the ‘palaeolithic prospection in the inde valley’ project...the ‘palaeolithic prospection in...
TRANSCRIPT
66 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
E&G Quaternary Science Journal Volume 60 / Number 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04
www.quaternary-science.net
GEOZON SCIENCE MEDIA
ISSN 0424-7116
The ‘Palaeolithic Prospection in the Inde Valley’ Project
Alfred F. Pawlik, Jürgen Thissen
Abstract: Theexcavationof20deep test trenchesofPleistocene layers in thequarry IndenbetweenJülich-KirchbergandLamersdorf in2005and2006waspartof the‘PalaeolithicProspection in the IndeValley’Projectof theFoundation“StiftungArchäologie imRheinischenBraunkohlenrevier”.Theywereaimedatfindingandunearthingancient landscape surfacesandpotentialPalaeo-lithicsettlementstructures.InDecember2005,aMiddlePalaeolithicarchaeological layercorrelatingtotheEemianinterglacialwasdiscovered.This layerwas investigated and excavateduntil September 2006within an areaof 3000sqm.About 700 lithicartefactsandpebblemanuportswerefoundtogetherwithevidentfeaturesofpitsandhearths.Threefallen-treestructuresweresituatedinthecenterofthemajorconcentrationofartefactsandwereprobablypartofthehabitation.
The discovered artefacts showed no signs of re-deposition or secondary transport and still maintained their original surfacestructureandsharpedgewithnoorminorpatination.Theywereverysuitableforthesuccessivemicroscopicuse-wearanalysiswhichdeliveredavarietyofremarkableandoutstandingresults.Variousmicroweartracesandresidueswerefoundonatotalof120stonetoolsoutof136artefactsselectedforanalysis.TheresidueswereidentifiedthroughSEMandEDXasbirchpitch.82toolswereeitherusedashaftedimplimentsandfixedwithbirchpitchontoshaftsorwerebeingusedforsuccessivehafting-and-retoolingactivities.Birchpitchistheoldestsyntheticallyproducedmaterialandiscommonlyassociatedwithmodernhumansin the Upper Palaeolithic. The birch pitch residues found on the Micoquien tools of Inden suggest that hafting technologies,useofadhesivesandmulticomponenttoolmakingalreadyexistedintheMiddlePalaeolithic.Thecomplexactionsinvolvedincomposite-toolmakingindicateclearlymodernhumanbehaviour.
(Prospektion Paläolithikum im Indetal)
Kurzfassung: Im Rahmen des Projektes „Prospektion Paläolithikum im Indetal“ der Stiftung Archäologie im Rheinischen BraunkohlenrevierwurdenindenJahren2005und2006imTagebauIndenzwischenJülich-KirchbergundLamersdorfdiepleistozänenDeckschich-ten mittels 20 Baggertiefschnitten sondiert. Ziel war es, fossile Landoberflächen und mögliche paläolithische Siedlungsplätzezu finden und freizulegen. Im Dezember 2005 konnte in der Ortslage Inden-Altdorf eine mittelpaläolithische Fundschicht ausdemEem-Interglazial entdecktwerden,diebisSeptember2006aufeinerFlächevon3000m²archäologischuntersuchtwerdenkonnte. Es fanden sich 700 Steinartefakte und herbeigebrachte Gerölle, aber auch evidente Grubenbefunde und Feuerstellen.DreiBaumwürfelagenmitteninderHauptartefaktkonzentrationundwarenwohlindasSiedlungsgescheheneingebunden.DieArtefaktoberflächen waren kantenscharf und nicht patiniert, so dass die durchgeführten Gebrauchsspurenanalysen außerge-wöhnlich erfolgreich waren. Auf 120 der insgesamt 136 für die Gebrauchsspurenanalyse ausgewählten Artefakte fanden sichMikrospuren verschiedenartigerTätigkeiten sowie Residuen. Diese konnten mittels Rasterelektronenmikroskopie und energie-dispersiver Röntgenmikroanalyse als Reste von Birkenrindenpech identifiziert werden. 82 Geräte mit Residuen erwiesen sichentwederalsgeschäfteteEinsätze,diemitdiesemPechandenSchäftenbefestigtwurdenoderalsWerkzeugefürdieReparaturvon gebrauchten und mit Pech verklebten Schäftungen, und dem Auswechseln verbrauchter Feuersteineinsätze dienten. Bir-kenrindenpechkannalsältester synthetischhergestellterWerkstoffangesehenwerdenundwird inderRegelmitdemJungpa-läolithikum undmodernenMenschenassoziiert.Die auf denMicoquienArtefakten aus IndenvorgefundenenBirkenpechrestezeigen,daßsowohlSchäftungstechnologien,GebrauchundHerstellungvonKlebstoffalsauchdieAnfertigungvonkomplexen,aus mehreren Komponenten bestehendenGeräten im Mittelpaläolithikum durchaus üblich waren. DerenVorhandensein, nochdazu ineinervergleichsweisehohenAnzahl,kannalsdeutlicherHinweisaufmodernemenschlicheVerhaltensweisengewertetwerden.
