{"id":2712,"date":"2024-04-05T12:30:24","date_gmt":"2024-04-05T10:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/new-data-on-the-middle-paleolithic-in-lorraine-france\/"},"modified":"2024-08-17T19:13:11","modified_gmt":"2024-08-17T17:13:11","slug":"new-data-on-the-middle-paleolithic-in-lorraine-france","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/new-data-on-the-middle-paleolithic-in-lorraine-france\/","title":{"rendered":"New Data on the Middle Paleolithic in Lorraine, France"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nGuillaume Asselin1,2<\/sup>, Jean Detrey1<\/sup>, Simon Diemer1<\/sup>, Serge B\u00e9guinot3<\/sup>, Marc Griette4<\/sup>, S\u00e9bastien Schmit5<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

with contributions from Bernard Hamon6<\/sup> and Christophe Bonnet5<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n

1<\/sup> UMR 7044 ArcHiM\u00e8dE du CNRS (Strasbourg)
\n2<\/sup> P\u00f4le arch\u00e9ologie pr\u00e9ventive de l’Eurom\u00e9tropole de Metz
\n3<\/sup> Cercle d\u2019Etudes Locales de Contrex\u00e9ville
\n4<\/sup> ADRAL, Association pour le D\u00e9veloppement de la Recherche Arch\u00e9ologique en Lorraine
\n5<\/sup> Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Histoire et d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie de Lorraine, section de Bitche
\n6<\/sup> Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Histoire Naturelle de Moselle<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Zusammenfassung<\/h2>\n

Die Untersuchung dreier sich aus bifazialen St\u00fccken und Levallois-Abschl\u00e4gen zusammensetzenden Lesefund-Serien, die aus weit voneinander entfernten geografischen R\u00e4umen in Lothringen stammen, hat die Identifizierung der ersten Keilmesser in der Region Grand-Est erm\u00f6glicht. Diese aus sehr unterschiedlichen Materialien bestehenden Serien weisen deutlich voneinander abweichende Fazies-Auspr\u00e4gungen, aber eine relativ homogene Typologie auf.<\/p>\n

Die erste Serie von Artefakten wurde in der Gegend von Metz aufgesammelt, auf der alluvialen Mittelterrasse der Mosel bei Norroy-le-Veneur, in der Flur \u201cBois Jacquemignon\u201c. Sie besteht aus mehr als 700 Objekten, die haupts\u00e4chlich aus den vor Ort abgebauten Quarzitkieseln hergestellt wurden. Es koexistieren vor allem zwei Schlagtechniken, der gegenl\u00e4ufige zentripetale Abschlag und Schl\u00e4ge mit Formgebungsmerkmalen des Clactoniens. Die gerade Levallois-Technik ist dagegen weniger verbreitet. Auf dem lokalem Bajocium-Hornstein werden Hinweise auf die bifaziale Bearbeitungskette in nur geringerem Ma\u00dfe beobachtet. Bei den Werkzeugen dominieren Schaber und Einkerbungen.<\/p>\n

Die zweite Serie, bestehend aus 152 Artefakten, stammt von einem H\u00fcgel bei Erching (Flur \u201cRehbrunnenwald\u201c) im Pays de Bitche. Das hier vorherrschende Rohmaterial ist der oolithische Muschelkalk-Silex, der in der N\u00e4he der Fundstelle zu Tage tritt. Zwei Abschlagsmethoden kommen zur Anwendung: die gerade Levallois-Technik und der gegenl\u00e4ufige zentripetale Schlag. Die gebr\u00e4uchlichsten Werkzeuge sind Schaber, Blattspitzen und Faustkeile.<\/p>\n

Die letzte, aus 83 Objekten bestehende Serie stammt von der alluvialen Niederterrasse der Maas bei Neufch\u00e2teau, Flur \u201cSur Conraux\u201c, im Vorland der Vogesen. Der Fundplatz befindet sich in der N\u00e4he von Hornstein-Aufschl\u00fcssen des Oxfordiums. Hornstein und Quarzitkiesel dominieren die Serie, aber auch einige exogene Feuersteine sind vorhanden. Gegenl\u00e4ufige zentripetale Abschl\u00e4ge, sowie geradlinige und laminare Levallois- Abschlagen sind nachgewiesen. Die Werkzeuge werden von Schabern und Faustkeilen dominiert.<\/p>\n

Die genannten Fundserien vervollst\u00e4ndigen \u00e4ltere Daten zum sog. \u201cMicoquien mit Charentien-Einfluss\u201c, bei dem es sich wahrscheinlich um einen Marker f\u00fcr die Verbreitung der Keilmessergruppen im westlichen Teil Europas handelt.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The Middle Paleolithic of the Grand-Est region, and more particularly of Lorraine, has suffered from a lack of interest on the part of researchers since the death of C. Guillaume in 1993. During the 1970s and 1980s, she undertook an important series of research projects and publications, most notably arising from the excavation of the \u201cClair Bois\u201d doline in Chavelot (Vosges), a site attributed to the Eemian interglacial (see, among others, Guillaume 1982, 1986, 1992). The development of rescue archaeology did not lead to the discovery of new stratified sites that could have revitalized research in the region, as was the case in other areas of northern France. Only one site has been discovered recently: Coussey, in the Department of the Vosges, which was discovered in 2014 (Delaunay, this volume). In 2007, a collaborative research project entitled \u201cSettlements and territories in Lorraine from the Ancient Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic,\u201d coordinated by H. Beaudouin, brought together a dynamic team of voluntary surveyors, archeozoologists, geologists and technologists. However, this important interdisciplinary work (Beaudouin et al. 2008) did not lead to the publication of a review article that might otherwise have kick-started a new phase of research.<\/p>\n

Despite an absence of visibility, due to a lack of publication, research on this period continued thanks to the surface surveying carried out by volunteer surveyors. As a result, nearly 275 sites have been identified and added to the archaeological map (Fig. 1). The work, which is the subject of this publication, is the result of regular exchanges between professionals and surveyors through the UMR 7044 ArcHiMedE run by the University of Strasbourg within the framework of a research axis entitled \u201cThe Middle Paleolithic in the Upper Rhine region\u201d and coordinated by J. Detrey. This article intends to provide an initial assessment of the results for the Middle Paleolithic of Lorraine through three lithic assemblages obtained from the gathering of surface finds.<\/p>\n

\"Distribution<\/a>
Fig. 1: Distribution map of the Early and Middle Paleolithic sites in Lorraine. The red color represents the sites identified before 1992, the green color those identified after 1992. The squares correspond to stratified sites (after Guillaume 1982; Guillaume et al 1992; Vermard et al 2010; Le Brun-Ricalens et al 2013; Meyer et al 2015; Archaeological map of Lorraine 2014; Conception B. Hamon, G. Asselin, after CNRA Luxembourg background map).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Presentation of the Sites<\/h2>\n

The former administrative region of Lorraine is located geologically between the Paris Basin and the Vosges Mountains. It is crossed from south to north by the Meuse and the Moselle rivers. The latter belongs to the Rhine catchment zone. The studied assemblages come from three open-air surface sites located in three distinct areas which are geomorphologically similar but geologically quite different (Fig. 1). They were chosen because of their technological homogeneity, their quantitative importance and the presence of bifacial backed tools.<\/p>\n

a) \u201cLe bois Jacquemignon\u201d in Norroy le Veneur (Moselle)<\/h3>\n

The \u201cBois Jacquemignon\u201d site in Norroy le Veneur was discovered in 2008 during investigations focusing on the Paleolithic and led by M. Griette, a surveyor attached to the SRA Lorraine and the ADRAL (Association pour le D\u00e9veloppement de la Recherche Arch\u00e9ologique en Lorraine) (Griette 2013, 2014). The site is located about 2 km south-west of the center of Norroy le Veneur, a village in the \u201cC\u00f4tes de Moselle,\u201d located about 7 km north-west of Metz. At an altitude of 206 m NGF, the site is overlooked to the west by the Bajocian cuesta which culminates at 376 m NGF and to the east by an old alluvial terrace (+ 40-45 m above the Moselle) which has a maximum altitude of 211 m NGF (Fig. 2). The alluvial terrace provides numerous quartz and quartzite pebbles, which originate from Vosges sandstone (types 4 to 6, and 14 to 16; Rebmann et al. 2001), while the siliceous limestone of the Bajocian, to the west, yields a chert of variable quality in the form of parallelepipedic blocks or nodules (Blouet et al. 2009; Hamon 2014). This M-MT5 terrace (Cordier 2004) has not been directly dated, but may have been deposited by the \u201cPal\u00e9o-Meurthe\u201d during the Elsterian Pleniglacial, with an erosion phase during the Holsteinian Interglacial (Dutch terminology; Tuffreau 2010), i.e., MIS 10 and 9 (362,000-309,000 BP) (Cordier, personal communication). This dating thus provides a terminus post quem<\/span> for the assemblage.<\/p>\n

