000/palethnologie.588.
Tixier, J. 2000: Outils Moustériens a bulbe “piqueté” (Retaimia, Algérie). In: M. Otte (ed.). À la recherche de l’Homme préhistorique. ERAUL 95, Liège, 125–30.
Toniato, G., Münzel, S. C., Starkovich, B. M., and Conard, N. J. 2018: Middle to Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from the Swabian Jura: Raw materials, curation and use. In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 251–268.
Turner, E., Humphrey, L., Bouzouggar, A., and Barton, N. 2020: Bone retouchers and technological continuity in the Middle Stone Age of North Africa. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0230642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230642.
van Kolfschoten, T., Parfitt, S. A., Serangeli, J., and Bello, S. M. 2015: Lower Paleolithic bone tools from the ‘Spear Horizon’ at Schöningen (Germany). Journal of Human Evolution 89, 226–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.09.012.
Venditti, F., Rodríguez-Álvarez, B., Serangeli, J., and Conard, N. J. 2023: A techno-functional investigation of the lithic assemblage at the Middle Pleistocene site Schöningen 13 II-3. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 92, 275–286.
Veselsky, A. P. 2008: Kabazi V: Bone and stone tools used in flint knapping. In: V. Chabai, J. Richter, and T. Uthmeier (eds.), Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian & Levallois-Mousterian camp sites. Simferopol–Cologne: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Archaeology, Crimean Branch; University of Cologne, Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, 427–53.
Vincent, A. 1993: L’outillage osseux au Paléolithique Moyen: une nouvelle approche. PhD Thesis, University Paris X – Nanterre.
Vitezović, S. 2018: Retouching tools from the post-Palaeolithic period in southeast Europe. In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 297–316.
Voormolen, B. 2008: Ancient hunters, modern butchers: Schöningen 13II – 4, a kill-butchery site dating from the northwest European Lower Palaeolithic. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.
Yeshurun, R., Tejero J-M, Barzilai O., Marder O., and Israel H. 2018: Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of an (as yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant. In: J. M. Hutson, A. García-Moreno, E. S. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villaluenga, and S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. RGZM–Tagungen, Band 35, 287–95.