Keywords: Micoquian, Eemian, habitation features, microwear analysis, hafting, birch pitch residues, behavioural modernity
Addresses of authors:A. F. Pawlik, University of the Philippines, Archaeological Studies Program, Lithic Studies Laboratory, Palma Hall, Diliman,QuezonCity1101,Philippines.E-Mail:[email protected]; J. Thissen,AmtfürBodendenkmalpflegeimRheinland(ABR),Aus-senstelleTitz,Ehrenstr.14–16,52445Titz-HöllenandUniversitätBonn,InstitutfürVor-undFrühgeschichtlicheArchäologie,Regi-na-Pacis-Weg7,53113Bonn(Germany)
1 Introduction
A sharp-edged, blue-and-white patinated middle palaeo-lithic handaxe found at the open-cast lignite mine Inden(intheareaofGeuenich)urgedoneoftheauthors(JTh)inJuly2004toinspectthislocality(Päffgen&Thissen2005).ThehandaxederivedfromaloesshorizoncorrelatingtotheWeichselianperiodunderwhichafossilsoillayermostlikelycorrelatingtotheEemianperiod(OIS5e128.000–115.000BP)waslocalized.AnearlyPleistoceneMaasterraceiscropping
outbetweentheIndeandWurmvalley,carryinglargequan-tities of flint pebbles from the Dutch-Belgian“Kreideflint”region.WheretheMaasterracewasexposedonthesurfaceduringthePleistocene,Palaeolithicflint-knapperhadanat-tractiveandunlimitedsupplyofrawmaterial.
Severalhand-axesandhalf-finishedproductswerefound,mainlybyF.Schmidt(Aldenhoven),whoisfield-walkinginthisareasincethemid1970s.Thisopensite,closelylocatedto the Maas terrace, was identified as a workshop (“Atel-ier”)of theMicoquienperiod(Thissen2006).Thispromis-
67E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
ing topographical situation, which archaeologically seemstoindicateafavouredarea,ledtotheproposalofasurveyproject totheFoundation “zur Förderung der Archäolo-gie im Rheinischen Braunkohlenrevier” thatwas grantedinMarch2005.Thegrantincludedthecomprehensivelithicanalysisofthearchaeologicalfinds.Additionaltothemor-phologicalandtechnologicalassessmentofthelithicmate-rials, microscopic use-wear and residue analysis was con-ducted.InapioneeringstudyfortheMiddlePalaeolithicoftheregion,allmodifiedtoolsandselectedunmodifiedpiecesunderwentopticalhighand lowpoweranalysisaswellasresidueanalysisusingscanningelectronmicroscopyanden-ergy-dispersiveX-raymicroprobing.
2 Palaeolithic Prospection in the Inde Valley
2.1 Test excavations at Inden and Altdorf 2005
Several previous surveys of the embankment of the min-ing areas of Garzweiler and Inden were conducted to lo-cateMiddleorUpperPalaeolithicsettlementsbutremainedrather unsuccessful. In 1987 the Mesolithic site Bedburg-Königshoven was found at the Garzweiler mine (Thissen1997),afteraskullandantlerofdeerwerediscoveredinthewalloftheopencastpit.Thearchaeologicallayerwasclosetothesurfacebelowaturflayerinasilted-upmeanderoftheErftriver.
Accordingtoexperience,sitesinloessdepositsorinfos-silsoilsareonlyfoundbywidespreadinvestigationsofthePleistocenelandscape.Hence,theIndeValleyProject(Fig.1)wasexplicitelydesignedtorevealpalaeosurfaceswithheavy
equipment, specifically where the characteristic “Eemiansoil”indicatedanactualfossilsurface.
Amechanicalexcavatorsetupaseriesofdeeptesttrench-es,firstaroundtheareaofIndenin2005onthewestbankoftheriver(WW2005/51)thatwasunderthreatbytheongo-ingandapproachingminingactivities.Thesetrencheswereapp.2.5to4.5metreswide,upto4–6metresdeepandupto75metres long. InAugustandNovember2005sevendeeptesttrenches(DT)wereopenedthere,revealingtheWeichse-lianloessandpossibleEemianlayers.
In the trenches nos. 1 to 5, 14 and 15 (see Fig. 2a andTable 1) different stratified sequences were documented.Coincidentally, the Roman Inde valley road from the Au-gustian period was discovered in the extension ofTrench1.ThePleistocenesedimentsinthetrenchesnos.1,2,4and5aregenerallywellpreserved,butneitherPalaeolithicar-tefacts nor archaeological features could be found. It wasalso not possible to locate the Eemian soil. In the floodedGo/Gr layers of the presumable Eemian period river val-leybrownpatinated siliceswere found, but all unworked.Trenchno.3revealedgravelsfromthemainterraceoftheRhine togetherwithTertiarydeposits.Trenchesno.14andno.15were situated inanerosivechannelunderneath theGeuenichhand-axesite.NoredepositedMiddlePalaeolith-ictoolswerefound.
Four other deep trenches at Altdorf (WW 2005/52) ex-cavatedtoadepthof8.4mturnedouttobemorepromis-ing.Anerodedbrownishredsoil,mostlikelyEemiansedi-ments,and thefirst redepositedartefactsofUpperPalaeo-lithicaswellasMiddlePalaeolithicagewerediscovered.