The site is located in a slight depression covered by plateau silts of eolian and\/or alluvial origin(s). The assemblage is currently composed of approximately 745 artifacts discovered on the surface over an area of 1000\u00a0m\u00b2 , making it one of the richest assemblages in Lorraine. The appearance of the artifacts, which is relatively fresh, with little evidence for wind erosion or water rolling, seems to indicate rapid burial, with little or no transport, apart from the agricultural plowing which brought the artifacts to the surface.<\/p>\n

Several refits reinforce this impression. The site has also yielded some flint pieces attributable to the Neolithic and fragments of basalt grinding stones from the Bronze Age or Iron Age.<\/p>\n

\"Extracts<\/a>
Fig. 2: Extracts from the geological maps of the different sites (circles in black) (Source BRGM after Roger 2007; Ch\u00e8vremont et al 2008; image: G. Asselin). a) Norroy le Veneur \u201cBois Jacquemignon,\u201d b) Erching \/ Rimling \u201cRehbrunenwald,\u201d c) Neufch\u00e2teau \u201cSur Conraux.\u201d<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

b) Erching \/ Rimling \u201cRehbrunenwald\u201d (Moselle)<\/h3>\n

The Erching \/ Rimling site of \u201cRehbrunenwald\u201d lies between the territories of two communes of the Pays de Bitche. It is located 1.5\u00a0km south-west of Erching, a village on the Lorraine Plateau, 23\u00a0km south-east of Saarbr\u00fccken (Saarland, Germany). The site is located on a summit of the C\u00f4tes de Lorraine at 391 m NGF, 110 m above the current course of the Bickenalbe, a tributary of the Saar. The hilly relief dominating the small valley is the result of the alternation of limestone and clay formations of the Muschelkalk, (t4b and t5a levels; Fig. 2). They provide a variable quality oolithic flint in the form of slabs, nodules and pebbles (Hamon 2005; Blouet et al. 2009). These two levels are situated approximately 500 m to the east of the site. The nearest quartz and quartzite pebbles are found in the valley of the Blies, about 5 km to the northwest. The site itself is located directly on the Muschelkalk limestone levels. Loess veneers, suitable for the preservation of archaeological remains, have been noted nearby.<\/p>\n

The site was discovered in 2006 by S. Schmit, a surveyor attached to the SRA Lorraine and the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Histoire et d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie de Lorraine (Asselin et al. 2016) and continues to be surveyed in collaboration with C. Bonnet (SHAL Pays de Bitche). The corpus is currently composed of 152 artifacts, often very patinated and showing traces of alteration due to alternating freezing and thawing actions. In addition to the Paleolithic assemblage, the site has also produced Mesolithic and Neolithic remains as well as material dating to the Second World War.<\/p>\n

c) Neufch\u00e2teau \u201cSur Conraux\u201d (Vosges)<\/h3>\n

The site of \u201cSur Conraux\u201d in Neufch\u00e2teau was discovered in 2014 by S. B\u00e9guinot, a surveyor attached to the SRA Lorraine and a member of the \u201cCercle d\u2019Etudes Locales de Contrex\u00e9ville.\u201d It has already yielded 83 artifacts, despite a lack of prospecting in 2016, and is therefore a very promising site.<\/p>\n

The site is located within the municipal territory of Neufch\u00e2teau, about 2 km north of the city center and about 50 km south-west of Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle). Located at an altitude of 316 m NGF, it overlooks the current course of the Meuse which flows east to north at an altitude of 279 m NGF. It is dominated by the Butte de Bourl\u00e9mont, a residual butte belonging to the \u201cC\u00f4tes de Meuse,\u201d which stands to the west and reaches a height of 434 m NGF.<\/p>\n

Oxfordian levels\/deposits (Fig. 2) outcrop at the foot of the Butte de Bourl\u00e9mont, yielding large nodules or slabs of an excellent quality chert (Blouet et al. 2009; B\u00e9guinot 2015). The closest in situ outcrops are located 1.5 km west of the site. However, blocks can be collected in colluvial deposits about 1 km to the west. A portion of the alluvial terrace (not recorded on the geological map) located about 600 m to the north, at a location called \u201cla Grevinotte,\u201d provides quartz and quartzite pebbles which are probably native to the Vosges. The site is located on agricultural land consisting of plateau silts; archaeological levels may well be conserved beneath this layer.<\/p>\n

The assemblage is patinated but not thermally altered. In addition, the site has yielded remains attributed to the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic.<\/p>\n

Results<\/h2>\n

The lithic industries are described below following the various phases of the lithic cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span> previously described by J. P\u00e9legrin, C. Karlin and P. Bodu (1988).<\/p>\n

a) Supply of raw materials<\/h3>\n

Raw material: provenance<\/h4>\n

Local raw materials largely predominate at the three sites. Thus, at Norroy, a site located at the foot of an ancient alluvial terrace, the quartzite and quartz pebbles present in situ constitute more than 98% of the assemblage; the remaining 2% is composed of Bajocian chert from the C\u00f4tes de Moselle, from a location about 1 km to the west (Fig. 3).<\/p>\n

At Erching, t4 and t5 Muschelkalk flints, which are spread over an area of about 500 m, account for 82% of the assemblage, while quartz and quartzite pebbles from the Blies Valley, situated 5 km to the north-west, constitute the remaining 18%.<\/p>\n

Lastly, in Neufch\u00e2teau, Oxfordian chert from outcrops at least 1 km away dominates the assemblage (83%), while quartz and quartzite from a terrace located about 600 m away is much less common (16%). The remaining percentage corresponds to a single scraper, potentially native, made from flint from Sondersdorf (Alsace, France) in the Sundgau region (identification: S. Diemer); outcrops of this flint are located about 140 km to the south-east.<\/p>\n

\"Proportions<\/a>
Fig. 3: Proportions of the different raw materials identified at the three sites. The quantities are indicated on each diagram (image: G. Asselin).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Raw material: selection<\/h4>\n

Before debitage began, the blocks of raw material underwent an important selection process. This is particularly the case in Norroy and Erching where pebbles of asymmetric cross-section, with a flat surface opposite a convex one, were preferentially selected. In Norroy, when the initial section of the pebble was not satisfactory, the Paleolithic knapper split the pebble in two to achieve the desired configuration (Table 1). This technique has also been observed on the sites of Hellange and Lellig in Luxembourg (Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2012a, 2013).<\/p>\n

In Neufch\u00e2teau, flat and elongated blocks were mainly selected for the debitage of Levallois blades.<\/p>\n

\"Technological<\/a>
Table 1: Technological count of the artifacts collected at the three sites.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

b) Cortex removal<\/h3>\n

Tested and abandoned pebbles were only discovered at Norroy. Both the Norroy and the Erching sites yielded first flakes (Table 1); these correspond to the very first phase of the cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span>, aimed at creating a striking platform.<\/p>\n

Fragments that have more than 50% cortex on their upper face are counted as cortical flakes. These are present in large quantities at the sites of Norroy and Erching, while in Neufch\u00e2teau only two examples have been recorded. However, it is important to remember that there are only 86 recorded artifacts from Neufch\u00e2teau where the assemblage is only beginning to be revealed.<\/p>\n

This seems to indicate that the initiation and cortex removal phases took place on site at Norroy and Erching. Indeed, these sites are located near sources of raw material, whereas in Neufch\u00e2teau, because of the distance to the outcrops, it seems (in the current state of knowledge) that pre-selected and preformed raw material was brought on site.<\/p>\n

A nuance can be observed from a functional point of view. The initial and cortical flakes on a quartzite pebble have the advantage of already being sharp due to the hardness of the fluvial neocortex (Tavoso 1978); this is in contrast to Muschelkalk flint and Oxfordian chert. Thus, the quartzite cortical removing phase could be related to full debitage.<\/p>\n

c) Debitage<\/h3>\n

Several flaking methods seem to have been employed on these three sites. The use of hard hammerstones is attested on each site, but only Norroy has produced direct evidence in the form of five hammerstones and hammerstone fragments (Table 1).<\/p>\n