2.2 Discovery of the Eemian artefact layer
Following the discovery of Eemian soils and nearby old,brownpatinated lithicartefactsatAltdorf,a (last) testex-cavation(WW2005/91)forthissurveyprojectwascarriedout.
InOctober2005,thefirstEemiansoilinsituwasobservedinTrenchno.11.InTrenchno.12,openedattheformercornerofAltdorf’sGartenstrasseandChlodwigstrasse,anEemianBthorizonandtheMaasterracesedimentswerefinallylo-catedindirectcontact.Thiswasthesought-after,potentiallyidealpositionforasettlementofPalaeolithicgroupsduringthe Eemian-Interglacial. There, the Maas gravels were ex-posedbyerosionformingachannelinnorth-easterndirec-tion(“AltdorferTälchen”)intotheIndevalley.Trenchno.13,excavatedinDecember2005deliveredthefirstarchaeologi-calevidence:inaslightlyre-depositedAl-horizonthreenon-patinatedMiddlePalaeolithic artefactsmadeofMaasflintwereuncoveredunderneathaloessdepositofthreemetresthickness (Fig. 3).Basedon thispromising result, the IndeValleyProjectcouldbeextendedforonemoreyeartothor-oughlystudythenewsite.
2.3 Excavation of the Middle Palaeolithic open site Altdorf (WW 124)
In2006theresearchactivitiesfocussedonWW2005/91andWW 2006/74. Systematic probing of the area around theMiddlePalaeolithicfindsatAltdorfstartedinthebeginningofJanuary2006.Initially,theexcavationwasdoneconven-
Fig. 1: Map of Germany with the location of the site Inden-Altdorf.
Abb. 1: Deutschlandkarte mit der Lage des Fundplatzes Inden-Altdorf.
68 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Dee
p tr
ench
(Fea
ture
)m
ASL
Ah/A
pBt
Sedi
men
ts (1
)Se
dim
ents
(2)
Sedi
men
ts (3
)Se
dim
ents
(4)
Inde
n
1 (2
u. 6
)10
7.73
xRo
man
dis
turb
ance
unt
il 1.
6 m
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 4
mGo
/Gr (
Eem
ian)
unt
il 4.
5 m
Saal
ian
grav
el u
ntil
4.6
m –
B
2 (8
)10
7.76
xx
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 4
mGo
/Gr (
Eem
ian)
unt
il 4.
5 m
Saa
lian
grav
el u
ntil
4.6
m –
B
3 (9
)10
7.09
xRh
ein-
HT
until
1.5
mTe
rtiä
r unt
il 4.
5 m
– B
4 (1
0)10
7.15
xx
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 3
.8 m
Go/G
r (Ee
mia
n) u
ntil
4.5
mSa
alia
n gr
avel
unt
il 4.
6 m
– B
5 (1
1)10
8.25
xx
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 3
.8 m
Go/G
r (Ee
mia
n) u
ntil
4.5
mSa
alia
n gr
avel
unt
il 4.
6 m
– B
14 (1
2)10
4.17
Collu
vium
Allu
vial
loes
s un
til 3
m –
B
15 (2
4)10
4.56
Collu
vium
Allu
vial
loes
s un
til 3
m –
B
Altd
orf
6 (1
4)10
9.53
Hol
ocen
e di
stur
banc
e un
til 0
.8 m
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 1
.6 m
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s, s
and
and
disl
ocat
ed (?
) Ee
mia
n Bt
unt
il 5.
9 m
Sand
and
gra
vel u
ntil
6.1
m –
B
7 (1
5)11
0.27
xCo
lluvi
umW
eich
selia
n lo
ess
and
sand
unt
il 5.
3 m
Dis
loca
ted
(?) E
emia
n-Bt
unt
il 6.
0 m
Saal
ian
loes
s un
til 6
.4 m
– B
8 (1
6)Co
lluvi
um u
ntil
2.5
m –
B
9 (1
7)11
5.22
xx
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s, g
rave
l and
san
d un
til 2
.7 m
Dis
loca
ted
(?) E
emia
n-Bt
unt
il 3.
5 m
Saal
ian
grav
el u
ntil
3.75
m –
B
10 (1
9)10
7.13
Collu
vium
, rom
an S
tree
t, at
lant
ic
soil
until
2.8
mAl
luvi
al lo
ess
until
3 m
– B
11 (2
1)11
0.78
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 0
.9 m
Eem
ian-
Bt in
situ
unt
il 1.
8 m
Saal
ian
loes
s un
til 5
.0 m
– B
12 (2
2)11
3.50
xCo
lluvi
umW
eich
selia
n lo
ess
until
1.8
mEe
mia
n-Bt
in s
itu u
ntil
3.4
mM
aas
terr
ace
until
3.6
m –
B
13 (2
3)11
3.29
xW
eich
selia
n lo
ess
until
3 m
Dis
loca
ted
Al-h
oriz
on (E
em)
Eem
ian-
horiz
on in
situ
unt
il 4.
0 m
– B
16 (5
0)11
1.32
xx
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 5
.60
mEe
mia
n-In
terg
laci
al-C
ompl
ex, O
IS 5
a -
5e
until
7.20
mSa
alia
n lo
ess
until
8.4
m –
B
17 (3
)10
5.60
xCo
lluvi
um u
ntil
1.3
mW
eich
selia
n lo
ess
until
3.3
mW
eich
selia
n lo
ess
and
erod
ed E
emia
n so
il un
til 5
.4 m
Saal
ian
loes
s un
til 5
.6 m
– B
18 (4
)3–
4 m
undo
cum
ente
d, s
urfa
ce
profi
l sec
tion
102.
05 m
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 0
.6 m
Erod
ed A
l- a
nd B
t-ho
rizon
unt
il 1.
5 m
Go/G
r (Ee
mia
n?) u
ntil
3.15
m –
B
19 (6
)2-
3 m
un
docu
men
ted,
sur
face
pr
ofile
sec
tion
at th
e riv
er b
ank
99.3
0 m
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 0
.15
mEr
oded
Al-
and
Bt-
horiz
on, u
nder
neat
h Ee
mia
n gl
ey u
ntil
1,05
mSa
alia
n gr
avel
unt
il 1.
25 m
– B
20 (2
)10
2.05
Wei
chse
lian
loes
s un
til 3
.4 m
Gley
unt
il 3.
6 m
Saal
ian
grav
el u
ntil
4.0
m –
B
(– B
: Tre
nch b
ottom
)
Tab.
1: P
alae
olith
ic P
rosp
ectio
n in
the
Inde
Val
ley,
dee
p tr
ench
es 1
–20.
Tab.
1: P
rosp
ektio
n Pa
läol
ithik
um im
Inde
tal,
Bag
gert
iefs
chni
tte 1
–20.
69E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 2: The position of the trial trenches, sondages and profile sections in a) Inden, b) Altdorf.
Abb. 2: Lage der Baggertiefschnitte, Sondagen und Profilabschnitte in a) Inden, b) Altdorf.
tionallyin1x1munitsusingspadesandtrowels.Allartefactsrecovered insituwere3-Dmeasuredanddocumented.Theexcavated sediments were then sieved. However, only 12smallandunmodifiedartefactswerefoundintheinvestigat-edareaof50squaremetres(Fig.4,Feature23)byateamof2to3excavatorsoveraperiodof12weeks.Thiswasfaroff
theaimoftheprojecttolocalisetheMiddlePalaeolithicsites.Therefore,itbecamenecessarytoadoptmethodsthatcouldhandleexcessiveamountsofsediments.TheEemianhorizoncouldbecarefullymachine-excavatedusingabackhoe.Theeasternslopeseemedtobesuitableforasettlementplace,duetoawiderviewoverthevalleyandtheproximityoftheriver.
70 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 3: Three flakes from the excavation WW 2005/91.
Abb. 3: Drei Abschläge von der Ausgrabung WW 20095/91.
Fig. 4: General plan of the excavation WW 124 (Altdorf) with the activities WW 2005/91 and WW 2006/74 and the most important finds & features. Key: Excavation area (beige), Artefacts & stones (black dots), Pits (brown), fireplaces (red), concentration of artefacts in the camp (light grey) and Huts/Shelters (light blue).
Abb. 4: Gesamtplan der Ausgrabung WW 124 (Altdorf) mit den Aktivitäten WW 2005/91 und WW 2006/74, und die wichtigsten Funde und Befunde. Le-gende: Grabungsbereiche (beige), Artefakte und Gerölle (schwarze Punkte), Gruben (braun), Brand- u. Feuerstellen (rot), Artefaktkonzentration im Camp (hellgrau) und Hütten/Shelter (hellblau).
InMarch2006,theexcavationofTrenchno.16startedtoin-vestigatetheeasternslope(Fig.4,Feature50).Geologyandstratigraphy of this area were documented in the steppedprofileofFeature70(Fig.5).Furthersoilsamplesandalac-querprofile sectionwere taken from the southernedgeoftheslope(Fig.4and6;Feature125,seeKelsetal.2009).
Only few lithicartefactswere foundwithinFeature50,therefore the trench was extended to the south. Here, thearchaeologicallayerwasunderneathabout6metresofloess.There a first fireplace was discovered (Fig. 4, Feature 65)
whereastheAl-horizonwassittingdirectlyuponaBthori-zon,bothcorrelatingwiththeEemian.Thecharacterofthisfeaturewasnotfullyunderstood,then,alsobecausetheAl-horizionoftheupperslopeshowedlargesectionsofcharcoalspecks. The possibility of forest fires causing the presenceof charcoal rather than anthropogenic activities had to beconsidered.However,attheendofAprilasecondfireplacewasuncovered(seeFeature90),andasignificantconcentra-tionofartefactscameupwithinalongexcavationtrenchinsoutherndirectionbytheendofJuly(seeFeature180).
At the same time, the first evidence of pits being fea-tures was investigated (eg. Fig. 4, Feature 200). They ap-peared as lighter fillings in the reddish-brown Bt-horizon.The spoilheaps were rapidly getting bigger hampering theexcavations. The prolongation of the excavation’s dura-tion permitted the enlargement of the excavated area andthe transferof the spoil to reachthenewareasof interest(Fig.6).