At all three sites, the reduction sequences took place in situ<\/span>, as underlined by the numbers of cores found (cores represent around 20% of each assemblage).<\/p>\n

i) The cores<\/h4>\n

Each site has yielded cores with recurrent centripetal flaking and whose surfaces are ranked: a flaking surface opposed to a striking platform (cortical or prepared).<\/p>\n

The dominant type of core is flat with or without preparation of the striking platform (Fig. 4a and b, Fig. 5). These cores sometimes resemble the type obtained by the recurrent centripetal Levallois technique (Bo\u00ebda 1994) (Table 2). This method yields rounded cores with a flat flaking surface (Bosinski 1967, 2004) and can be defined as a \u201cconcrete volumetric structure of type F,\u201d as defined by E. Bo\u00ebda (2013).<\/p>\n

\"Different<\/a>
Table 1: Technological count of the artifacts collected at the three sites.
Fig. 4: Different cores from Erching (b, d and f) and Neufch\u00e2teau (a, c and e) (drawings: J. Detrey). a) and b) unifacial reccurent centripetal flat cores with preparation of striking platform in Oxfordian chert (a) and quartzite pebble (b), c) and d) Lin\u00e9al Levallois cores in Oxfordian chert (c) and t4 Muschelkalk flint (d), e) bipolar Levallois blades core in Oxfordian chert, f) Levallois bipolar core in t4 flint.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Refits<\/a>
Fig. 5: Refits of a series of flakes with a unifacial recurrent centripetal core with prepared striking platform on quartzite pebble discovered in Norroy (drawings G. Asselin).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, there is a continuum between flat and secant cores. In fact, the secant unifacial cores, with or without preparation of the striking platform, are defined by a pyramidal flaking surface. These are also observed at Norroy and, to a lesser extent, at Neufch\u00e2teau and Erching. This production is similar to Discoid unifacial production (Jaubert and Mourre 1996; Mourre 2003; Slimak 2003) and can be defined as a \u201cconcrete volumetric structure of type E1\u201d (Bo\u00ebda 2013).<\/p>\n

The continuum between these two types of recurrent centripetal cores, and the possibility that the knapper could switch from one concept to another (Lenoir and Turq 1995), leads us to refer to these cores as flat or secant unifacial cores (Table 2) without making reference to any debitage concept.<\/p>\n

In Neufch\u00e2teau and Erching, \u201clin\u00e9al Levallois\u201d debitage (Bo\u00ebda 1994) is well represented, accounting for between 16 and 19% of the cores (Fig. 4c and d), while at Norroy it represents only about 2% of the cores. A bipolar Levallois core (Bo\u00ebda 1994) is also present at Erching (Fig. 4f) and two bipolar Levallois blade cores (Fig. 4e) have been found at Neufch\u00e2teau (Revillon 1995).<\/p>\n

In addition, the SSDA (\u201cSyst\u00e8me de Surfaces de D\u00e9bitage Altern\u00e9es,\u201d Forestier 1993) and \u201cchopper\u201d debitage types are well represented at Norroy. The SSDA flaking technique provides cores that are morphologically similar to chopping tools, but the removal organization is closer to that of bifacial Discoid debitage (Bo\u00ebda 1993) with a reserved cortical zone at the end of exploitation. The \u201cchoppers\u201d discovered on the site correspond to cores. A single natural striking platform was flaked unipolarly in the thickness of the pebble. As in the \u201cLe Pucheuil\u201d type debitage (Delagnes 1993), the removal of a series of flakes culminated in the opening of the angle of the nucleus, thus preventing the debitage of new flakes.<\/p>\n

On-anvil flake cores (Mourre et al. 2010) are also documented at Norroy and Erching; these are bipolar cores with angles close to 90\u00b0. Kombewa mode 1 cores (Tixier and Turq 1999), knapped on the lower face of flakes, also occur in non-negligible quantities at Norroy (Table 2).<\/p>\n

\"Determination<\/a>
Table 2: Determination of the cores collected at the three sites.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

ii) Full debitage products<\/h4>\n

At the sites of Neufch\u00e2teau and Erching, flakes with plain and prepared butts (facetted, dihedral) dominate, while in Norroy cortical butts are in the majority (Fig. 6). This is probably due to the raw material used at Norroy; the neocortex of quartz and quartzite pebbles is more regular than a plain or facetted surface (Tavoso 1978; Mourre 1994), unlike flint and chert.<\/p>\n

\"Diagram<\/a>
Fig. 6: Diagram showing the various butts observed on the full debitage products (graphic: G. Asselin).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Only the Erching site yielded elements that could correspond to striking platform preparation flakes (Table 1).<\/p>\n

The products obtained at the three sites vary (Table 3). At Norroy and Erching, centripetal flakes (Bo\u00ebda 1993; Thi\u00e9bault 2013) dominate (Fig. 5: flake 14; Fig. 7c) along with core-edged flakes (Fig. 5: flake 18, Fig. 7a) and pseudo-Levallois points (Fig. 7b). These products are likely to be related to the recurrent centripetal cores, and more precisely to the Discoid concept. Flakes with axial (Fig. 5: flake 8) and transverse crests (Slimak 2003; Thi\u00e9bault 2013) present at these two sites result from the action of cutting back the overhang of the core in order to obtain longer flakes or to change the debitage modality.<\/p>\n

At Neufch\u00e2teau, Levallois flakes (Fig. 7g) and blades dominate the assemblage. These products are consistent with the high rate of striking platform preparation, as well as with the predominant recurrent centripetal and Levallois cores. During the cortex removal phase, when the core was not yet fully shaped, it is clear that there was a desire to produce blades from the outset. Figure 7h depicts a complete example with a portion of cortex from this phase. The lateral convexity shaping and the bipolar flaking were carried out afterwards.<\/p>\n

The presence of Levallois points (Fig. 7e and f) at Neufch\u00e2teau and at Erching is noteworthy but no associated cores were discovered. Bipolar flakes associated with on-anvil debitage (Mourre et al. 2010) are present at Norroy and Erching.<\/p>\n

\"Products<\/a>
Fig. 7: Products observed at Erching (a, b, c, d and e) and Neufch\u00e2teau (f, g and h) (drawings: J. Detrey). a) core-edge flake in quartzite, b) quartzite pseudo-Levallois point, c) long centripetal flake in quartzite retouched as a convex simple scraper, d) Levallois flake retouched as a straight simple scraper in t4 flint, e) Levallois point retouched as a concave simple scraper in t4 flint, f) Levallois point in Oxfordian chert, g) distal fragment of a Levallois flake retouched as a convex simple scraper in Oxfordian chert, h) Levallois blade in Oxfordian chert.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Tally<\/a>
Table 3: Tally of the full debitage products discovered at the three sites.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

d) Tools<\/h3>\n

A total of 47 tools were collected at Norroy (representing 6.3% of the assemblage), 30 at Erching (19.7% of the assemblage) and 33 at Neufch\u00e2teau (39.7% of the assemblage) (Table 4). Retouch and shaping flakes were uncovered at all three sites, albeit in different proportions (Table 1).<\/p>\n

\"Tally<\/a>
Table 4: Tally of the types of tools discovered on the three sites and correspondences with the typological list of F. Bordes (1961) and the groups of A. Turq (1979).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Scrapers dominate on all three sites; however, at Norroy convex transverse scrapers are the most common type, while at Erching and Neufch\u00e2teau, simple convex scrapers are in the majority. In a more general way, using the method based on typological groups developed by A. Turq and star diagrams (Turq 1979; Deb\u00e9nath and Dibble 1994), Group 2 with single, double and thinned-back scrapers (typical Mousterian), and the Group 3 with transverse scrapers (Quina Mousterian) predominate (Fig. 8).<\/p>\n

\"Star<\/a>
Fig. 8: Star diagram of A. Turq\u2019s typological groups (1979) applied to the three sites (drawings: G. Asselin).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For example, in Norroy, Groups 2 and 3 are in the majority, while Groups 5 with convergent and d\u00e9jet\u00e9<\/span> scrapers (Ferrassie Mousterian) and 6 with notches and denticulates (denticulate Mousterian) are less represented. Finally, Group 4 with bifaces and Group 8 with Upper Paleolithic-type tools are scarce. The latter is represented by only two atypical per\u00e7oirs<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In Erching, Group 2 with single scrapers (Fig. 7c, e and g; Fig. 9d, e and g), double scrapers (Fig. 9b and c) and thinned-back scrapers clearly predominates, while Group 3 with limaces<\/span> and transverse scrapers (Fig. 9a and f) is poorly represented. Bifacial elements (Group 4) are well represented, while convergent and d\u00e9jet\u00e9<\/span> scrapers (Group 5) (Fig. 9c), notches and denticulates (Group 6) and Upper Paleolithic-type tools (Group 8) (Fig. 9h and i) are rare.<\/p>\n