Furthermore, a larger artefact concentration was foundinsidethelastextensionofthediggingstotheeast(westofJülicherstrasse), which at last turned out to be the MiddlePalaeolithiccampwewereseekingfor.From August 10 to 31, 2006, three large round featureswere found beside each other (Feature 240, 300 and 330,Fig. 4), clearly distinguishable from the surrounding red-dish-brownsoilby their light-coloredsedimentfilling (Al-horizon), along with more fireplaces and pits. It becameevident, that these were hollow fallen-tree structures (see
71E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 5: Geological Stepped Profile Feature Nr. 70; soil samples IN 1–12: M. Kehl; IRSL samples Ind 1–9: Preliminary IRSL ages M. Frechen (drawing by M.Goerke, LVR-ABR).
Abb. 5: Geologisches Stufenprofil Stelle 70, Bodenproben IN 1–12: M. Kehl; IRSL-Proben Ind 1–9: Vorläufige IRSL-Alter M. Frechen (Profilzeichnung M. Goerke, LVR-ABR).
Probe Beschreibung
IN 1 Lösslehm, MBt, rezent verlagertIN 2 Brabant-Löss, in situIN 3 Gebleichter Löss, Eben-Zone (?)IN 4 Gebleichter Löss, Eben-Zone (?)IN 5 Weichsellöss, umgelagert, Keldach-LössIN 6 Weichsellöss, umgelagert, Keldach-LössIN 12 Kaiskorb NassbodenIN 7 Humuszone OIS 5a, in situIN 8 Bleichzone (SwAl), umgelagertIN 9 Bleichzone (SwAl+Bt), umgelagert
IN 10 Eem-Bt (SdBt), umgelagert
IN 11 Eem-Bt (SdBt2), in situ
Sample Description
IN 1 Loess loam, MBt, modern soilIN 2 Brabant-loess, in situIN 3 leached loess, Eben zone (?)IN 4 leached loess, Eben zone (?)IN 5 Weichselian loess, reworkt, Keldach-LoessIN 6 Weichselian loess, reworkt, Keldach-LoessIN 12 Loess, tundra gley paleosoil, Kaiskorb soil (?)IN 7 Loess loam, A horizon, in situ, OIS 5aIN 8 Loess loam, reworked, OIS 5IN 9 Loess loam, reworked (Bt/Eg horizon)
IN 10 Loess loam, dense Btg horizon, reworked, Eemian soil (OIS 5e)
IN 11 Eemian Bt (OIS 5e), in situ
likeunifacial knives,Kostenki- andPradnik-knives,Leval-loisflakesandcores,andalsoUpperPalaeolithicelementslikeburins,scrapers,bladesandblade-cores.Thisinventorycanbefavourablycomparedandcorrelatedwiththenear-by Eemian site Moenchengladbach-Rheindahlen, layer B1(c.125kaBP;Thissen2006).Theirwell-preservedstateandalreadymacroscopicallyvisibleusetracesmadetheAltdorfartefactsverysuitableformicrowearstudy.
3 Microscopic use-wear and residue analysis
In this study, all modified artefacts and selected non-re-touched pieces from Inden-Altdorf were subjected to highand low power microscopic use-wear analysis (Pawlik &Thissen 2008). By March 2009, 120 artefacts out of pres-ently 136 analysed were identified as used (Table 2). 144activities were recognised including scraping, cutting, en-graving, chiselling and combinations of these tasks. Fivetoolswereusedasperforatorsand15projectileimplementswereidentified.Asandstonepebblewasusedasagrinder,perhaps for smoothing a wooden shaft. The assemblagecontains threemoregrindingstonesaswellas twopoten-tial“querns”madeofsandstone.
Kooi1974),whichoriginatedfromuprootedEemiansprucetrees. These shallow rooting trees have been determinedfor thisperiodalongwithpine trees (seeU.Tegtmeier inKelsetal.2009).Pinetrees,however,havedeeprootsandcannotberesponsibletocreatesuchshallowpits.
The chronology as well as the character of the fallen-treepitswereadditionallyconfirmedbymicroscopicanal-ysis (see Kehl, Frechen &Thissen, in preparation). Thefallen-treestructuresappeartobefavorableforhabitation.Theremainingrootplatformcanbeusedasaconstructionelementbythesettlerstobuilda„fallen-treeshelter“.Thisseems evenmoreprobable, since anoval concentrationoflithic artefacts with clear boundaries appeared nearby tothecentralfeatures(Fig.4,greyarea).Itseemsreasonable,that the people of the camp specifically sought out fallentreegroupsneartotheMaasterracetobuildsimpledwell-ingswithlittleeffort.
The excavation campaign WW124 (WW2005/91 andWW2006/74)endedbySeptember2006andtheexcavationareawasdugawaybytheminingoperation.Thearchaeo-logicallyinvestigatedareaofthePalaeolithicsiteinAltdorfwasabout3000m².The lithic assemblage, about 700 unmodified artefacts, re-touched tools and cores includes typical Micoquien forms
72 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Assu
med
con
tact
mat
eria
l / F
unct
ion
Mea
t/Sk
in
proc
essi
ng,
butc
herin
g
Hid
e/Le
athe
r w
orki
ng
Woo
d /
Bone
/ An
tler
Ivor
yPl
ants
Min
eral
Birc
h ta
r pr
oduc
tion
”Haf
ting
and
Reto
olin
g”*
Mul
tiple
m
ater
ials
Hun
ting
Und
eter
m.
No
trac
esTo
tal
Proj
ectil
e im
plem
ent
15**
15
Scra
ping
, Pla
ning
117
13
17
131
Cutt
ing
310
33
120
Scra
ping
&Cu
ttin
g4
21
53
15
Othe
r co
mbi
natio
ns1
1516
Dril
ling,
pe
rfor
atin
g4
15
Goug
e, e
ngra
ving
63
11
11
Chis
el6
32
11
Grin
ding
11
“Pitc
h ca
tche
r”2
2
Und
eter
min
able
12
59
17
No
use
trac
es16
16
Tota
l3
2134
213
42
1720
1513
1616
0
* “H
aftin
g-an
d-Re
tool
ing
(afte
r K
eele
y 19
82):
Repl
acin
g w
orn
and
dam
aged
impl
emen
ts; m
aint
enan
ce a
nd r
ewor
king
of s
hafts
and
fitti
ngs
** 3
pro
ject
ile im
plem
ents
wer
e al
so u
sed
for
cutti
ng a
ctiv
ities
Activity
Tabl
e 2:
Use
-wea
r an
alys
is: R
econ
stru
cted
func
tion
and
assu
med
con
tact
mat
eria
l (13
6 an
alys
ed a
rtef
acts
).
Tabe
lle 2
: Geb
rauch
sspu
rena
naly
se: R
ekon
stru
iert
e Fu
nktio
n un
d an
geno
mm
enes
Kon
takt
mat
eria
l (13
6 un
ters
uchte
Art
efak
te).
An important role for the reconstruction of Palaeo-historic activities and technologies at Altdorf played thedetermination of residues. Besides edge damage and mi-cropolish, residues on stone tool surfaces are wear traceswhose identification can give clues to their former use.Residuesfromtheworkedmaterialsremainsometimes-al-thoughnotfrequently-onthefunctionalpartsofthetools.Approaches to the identification of blood or starch were
extensively discussed by a number of authors (Loy 1983,1991;Fullagar1998;Torrence&Barton2006).Residues not only originate from the contact or workingmaterialbutcanbetheremainsfromthetool’shaftingandhandling. Experimentally created birch pitch and archaeo-logical birch pitch samples from several European UpperPalaeolithic,MesolithicandNeolithic siteshelped to iden-tify these residues in a comparative multi-level analysis
73E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
(Pawlik 1995, 1997, 2004; Baales 2002). It combined opti-cal microscopy, SEM and energy-dispersive analysis of X-rays (EDX). The results lead to the identification of theseresiduesastheremainsofbirchpitchusedashaftingmas-tic (Rottländer 1991). More so, since archaeological evi-dence-at leastforEurope-existsonlyforadhesivesderiv-ingfrombirch(Weiner2005:20).
Birchpitchisproducedinaprocesscalleddrydistillation(Sandermann1965;Funke1969;Rottländer1991).Itusu-allyrequirestheuseofair-tightcontainersknownasretorts.Theretortisfilledwithbirchbarkrollsandsetintoacharcoalfire.Duringtheheatingprocess,thehotoxygen-freeatmos-phere inside the retort causes thebark to completely trans-formintoaliquidtar.Whilethisretortdistillationisknowntohavebeenpracticedsincethe10thcenturyAD(Weiner1988)theuseofsuchcontainerscanhardlybeconsideredforpre-historicpitchproduction.EvenfortheNeolithic,thereisare-markableabsenceofretortsoranyfragmentsofretortsinthearchaeologicalrecord(Weiner1992).Thecomparativeanalysisofarchaeologicalpitchandexper-imental replication suggested that prehistoric birch pitchcouldhavebeenmadeby turninganarrowpitwith stonecover into a“retort” (Pawlik 1995, 2004; Palmer 2007). Acigar-shapedrollofbirchbark,similartofindingsfromtheMesolithic (Kind 1997), is lighted at one end and placedwith the burning end ahead into the pit. The smoulderingbarktakesawaytheoxygeninsidethepitandwillcausethebark to“sweatout”pitchdrops.Astoneplacedat thepit’sbottom is helpful to catch the pitch. This pitch is a stickyliquidwhilehotandcanbeappliedimmediately.
Suchresidueswereobservedon82artefacts,onprojectilepointsaswellasworkingtools.Theyappearasblackishdropsandstreaksofresin-typematerialonthebasalarea,e.g.onaunifacialpoint(Fig.7a)orinsomecasescompletelycovertheformerhaftedarealikeonalaterallyhaftedblade(no.455-1;
Fig. 7: a) unifacial point no. 279-4, b) triangular pointed flake no. 470-1, c) pointed flake no. 467-1, d) unilaterally hafted blade 455-1, e) scraper no. 291-1, f) sandstone pebble covered with pitch no. 261-3. Presumed hafted areas are shaded; areas where microphotographs were taken are circled.
Abb. 7: a) Unifaziale Spitze Nr. 279-4, b) dreieckiger, spitz zulaufender Abschlag Nr. 470-1, c) spitz zulaufender Abschlag Nr. 467-1, d) unilateral geschäftete Klinge Nr. 455-1, e) Schaber Nr. 291-1, f) mit Birkenpech be-decktes Sandsteingeröll Nr. 261-3. Mutmaßliche Schäftungsbereiche sind schattiert; photographierte Bereiche sind umrandet.