\"Tools<\/a>
Fig. 9: Tools from Erching in t4 Muschelkalk flint (a, b, c, f, g, h and i) and in quartzite (d and e) (drawings: J. Detrey). a) Limace, b) double convex-concave scraper, c) double convex scraper, d) simple convex scraper, e) straight simple scraper, f) convex transverse scraper, g) oblique scraper, h) atypical per\u00e7oir, i) truncation.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Finally, in Neufch\u00e2teau, Groups 2 (Fig. 7h; Fig. 10a and b) and 4 predominate. Groups 3 (Fig. 10e), 5 (Fig. 10c, d and f) and 6 (Fig. 10g) are well represented, while Group 8 is represented by a single atypical per\u00e7oir<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\"Tools<\/a>
Fig. 10: Tools from Neufch\u00e2teau in Oxfordian chert (a, b, d and g) and quartzite (c, e and f) (drawings: J. Detrey). a) Convex simple thinned back scraper, b) convex simple scraper, c) and d) convex convergent scrapers, e) convex transverse scraper, f) d\u00e9jet\u00e9 convex scraper, g) denticulate.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

e) Bifacial tools<\/h3>\n

The fourth typological group, while rare, is of importance in techno-cultural terms.<\/p>\n

In Norroy, four bifacial tools were uncovered (Table 5). These are made up of two Bocksteinmesser<\/span> (Bosinski 1967; J\u00f6ris 2006) in chert and quartzite (Fig. 11b), as well as two bifaces: one is a chert, partially-backed cordiform, the other is triangular with a massive cortical base and is made from quartzite. Two bifacial chert roughouts were also collected.<\/p>\n

\"Description<\/a>
Table 5: Description of the bifacial tools from the three sites. The figures in brackets correspond to the measured values truncated by recent breaks.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Bifacial<\/a>
Fig. 11: Bifacial tools in Bajocian chert from Norroy (a and b) and t4 Muschelkalk flint from Erching (c and d) (drawings: M. Griette and J. Detrey). a) Irregular cordiform biface with partial back, b and c) Bocksteinmesser<\/span>, d) Klausennischemesser<\/span>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At Erching, five bifacial artifacts were collected, all of which were made of t4 Muschelkalk flint. They consist of an apical or basal fragment of a large leaf point (Blattspitze<\/span>) (Fig. 12a), an apical fragment of a smaller leaf point, a Bocksteinmesser<\/span> (Fig. 11c) and a Klausennischemesser<\/span> (Bosinski 1967; J\u00f6ris 2006) (Fig. 11d) made from rolled slabs, as well as a Bocksteinmesser<\/span> roughout.<\/p>\n

Finally, at Neufch\u00e2teau, seven bifacial tools were collected, five of chert and two of quartzite. A K\u00f6nigsaue Keilmesser<\/span> (Bosinski 1967; J\u00f6ris 2006), two Bocksteinmesser<\/span> (Fig. 12b), three cordiform bifaces (Fig. 12c and 13b) and a triangular biface were discovered.<\/p>\n

The original blanks used to manufacture these different bifacial tools were probably chert and flint slabs as well as quartzite pebbles. However, large flakes may have been used at Neufch\u00e2teau (Fig. 12c and Fig. 13b).<\/p>\n

\"Bifacial<\/a>
Fig. 12: Bifacial tools in t4 Muschelkalk flint from Erching (a) and Oxfordian chert from Neufch\u00e2teau (b and c) (drawings: J. Detrey). a) Bifacial leaf point fragment, b) Bocksteinmesser<\/span>, c) cordiform biface.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Bifacial<\/a>
Fig. 13: Bifacial tools in Oxfordian chert from Neufch\u00e2teau (drawings: J. Detrey). a) K\u00f6nigsaue Keilmesser<\/span>, b) cordiform biface.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Discussion<\/h2>\n

Before embarking on a more detailed discussion of these assemblages, it is important to remember that they were retrieved through surface collection. Therefore, despite their homogeneous appearance, the material may originate from several occupations spread out over time and belonging to different techno-complexes. Moreover, without any stratigraphic framework, dating can only be based on comparisons with dated series.<\/p>\n

a) Results of the cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span><\/h3>\n

The first phases of initiation and cortex removal of the blocks seem to have taken place on site at Norroy and Erching. In addition, tested and abandoned blocks from this phase were also uncovered at Norroy. This is probably due to the immediate proximity of the raw material. In Neufch\u00e2teau, the first phases of the cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span> are absent. Similarly, the lack of striking platform preparation flakes seems to suggest that pre-prepared nuclei were brought to the site.<\/p>\n

Preparation fragments are also absent at Norroy, but this could be related to a taphonomic phenomenon. The loamy and, therefore, sticky nature of the soils favors the retrieval of larger finds. Thus, striking platform preparation flakes, as well as retouch flakes, are poorly represented on this site. In Erching, the discovery of striking platform preparation flakes points to on-site core debitage.<\/p>\n

On the basis of the cores alone, most of which have been used to exhaustion, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the practice of any given mode of knapping. It is important to compare this data with the products discovered (Mourre 2003).<\/p>\n

In Norroy, based on the products most commonly found (centripetal flakes, pseudo-Levallois points, core-edge flakes, axial and transverse crests) it would seem that recurrent centripetal flat cores are linked to Discoid unifacial debitage. Levallois debitage is rarer and mainly of lin\u00e9al<\/span> modality. SSDA and chopper-type debitage were also employed, as well as Kombewa and bipolar on-anvil flaking (Fig.14). The flakes obtained by the SSDA method are similar to Discoid products but bear negatives of unipolar removals. \u201cChopper-type\u201d knapping produces unipolar flakes with cortical butts and backs. The Bajocian chert, which is a minority raw material, is represented by only two cores\u2014one lin\u00e9al<\/span> Levallois, the other Discoid bifacial\u2014as well as two pseudo-Levallois points and two cortical flakes.<\/p>\n

At Erching, as is the case at Norroy, the products characteristic of Discoid debitage are present in larger quantities than Levallois flakes. Therefore, the centripetal recurrent unifacial cores would seem to be associated with unifacial Discoid knapping. The lin\u00e9al<\/span> and bipolar modalities of the Levallois debitage are also present. However, these data need to be put into perspective due to a very high incidence of simple flakes (Table 3) that cannot be related either to the Levallois or to the Discoid concept. No distinction was observed between the raw materials; the flaking behavior seems to be the same for quartz, quartzite and flint.<\/p>\n

In Neufch\u00e2teau, unlike the other two sites, Levallois products (flakes and blades) dominate. The presence of a high percentage of blades (21%) could be related to the larger dimensions of the Oxfordian chert blocks, which would have allowed the implementation of this kind of debitage. However, a quartzite blade fragment was also found. Cores associated with this mode of debitage are rare (n = 2), but recurrent centripetal Levallois flaking could have been continued, thus obliterating negatives created by the removal of blades. The knapping of the blades (n = 11) is carried out using bipolar Levallois (Bo\u00ebda 1994; Revillon 1995) or bipolar facial laminar (Delagnes et al. 2007) techniques. Levallois flakes are well represented (n = 11) two of which are of quartzite and one may be of Sundgau flint. Moreover, some pseudo-Levallois points and centripetal flakes more characteristic of Discoid debitage, associated with secant recurrent centripetal unifacial cores, could well belong to the end of the Levallois sequence. Finally, an SSDA nucleus completes the range of modalities practiced by the prehistoric occupants of this site. No quartz and quartzite nuclei were found and the quartzite products are found in similar proportions to those of chert.<\/p>\n

Modification of the debitage products seems to have taken place at all three sites.<\/p>\n

Retouching and shaping flakes have been identified, but in very small quantities (n = 4) at Norroy, probably due to the taphonomic bias related to the nature of the terrain. Norroy’s Discoid modality could produce flakes that were wider than they were long and which were used as blanks for transverse scrapers, whilst at Erching, the modification focused on the side edges of flakes, as was the case in Neufchateau. On all three sites, Quina and half-Quina modification (Bordes 1961) is noted mainly on quartzite elements. This is probably due to the raw material used which requires a large investment during the production phase (Belland and Guillaume 1989).<\/p>\n

With regard to the shaping of bifacial tools, cherts and flint seem to have been preferred over quartzites. Indeed, the slab form of the chert and flint was probably selected in order to make thinner bifacial tools. In addition, the edges of the slabs lend themselves to the production of Keilmesser<\/span>. In Norroy, for example, two of the four bifacial tools are of chert as are two roughouts. At Erching, all of the bifacial tools are of flint. However, in Neufch\u00e2teau, the pattern is different, with the rank of the shaped quartzite pebbles (n = 2) slightly higher than the bifaces produced from chert (n = 5).<\/p>\n

b) Nature of the sites<\/h3>\n

Behavioral differences were observed at the three sites studied. Thus, at Norroy, all phases of the cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span> have been identified, from the testing of blocks to the modification of products, and even the recycling of tools. The fact that the test phase of blocks is present suggests that this is a raw material acquisition site. On the same site there is evidence for a workshop facies with production and consumption of blanks (Kegler-Graieweski, Zimmermann 2003).<\/p>\n

At Erching, no tested blocks were found; however, the phase of cortex removal is attested on the site, as are the phases of tool production and consumption. The site thus also corresponds to a production and consumption site.<\/p>\n

Finally, neither testing nor cortex removal seem to have taken place on site in Neufchateau. Instead, pre-prepared cores appear to have been imported in order to be knapped in situ<\/span> so as to produce blanks. Similarly, the retouch phase took place in situ<\/span>. Neufch\u00e2teau could correspond to a raw material consumption site. The possible Sundgau flint scraper is also noteworthy. It suggests population movement or exchanges of finished tools over long distances.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the data from these three sites indicate that the closer the sites are to the raw material outcrops, the lower the percentage of tools present.<\/p>\n

c) Convergences and divergences<\/h3>\n

The difference in the nature of the sites therefore influences the quantity of objects present but not their characteristics.<\/p>\n

Thus, at all three sites recurrent centripetal flaking (Lenoir and Turq 1995; Di Modica 2010) is predominant. However, at Norroy there is a tendency towards the production of thicker products which are more characteristic of the Discoid concept, while in Neufch\u00e2teau, the products are thinner and tend to suggest that the Levallois technique was used. In Erching the distinction is more difficult to make.<\/p>\n

Lin\u00e9al Levallois<\/span> debitage is systematically present at all three sites, laminar Levallois was only practiced at Neufchateau, while SSDA, \u201cchopper-type\u201d and Kombewa knapping are only represented at Norroy.<\/p>\n

As regards typology, thinned back flakes and scrapers are observed on all three sites. This thinning may indicate the possible fitting of a handle to the edge opposite the cutting edge. Single side scrapers are the most common type at all three sites. At Norroy, transverse scrapers are also well represented. Upper Paleolithic type tools are represented by per\u00e7oirs<\/span> (Fig. 9h) at all three sites and by the Erching truncation (Fig. 9i).<\/p>\n

Finally, bifacial tools are rare in Norroy and more frequent in Erching and Neufch\u00e2teau.<\/p>\n

d) Which techno-complex?<\/h3>\n

Because of the lack of stratigraphy and the risk of a palimpsest effect induced by surface gathering, the issue of attribution to a particular techno-complex has proven difficult and is fraught with uncertainty.<\/p>\n

The presence of Keilmesser<\/span> on each site is reminiscent of the Keilmessergruppen<\/span> (KMG) (Mania 1990; J\u00f6ris 2004), the Micoquian of Central Europe (G\u00fcnther 1964; Bosinski 1967), or the Mousterian with Micoquian Option (MMO) (Richter 1997).<\/p>\n

The two Bocksteinmesser<\/span>, the two leaf points fragments (Blattspitzen<\/span>) and the Klausennischemesser<\/span> from the Erching site evoke the Bockstein-type Keilmessergruppe<\/span> (Bosinski 1967, 2004; Wetzel and Bosinski 1969), and even the Blattspitzengruppen<\/span> of the recent Middle Paleolithic (Bosinski 2004). The straightness of the Keilmesser<\/span> edges found on this site recall the KMG B or C (MIS 4 or 3; J\u00f6ris 2006), while the presence of Blattspitzen<\/span> would coincide with MMO C (MIS 3; Richter 2010). Thus, part of the Erching occupation could possibly be connected to a recent phase of the Keilmessergruppen<\/span> in the MIS 3.<\/p>\n

The presence of KMG occupation remains hypothetical and evidence takes the form of just two Bocksteinmesser<\/span> and a K\u00f6nigsaue Keilmesser<\/span> in Neufch\u00e2teau. The convex edges of these backed bifaces would indicate a KMG A (MIS 5; J\u00f6ris 2006). However, the association of Keilmesser<\/span> with Levallois laminar knapping at Neufch\u00e2teau could also correspond to the MMO C (MIS 3; Richter 2010). Moreover, a single triangular biface and three cordiform bifaces were unearthed on this site. The association of Keilmesser<\/span> and MTA bifaces on this same site raises the question of the chronological homogeneity of the series. Indeed, in more precisely dated contexts, such as in the Vanne Valley (Yonne, France), the association of these types of tools is non-existent with the exception of the Lailly \u201cFond de laTournerie\u201d site (Depaepe 2001). Not far from there, the surface assemblage from Pont-de-Planches (Lamotte et al. 2012), above the levels attributed to SIM 3, has yielded the same kind of assemblage.<\/p>\n

At Norroy, two Bocksteinmesser<\/span> were discovered; their convex edges also led them to be attributed to the KMG A (MIS 5, J\u00f6ris 2006). The two associated bifaces, one with a massive cortical base, the other cordiform with a partial back, do not evoke the MTA.<\/p>\n

This last type of biface does not fall within the standards for either MTA bifaces or KMG Keilmesser<\/span>. Similar types of objects, which are interpreted as being intermediate types, have already been identified at the \u201cHermitage\u201d Cave in Moha, at \u201cDoctor\u201d Cave in Huccorgne in Belgium (Ulrix-Closset 1975; Ruebens and Di Modica 2011), and also at Vinneuf (Yonne, France; Gouedo 1993, 1999). The Belgian sites are attributed to the MIS 3 (Ruebens and Di Modica 2011) while the Burgundian site is estimated to belong to the MIS 5 and MIS 6. A similar un-dated object discovered in the Pays de Bitche, 6 km from Erching, was the subject of a recent publication (Asselin et al. 2016).<\/p>\n

The presence of eastern-influenced tools in the Lorraine industries has already been highlighted by C. Guillaume, who described a final Acheulean or Micoquian with a Charentian character (Guillaume 1986: 53).<\/p>\n

In neighboring regions in France, reference is made to a Charentian with Micoquian influences in the plains of the northern Paris Basin, Franche-Comt\u00e9 and Burgundy (see, among others, Ameloot-Van der Heijden and Tuffreau 1993; Farizy 1995; Lamotte et al. 2005, 2012; Depaepe 2007; Soriano 2015). Like the assemblages described here, the industries of this technological complex are characterized by the presence of Micoquian bifacial tools associated with Levallois debitage. They are generally allocated to the MIS 7 and 3.<\/p>\n

e) Keilmessergruppen<\/span> in Lorraine and neighboring regions, an underestimation of the phenomenon?<\/h3>\n

In the Lorraine region, and in France more generally, Keilmesser<\/span> are often classified as scrapers with bifacial retouch (Bordes 1961), thus limiting their identification.<\/p>\n

At present in Lorraine, the Sarre watershed has provided the greatest numbers of Keilmesser<\/span>, with a Bocksteinmesser<\/span> in Neufechingen (Saarland, Germany; Fig. 15, 3) (Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2012b) and a partially backed biface in Bettviller (Moselle, France; Fig. 15, 8) (Asselin et al. 2016). In addition to the Erching finds, investigations by S. Schmit have led to the discovery of five additional Keilmesser<\/span> in the Pays de Bitche (Fig. 15, 4-7).<\/p>\n

In the Neufch\u00e2teau region, in addition to the \u201cSur Conraux\u201d assemblage, a fragment of Blattspitze<\/span>, two Klausennischemesser<\/span> and a Faustkeilblatt<\/span> have been discovered by S. B\u00e9guinot (Fig. 15, 4-7).<\/p>\n

The Moselle foothills have yielded further Keilmesser<\/span> (Fig. 15, 1-2 and 13-14), particularly in Hellange in Luxembourg where two Bocksteinmesser<\/span> and two K\u00f6nigsaue Keilmesser<\/span> have been identified (Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2012a; Griette et al. 2022).<\/p>\n