Fig. 6: The excavation in Altdorf during July 2006. To the right of the profile the colleagues M. Frechen, M. Kehl and M. Goerke, and by the mechanical excava-tor W. Schürmann.
Abb. 6: Die Ausgrabung in Altdorf im Juli 2006. Rechts am Profil die Kollegen M. Frechen, M. Kehl und M. Goerke, und am Hydraulikbagger W. Schürmann.
74 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 8: a) Birch pitch residues on the bulb of no. 467-1, b) residues on the striking platform of no. 467-1, c) Birch pitch covering the lateral edge of no. 455-1, d) pitch residues associated with hafting wear on no. 470-1, e) residues associated with hafting micropolish on a unifacial point no. 279-4, f) resi-dues and hafting micropolish on a Kostenki-knife fragment no 202-1, g) birch pitch filled hairline fissures on the surface of scraper no. 291-1, h) birch pitch cover on a flat sandstone pebble no. 261-3.
Abb. 8: a) Birkenpechresiduen auf dem Bulbus von Nr. 467-1, b) Residuen auf dem Schlagflächenrest von Nr. 467-1, c) mit Birkenpech bedeckte Lateral-kante von Nr. 455-1, d) Gemeinsam mit Schäftungsgebrauchspuren auftretende Pechresiduen an Nr. 470-1, e) Residuen und Schäftungspolituren auf der unifaziellen Spitze Nr. 279-4, f) Residuen und Schäftungspolituren auf dem Fragment eines Kostenkimessers Nr. 202-1, g) In Haarrisse eingeflossenes Birkenpech auf der Oberfläche des Schabers Nr. 291-1, h) Mit Birkenpech bedecktes flaches Sandsteingeröll Nr. 261-3.
75E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 9: a, b) SEM image of residues with molten plant tissue frazzles and fibres embedded in an amorphous matrix of solidified pitch on no. 470-1, c) sedi-ment particles in a small clot of solidified pitch on no. 467-1, d and e) EDX analysis of residues from no. 470-1, f) EDX histogram of birch pitch residues from Burgäschisee-Süd, g) EDX histogram of birch pitch residues from Henauhof-Nord II, h) EDX histogram of experimental birch pitch.
Abb. 9: a, b) Rasterelktronmikroskopische Aufnahme der Residuen mit in eine amorphe Matrix aus Pech eingebetteten, angeschmolzenen Pflanzenfasern und -geweberesten auf Nr. 470-1, c) an einem erstarrten Pechklümpchen anhaftende Sedimentpartikel an Nr. 467-1, d , e) EDX-Analyse der Residuen auf Nr. 470-1, f) EDX-Histogramm von Birkenpechresten aus Burgäschisee-Süd, g) EDX-Histogramm von Birkenpechresiduen aus Henauhof-Nord II, h) EDX-Histogramm von experimentell hergestelltem Birkenrindenpech.
76 E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig.7d).Onartefactsidentifiedasprojectileimplements,e.g.apointedandtriangularshapedflake(no.470-1,Fig.7b),andabladewithtransversetermination(no.467-1,Fig.7c),resi-duesoccurmainlyontheirproximalpartsincludingtheplat-formremnant.Theyappearunderthestereo-microscopeasadriedbrownishblackviscousliquid(Fig.8a-c).Theresiduesareoftenassociatedwithhaftingmicropolishes(Pawlik2004)causedbyminormovementsoftheshaft(Fig.8d–f).Theliq-uidstateofthepitchduringitsapplicationissubstantiatedbyanobservationonascraper(no.291-1,Fig.7e):Here,thema-terialfilledhairlinefissuresintheflintsurfacebeforeitsolidi-fied(Fig.8g).Aflatsandstonepebble(261-3,Fig.7f)isalmostcompletely covered with residues (Fig. 8h) to a maximumthicknessofapproximately100µmsuggestingapotentialusetocatchthehotliquidpitchinsidethepit(Palmer2007).The residues then underwent closer inspection under ascanning electron microscope LEO 1450-VP, Everhart-Thornley SE-Detector and 4-Quadrant BSE-Detector inconnection with an EDX-system OXFORD INCA Energy200PremiumSi(Li)SATW-Detector.TheSEMshowedlay-ers of molten plant tissue frazzles and fibres in an amor-phousmatrixof solidifiedpitch, thus indicating theoriginof the residues (Fig. 9a, b), and embedded sedimentparti-cles in thestickypitch(Fig.9c).Thepresenceofunalteredprimaryplantmatterwithintheamorphousmatrixwasaswella typical featureofexperimentalpitchand theafore-mentionedsamplesfromMesolithicandNeolithiccontexts(Pawlik1995:209–211).FollowingtheSEManalysis,Energy-dispersiveX-rayanaly-siswasundertakentodetecttheelementarycompositionoftheresidues.Thespectrumofelementsacquiredfromsever-alresiduesamplesshowsasignificantpeakforcarbon,veri-fyingtheorganicnatureofthesamples(Fig.9d,e).Varioussubsequentelementsweredetected:Potassium(K),Calcium(Ca),Sulphur(S)aswellasIron(Fe),Manganese(Mn),Alu-minium (Al), Sodium (Na) and Magnesium (Mg). The lat-terelementsverylikelyoriginatefromthesediment.Moresignificant is thepresenceofCa,KandS.Their tracesareshowninconsiderablequantitiesaswellintheEDX-histo-gramsofMesolithicandNeolithicbirchpitch(Fig.9f,g).Al-soexperimentallycreatedpitchindicatedthepresenceofCaandK(Fig.9h),presumablyoriginatingfromtheexposuretofireandashduringprocessinganduse(Pawlik1995:197).