Recently, in Alsace, a Bocksteinmesser<\/span> was uncovered in Flexbourg (Fig. 15, 9) (Koelher et al. 2020).<\/p>\n

\"Simplified<\/a>
Fig. 14: Simplified diagram of the cha\u00eene op\u00e9ratoire<\/span> used in Norroy (No), Erching (E) and Neufch\u00e2teau (Ne) (modified from Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2012a; drawings: G. Asselin).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Map<\/a>
Fig. 15: Map of sites with bifacial tools (in black: Ancient Paleolithic sites, in red: Middle Paleolithic, white: undetermined dating). Sites that have delivered remains that may belong to the Keilmessergruppen<\/span> are counted in the table (after Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2012a, 2012b; Asselin et al. 2016; Ringenbach 2017; image: G. Asselin after CNRA Luxembourg background map).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Conclusion and Prospects<\/h2>\n

The study of the three sites of Norroy, Erching and Neufch\u00e2teau clearly reveals that the Keilmessergruppen<\/span> techno-complex, already foreseen with the Micoquien Charentian (Guillaume 1986; Belland and Guillaume 1989; Guillaume et al. 1992), did indeed spread to Lorraine and adjoining regions. These three sites are distinguished by the knapping modalities used and by the tool typology; they each maintain a well-defined Mousterian character with the practice of lin\u00e9al<\/span> Levallois debitage and with a predominance of simple scrapers among the tools.<\/p>\n

As part of the research axis of UMR 7044 of the University of Strasbourg, which focuses on the Middle Paleolithic in the upper Rhine region and its margins, future work will extend to include hitherto unpublished finds made by the Lorraine survey teams and will also include a revision of previously published series.<\/p>\n

A request was made (2018) to undertake further investigations in order to determine if archaeological levels were preserved beneath the silty layer at the site of \u201cBois Jacquemignon\u201d in Norroy le Veneur. Unfortunately, no levels were found (Griette et al. 2022).<\/p>\n

At one time, there was a project to build a wind farm on the \u201cRebrunenwald\u201d site in Erching-Rimling. However, it has been canceled for the time being. Maybe one day preventive archaeological investigations will be planned here in the future.<\/p>\n

Finally, the site of \u201cSur Conraux\u201d at Neufch\u00e2teau could be the subject of a manual survey in order to check the stratigraphy, but only if discoveries continue to be made and if refits are found.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgments<\/h2>\n

We would like to thank the CNRA of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in particular Foni Le Brun-Ricalens and Nena Sand for their warm welcome during the consultation of the Hellange series. We also thank Fran\u00e7ois Valotteau for his invaluable assistance. The study of the series from \u201cBois Jacquemignon\u201d in Norroy would not have been possible without the financial assistance of the ADRAL for the prospection work carried out by Marc Griette, nor without the logistical assistance of the P\u00f4le Arch\u00e9ologie Pr\u00e9ventive de Metz M\u00e9tropole. We thank these two institutions and their members and employees. We also wish to thank Rosie Oswald from Bitche College for correcting the English translation and the translator Rhoda Cronin-Allanic for her exemplary work. We also thank C. Dreier, Metz M\u00e9tropole, for the German translation of our Abstract.<\/p>\n

Literature<\/h2>\n

Ameloot-Van der Heijden, N., and A. Tuffreau. 1993. Les industries lithiques de Riencourt-les-Bapaume dans le contexte de l\u2019Europe du Nord-Ouest. In Riencourt-les-Bapaume (Pas-de-Calais): Un gisement du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen, ed. by A. Tuffreau, pp. 107\u2013111. Paris: Document d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie Fran\u00e7ais 37.<\/p>\n

Asselin, G., S. Schmit, and J. Detrey. 2016. Biface en silex du Muschelkalk de Bettviller \u2013 H\u0153lling \u201cHinterste Kiesehuebel Bauertchen\u201d (d\u00e9partement de la Moselle, France). Bulletin de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique luxembourgeoise 36-372014-2015: 45\u201367.<\/p>\n

Beaudouin, H., G. Allenet, J.-M. Baldauf, R. Courteaux, V. Decombis, A.Gebhardt, M.Griette, J.-M. Hans, D. Henry, B. Losson, S. Occhietti, M. Reeb, J.-Y. Ringenbach, and A. Th\u00e9venin. 2008. Peuplements et territoires en Lorraine du Pal\u00e9olithique ancien au M\u00e9solithique. Rapport d\u2019activit\u00e9 de Projet Collectif de Recherche. Metz: SRA Lorraine.<\/p>\n

B\u00e9guinot, S. 2015. Utilisation de la chaille oxfordienne de la r\u00e9gion de Neufch\u00e2teau au cours de la pr\u00e9histoire. In Journ\u00e9e arch\u00e9ologique (4 october 2015), pp. 25\u201327. Bussang: ADRAL.<\/p>\n

Belland, G., and C. Guillaume. 1989. Le Moust\u00e9rien charentien de type Quina de Himeling (commune de Puttelange-l\u00e8s-Thionville, Moselle). Bulletin de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique luxembourgeoise 11 1989: 5\u201318.<\/p>\n

Blouet, V., E. Decker, M.-P. Petitdidier, and L. Thomashausen. 2009. L\u2019approvisionnement en mat\u00e9riaux siliceux du Ruban\u00e9 de Lorraine. In Relations interr\u00e9gionales au N\u00e9olithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rh\u00e9nan. Actes du 26\u00e8me colloque interr\u00e9gional sur le N\u00e9olithique (8-9 november 2003), Luxembourg, ed. by F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau, and A. Hauzeur, pp. 89\u201398. Archaeologia Mosellana 7.<\/p>\n

Bo\u00ebda, E. 1993. Le d\u00e9bitage disco\u00efde et le d\u00e9bitage Levallois r\u00e9current centrip\u00e8te. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise 90-7: 392\u2013404.<\/p>\n

Bo\u00ebda, E. 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilit\u00e9 des m\u00e9thodes. Paris: Monographie du CRA 9.<\/p>\n

Bo\u00ebda, E. 2013. Technologique & technologie. Une Pal\u00e9ohistoire des objets lithiques tranchants. @rcheo-\u00e9ditions, Pr\u00e9histoire au pr\u00e9sent.<\/p>\n

Bordes, F. 1950. L\u2019\u00e9volution buissonnante des industries en Europe occidentale. Consid\u00e9rations th\u00e9oriques sur le Pal\u00e9olithique Ancien et Moyen. L\u2019Anthropologie 54: 393\u2013420.<\/p>\n

Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Pal\u00e9olithique ancien et moyen. Presses du CNRS.<\/p>\n

Bosinski, G. 1967. Die mittelpal\u00e4olithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta A\/4. K\u00f6ln: B\u00f6hlau-Verlag.<\/p>\n

Bosinski, G. 2004. La taille de la pierre. In Les hommes de N\u00e9andertal. Le feu sous la glace. 250 000 ans d\u2019histoire europ\u00e9enne, ed. by E.-M. Krause, pp. 83\u2013111. Paris: Errance edition.<\/p>\n

Ch\u00e8vremont, P., D. Cruz Mermy, E. Skrzypek, and F. M\u00e9nillet. 2008. Carte g\u00e9ologique harmonis\u00e9e du d\u00e9partement des Vosges (88). Geological report. BRGM\/RP-56439-FR.<\/p>\n

Cordier, S. 2004. Les niveaux alluviaux quaternaires de la Meurthe et de la Moselle entre Baccarat et Coblence: \u00c9tude morphos\u00e9dimentaire et chronostratigraphique, incidences climatiques et tectoniques. Phd Thesis, Paris 12 University.<\/p>\n

Deb\u00e9nath, A., and H. L. Dibble. 1994. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.<\/p>\n

Delagnes, A. 1993. Un mode de production in\u00e9dit au Pal\u00e9olithique moyen dans l\u2019industrie du niveau 6e du Pucheuil (Seine-Maritime). Pal\u00e9o 5: 111\u2013120.<\/p>\n

Delagnes, A., J. Jaubert, and L. Meignen. 2007. Les technocomplexes du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre diachronique et g\u00e9ographique. In Les N\u00e9andertaliens. Biologie et cultures, ed. by B. Vandermeersch, and B. Maureille. pp. 213\u2013229. Paris: CTHS edition. Documents pr\u00e9historiques 23.<\/p>\n

Depaepe, P. 2001. Pour une poign\u00e9e de bifaces: Les industries pauvresen bifaces du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen de la vall\u00e9e de la Vanne (Yonne \u2013 France). In Les industries \u00e0 outils bifaciaux du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen d\u2019Europe occidentale. Actes de la table ronde international de Caen (october 1999), ed. by D. Cliquet, pp. 135\u2013140. Li\u00e8ge: ERAUL 98.<\/p>\n

Depaepe, P. 2007. Le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen de la vall\u00e9e de la Vanne (Yonne): Mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res, industries lithiques et occupations humaines. M\u00e9moire XLI de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise.<\/p>\n

Di Modica, K. 2010. Les productions lithiques du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen de Belgique: Variabilit\u00e9 des syst\u00e8mes d\u2019acquisition et des technologies en r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 une mosa\u00efque d\u2019environnements contrast\u00e9s. Phd Thesis, Li\u00e8ge University. Museum National d\u2019Histoire Naturelle, Facult\u00e9 de Philosophie et Lettres, D\u00e9partement de Pr\u00e9histoire.<\/p>\n

Farizy, C. 1995. Industries charentiennes \u00e0 influence micoquiennes, l\u2019exemple de l\u2019est de la France. In Les industries \u00e0 pointes foliac\u00e9es d\u2019Europe centrale. Actes du colloque de Miskolc (10-15 september 1991), ed. by J.-P. Rigaud and J.-J. Cleyet-Merle, pp. 173\u2013178. Pal\u00e9o suppl\u00e9ment n\u00b01.<\/p>\n

Forestier, H. 1993. Le clactonien: Mise en application d\u2019une nouvelle m\u00e9thode de d\u00e9bitage s\u2019inscrivant dans la variabilit\u00e9 des syst\u00e8mes de production lithique au Pal\u00e9olithique ancien. Pal\u00e9o 5: 53\u201382.<\/p>\n

Gou\u00e9do, J.-M. 1993. L\u2019industrie micoquienne de Vinneuf (Yonne). Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise 90-4: 295\u2013300.<\/p>\n

Gou\u00e9do, J.-M. 1999. Le technocomplexe micoquien en Europe del\u2019Ouest et centrale: exemples de trois gisements du sud-est du bassin parisien, Vinneuf et Champlost (Yonne), Verri\u00e8res-le-Buisson (Essonne). Phd Thesis, Lille 1 University.<\/p>\n

Griette, M. 2013. Nouvelles donn\u00e9es sur le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen dans la vall\u00e9e de la Moselle en aval de Metz. Le gisement de Norroy le Veneur \u201cBois de Jacquemignon.\u201d In Journ\u00e9e arch\u00e9ologique (13 october 2013), pp. 6\u20138. Verdun: ADRAL.<\/p>\n

Griette, M. 2014. Rapport de prospection th\u00e9matique sur les occupations du Pal\u00e9olithique ancien au M\u00e9solithique du bassin mosellan: Le Pal\u00e9olithique inf\u00e9rieur et moyen entre les vall\u00e9es de la Moselle et de l\u2019Orne. Inventaires des gisements, mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res et industries lithiques. Premier bilan. Rapport d\u2019activit\u00e9 2014. Metz: SRA Lorraine.<\/p>\n

Griette, M., G. Asselin, S. Goudissart, J. Detrey, and C. Pautrot. 2022. Norroy le Veneur \u201cBois Jacquemigon\u201d, un nouveau jalon KMG (Pal\u00e9olithique moyen) en Moselle? Revue Arch\u00e9ologique de l\u2018Est 71: 5\u201330.<\/p>\n

Guillaume, C. 1982. Les gisements du Pal\u00e9olithique inf\u00e9rieur et moyen de Lorraine. Bulletin de l\u2019Association fran\u00e7aise pour l\u2019\u00e9tude du quaternaire 19: 135\u2013146.<\/p>\n

Guillaume, C. 1986. Les chasseurs pal\u00e9olithiques de Lorraine. In La Lorraine d\u2019avant l\u2019Histoire. Du Pal\u00e9olithique inf\u00e9rieur au premier \u00e2ge du Fer, ed. by J.-L. Coudrot and E. Decker. pp. 47\u201367.<\/p>\n

Guillaume, C., J.-L. Coudrot, and A. Deyber. 1992. Les temps anciens: 1. De la Pierre au fer. Presses Universitaires Nancy.<\/p>\n

G\u00fcnther, K. 1964. Die altsteinzeitlichen Funde der Balver H\u00f6hle. M\u00fcnster: Bodenaltert\u00fcmer Westfalens 8.<\/p>\n

Hamon, B. 2005. Contribution \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des chailles du Muschelkalk. Secteur du Warndt et bordure occidentale. Volet I: Les gisements. Publication CPEPESC Lorraine 1st semestre.<\/p>\n

Hamon, B. 2014. Diffusion de la chaille du bajocien en Moselle pendant le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen (250 000-40 000 BP). In Etude des mat\u00e9riaux et des mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res, r\u00e9gion Lorraine \u2013 Moselle. Rapport d\u2019activit\u00e9 2013-2014. Publication SCORIES. Metz: SRA Lor-
\nraine.<\/p>\n

Jaubert, J., and V. Mourre. 1996. Coudoulous, Le Rescoundudou, Mauran: Diversit\u00e9 des mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res et variabilit\u00e9 des sch\u00e9mas de production d\u2019\u00e9clats. In Reduction Processes (\u2018cha\u00eenes op\u00e9ratoires\u2019) for the European Mousterian, ed. by A. Bietti and S. Grimaldi, pp. 313\u2013341. Rome: Istituto Italiano di paleontologia umana 1, Quaternaria Nova 6.<\/p>\n

J\u00f6ris, O. 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der sp\u00e4tmittelpal\u00e4olithischen Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpal\u00e4olithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europ\u00e4ischen Kontext. Bericht der R\u00f6misch-Germanischen Kommission 84: 49\u2013153.<\/p>\n

J\u00f6ris, O. 2006. Bifacially Backed Knives (Keilmesser) in the Central European Middle Palaeolithic. In Axe Age, Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard, ed. by N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon, pp. 287\u2013310. London: Equinox.<\/p>\n

Kegler-Graieweski, N., and A. Zimmermann. 2003. Exchange Systems of Stone Artefacts in the European Neolithic. In Production and Management of Lithic Materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. Proceeding of the 9th section of the 14th UISPP Congress, Neolithic in the Near East and Europe, Li\u00e8ge (2-8 September 2001), ed. by L. Burnez-Lamotte, pp. 31\u201335. Oxford: BAR International Series 1200.<\/p>\n

Koehler, H., S. Diemer, O. Moine, and P. Wuscher. 2020. Nouvel essai de synth\u00e8se sur le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen alsacien. Revue Arch\u00e9ologique de l\u2019Est 6: 19\u201350.<\/p>\n

Lamotte, A., G. Huguenin, and D. Simonnet. 2005. \u00c0 propos de la d\u00e9couverte de nombreux indices micoquiens \u00e0 Delain (Haute-Sa\u00f4ne, France). Notae Praehistorica 25: 9\u201315.<\/p>\n

Lamotte, A., D. Aubry, N. Debenham, P. Magniez, F. Le Men\u00e9, and F. Galtier. 2012 Le gisement pal\u00e9olithique de Pont-de-Planches (Haute-Sa\u00f4ne, France): Cadre pal\u00e9oenvironnemental et datations des occupations du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen et Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur. Quaternaire 23\/4: 291\u2013308.<\/p>\n

Le Brun-Ricalens, F., J.-G. Bordes, I. Koch, and F. Valotteau. 2012a. La station moust\u00e9rienne de plein air de Hellange \u201cBe\u2019Nert\u201d (Grand-Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg). Archaeologia Mosellana 8: 9\u201358.<\/p>\n

Le Brun-Ricalens, F., S. Rick, H.-P. Haag, and U. Vogelgesang. 2012b. La station moust\u00e9rienne de plein air de Neufechingen-\u201cAuf Wappenh\u00f6h\u201d (Sarre, Allemagne). Revue arch\u00e9ologique de l\u2019Est 61: 5\u201320.<\/p>\n

Le Brun-Ricalens, F., G. Thill-Thibold, J. Thill-Thibold, T. Rebmann, G. Cazagnol, I. Koch, V. Stead-Biver, and F. Valotteau. 2013. Lellig \u201cMierchen-Mileker\u201d (Manternach, G.-D. de Luxembourg). Une occupation moust\u00e9rienne de plein air entre S\u00fbre et Moselle. Dossiers d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie 14.<\/p>\n

Lenoir, M., and A. Turq. 1995. Recurrent Centripetal Debitage (Levallois and Discoidal): Continuity or Discontinuity. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Variability, ed. by H. L. Dibble, pp. 249\u2013255. Monographs in World Archaeology, 23. Madison: Prehistory Press.<\/p>\n

Mania, D. 1990. Auf den Spuren des Urmenschen. Die Funde von Bilzingsleben. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften GmbH.<\/p>\n

Meyer, N., F. Blaser, L. Delaunay, and L. Forelle. 2015. Sionne Les Plates Terres: Coussey et Sionne, Vosges, Launot et Longues Royes: Projet de gravi\u00e8re Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Paul Calin phase 3. Rapport d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie pr\u00e9ventive. Inrap, Metz: SRA Lorraine.<\/p>\n

Mourre, V. 1994. Les industries en quartz au Pal\u00e9olithique moyen. Approche technologique de s\u00e9ries du Sud-Ouest de la France. Master\u2019s Thesis, Paris 10 University.<\/p>\n

Mourre, V. 2003. Disco\u00efde ou pas Disco\u00efde ? R\u00e9flexions sur la pertinence des crit\u00e8res techniques d\u00e9finissant le d\u00e9bitage Disco\u00efde. In Discoid Lithic Technology – Advances and implications, ed. by M. Peresani, pp.1\u201318. Oxford: BAR International Series 1120.<\/p>\n

Mourre, V., M. Jarry, D. Colonge, and L.-A. Lelouvier. 2010 \u201cLe d\u00e9bitage sur enclume aux Bosses (Lamagdelaine, Lot, France)\u201d. Pal\u00e9o, Num\u00e9ro sp\u00e9cial 1: 49\u201362.<\/p>\n

P\u00e9legrin, J., C. Karlin, and P. Bodu. 1988. Cha\u00eenes op\u00e9ratoires: Un outil pour le pr\u00e9historien. In Technologie pr\u00e9historique, ed. by J. Tixier, pp. 55\u201362. Notes et monographies techniques 25. Paris: CNRS.<\/p>\n

Rebmann, T., F. Le Brun-Ricalens, and V. Stead-Biver. 2001. Inventaire et d\u00e9terminations pr\u00e9liminaires des mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res siliceuses des stations moust\u00e9riennes de Lellig \u201cMierchen-Mileker\u201d (Grand-Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg). Bulletin de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique luxembourgeoise 20-21, 1998-1999: 77\u2013144.<\/p>\n

R\u00e9villion, S. 1995. Technologie du d\u00e9bitage laminaire au Pal\u00e9olithique moyen en Europe septentrionale: \u00c9tat de la question. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise 92-4: 425\u2013442.<\/p>\n

Richter, J. 1997. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verst\u00e4ndnis des Micoquien. Sesselfelsgrotte III. Quart\u00e4r-Bibliothek 7. Saarbr\u00fccken: Saarbr\u00fccker Druckerei und Verlag.<\/p>\n

Richter, J. 2010. L\u2019impact environnemental sur la formation des assemblages lithiques unifaciaux et bifaciaux \u201cmicoquiens\u201d ou \u201cMMO\u201d d\u2019Europe central. In Transitions, ruptures et continuit\u00e9 en Pr\u00e9histoire, Actes du 27\u00e8me congr\u00e8s pr\u00e9historique de France, Bordeaux-Les Eyzies, (2010 may 31 \u2013 june 5), ed. by J. Jaubert, N. Fourment, and P. Depaepe, pp. 195\u2013205. Vol. 2. Paris: Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Pr\u00e9historique Fran\u00e7aise.<\/p>\n

Ringenbach, J.-Y. 2017. Fiche de d\u00e9couverte d\u2019un racloir bifacial convergent \u00e0 Havange \u201cPlat Cul\u201d (57). Rapport de prospection p\u00e9destre. Metz: SRA Lorraine.<\/p>\n

Roger, J. 2007. Carte g\u00e9ologique harmonis\u00e9e du D\u00e9partement de la Moselle. Geological Report. BRGM\/RP-55492-FR.<\/p>\n

Ruebens, K., and K. Di Modica. 2011. Les productions bifaciales du Pal\u00e9olithique moyen sur leterritoire belge. Pr\u00e9sentation d\u2019industries entre deux mondes. In Le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen en Belgique. M\u00e9langes pour Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ed. by M. Toussaint, K. Di Modica, and S. Pirson, pp.75\u2013104. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 royale belge d\u2019\u00e9tudes g\u00e9ologiques et arch\u00e9ologiques. Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie (ASBL), Hors-s\u00e9rie 4, ERAUL 128.<\/p>\n

Slimak, L. 2003. Les d\u00e9bitages disco\u00efdes moust\u00e9riens: \u00e9valuation d\u2019un concept technologique. In Discoid Lithic Technology – Advances and Implications, ed. by M. Peresani, pp.33\u201365. Oxford: BAR International Series 1120.<\/p>\n

Soressi, M. 2002. Le Moust\u00e9rien de tradition acheul\u00e9enne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faci\u00e8s \u00e0 partir de l\u2019\u00e9tude compar\u00e9e de quatre sites: Pech-de-l\u2019Az\u00e9 I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Phd Thesis, Bordeaux 1 University.<\/p>\n

Soriano, S. 2015. 5. Le peuplement de la Bourgogne au Pal\u00e9olithique moyen: Les industries lithiques \u00e0 t\u00e9moin. In La Pr\u00e9histoire en Bourgogne: \u00e9tat des connaissances et bilan 1994-2005, ed. by R. Martineau, Y. Pautrat, and O. Lemercier. Revue Arch\u00e9ologique de l\u2019Est suppl\u00e9ment 39.<\/p>\n

Tavoso, A. 1978. Le Pal\u00e9olithique inf\u00e9rieur et moyen du Haut-Languedoc. Gisements des terrasses alluviales du Tarn, du Dadou, de l’Agout, du Sor et du Fresquel. Universit\u00e9 de Provence, \u00c9tudes Quaternaires 5.<\/p>\n

Thi\u00e9baut, C. 2013. Discoid Debitage Stricto Sensu: A Method Adapted to Highly Mobile Middle Palaeolithic Groups? P@lethnology 2013: 4\u201320.<\/p>\n

Tixier, J., and A.Turq. 1999. Kombewa et alii. Pal\u00e9o 11: 135\u2013143.<\/p>\n

Tuffreau, A. 2010. L\u2019Acheul\u00e9en. In La France pr\u00e9historique. Un essai d\u2019histoire, ed. by Clottes, J. pp. 42\u201363. Paris: Gallimard.<\/p>\n

Turq, A. 1979. L\u2019\u00e9volution du Moust\u00e9rien de type Quina au Roc de Marsal et en P\u00e9rigord: modification de l\u2019\u00e9quilibre technique et typologique. Toulouse: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en sciences sociales.<\/p>\n

Ulrix-Closset, M. 1975. Le Pal\u00e9olithique moyen dans le Bassin mosan en Belgique. Biblioth\u00e8que de la Facult\u00e9 de Philosophie et Lettres de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Li\u00e8ge, publications exceptionnelles, 3, Wetteren, Universa.<\/p>\n

Vermard, L., P. Pernot, V. Blouet, and V. Ollive. 2010. Verdun (Meuse), H\u00f4pital Desandrouins: D\u00e9couverte d\u2019un gisement alluvial de silex exploit\u00e9 au Pal\u00e9olithique sup\u00e9rieur. Rapport d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie pr\u00e9ventive. Inrap, Metz: SRA Lorraine.<\/p>\n

Wetzel, R., and G. Bosinski. 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal. Ver\u00f6ffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amtes f\u00fcr Denkmalpflege Stuttgart A15. Stuttgart: Verlag M\u00fcller und Gr\u00e4ff.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\nDie Untersuchung dreier sich aus bifazialen St\u00fccken und Levallois-Abschl\u00e4gen zusammensetzenden Lesefund-Serien, die aus weit voneinander entfernten geografischen R\u00e4umen in Lothringen stammen, hat die Identifizierung der ersten Keilmesser in der Region Grand-Est erm\u00f6glicht.\n<\/div>\n
Weiterlesen\u2026<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[303,305,398],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-englisch","category-open-access-artikel","category-rhine-during-middle-paleolithic-de","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2712"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2712\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3307,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2712\/revisions\/3307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}