4 Discussion and Conclusion
Modern behavioural patterns and evidence for masteringcomplextechnologieshavebeenrecognizedatac.120kaoldsiteinwesternGermany.Inamulti-levelmicro-wearanal-ysis,residuesonstonetoolsfromInden-Altdorfhavebeenidentified as a pitch produced by the distillation of birchbark.BirchpitchistheoldestknownsyntheticmaterialandwasusedinPrehistoricEuropeasanadhesivetofixstonetools on wooden shafts (Weiner 2005). This kind of com-posite or multicomponent tool making requires planningandtheexecutionofcomplexsequencesofactionandisre-gardedasindicatorformodernhumanbehaviour(Ambrose2010).ItwasuntilnowcommonlyassociatedwithmodernHomo sapiens of the last glacialperiodand theHolocene.ThepitchresiduesfoundontheMicoquientoolsfromInden-Altdorfpredatethisbyfar.TheuseofbirchpitchintheMid-
dlePalaeolithicisfurthermoresupportedfromanotherMi-coquiensiteatKönigsaue(Mania&Toepfer1973;Kolleretal.2001;Grünberg2002).However,onlyatAltdorfap-pearedformerlyhaftedtoolsinhighernumbersandassco-ciated with settlements structures within a stratigraphicalsecuredcontext.
This analysis delivered direct evidence that Micoquienlithic technology featured the use of stone tools as haftedimplementsfixedontowoodenshafts.Thehaftingtracesap-pearednotonlyonprojectilepointsbutonworkingtoolsaswell. The resemblance of their visual appearance and ele-mentaryspectrumwithmuchyoungerNeolithic,MesolithicandUpperPalaeolithic birchpitch is striking. It illustratesthatatInden-Altdorfaverysimilar,ifnotthesame,materialandmethodofpitchproductionwasalreadyinuseduringOIS5e.Anaturalformationoftheresiduescanbeexcludedduetotheirdistributiononthetools,theabsenceofBetulacharcoalatAltdorfandtheproductionmethoditself.Evidencefor theproductionofsyntheticpitchandtheuseofan innovativecomposite tool technology isstilluncom-moninthePalaeolithicrecord.ThediscoverybyBöedaetal. (1996, 2008) of processednatural bitumenon twoarte-factsfromthepenultimateMoustérienlayeratUmmelTleldemonstrated the existence of composite technology to atleast40ka to70kaBP.However, theirproximity toover-lyingTransitional and Aurignacien levels at Umm elTlelleaves open the question of which species of human wasproducingthesepieces.TheKönigsaueevidencepushestheabilitytocreatehaftingmasticbacktomorethan45kytoapp. 80 ky as well; the Inden-Altdorf evidence pushes itbackevenfurther,tothelastinterglacial.Despitethismuchgreaterantiquity,distinguishingthelikelyfabricatorasHo-mo neanderthalensisorHomo sapiens seemsproblematic.
InitialoccupationoftheLevantbyHomo sapiensiscur-rently dated to 130–100 ka BP (Grün et al. 2005). It hastended to be portrayed as an aborted settlement, withgroups either becoming extinct or being forced to re-treat intoAfricabecauseofworsening climatic conditionsc.75kaBP.Modernhumansdonotre-appearintheLevantuntilc.45kaBP(Shea2007)whentheythenmoveintotheEuropeanpeninsula.Oncurrentevidence,wealsoconsiderthe second model and that the hominids connected withthe Inden-Altdorf site were possibly early Homo sapiens(Thissen 2006: 141–171); an interpretation also suggestedbyKolleretal.(2001)fortheKönigsaueAfind.Thesedataare insupportof thepossibility thatmodernhumansmayhave penetrated deeper into the European peninsula thanpreviously thought during their first migration from Af-rica.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Foundation“zur Förderung der Archäologieim Rheinischen Braunkohlenrevier” who financed this re-search.Thankfully,wereceivedsignificantsupportfromtheDirectoroftheTitz-HöllenbranchofficeoftheArchaeologi-calServicesinRheinland(LVR-ABR),Dr.UdoGeilenbrügge,who provided the project with more staff and mechanicalaid.WethankWilhelmSchürmann,thesitesupervisorandDr.HartmutSchulz, SEMLaboratory, InstituteofGeologyandPalaeontology,UniversityofTübingenfortechnicalad-
77E&G / Vol. 60 / No. 1 / 2011 / 66–77 / DOI 10.3285/eg.60.1.04 / © Authors / Creative Commons Attribution License
vice and support, and Alan Brown B.A. (LVR – ABR) fora (first) translationofchapters 1&2.Many thanks toDr.PhilipPiper(UniversityofthePhilippines),Dr.RyanRabett(UniversityofCambridge)andDr.JohnShea(StonyBrookUniversity,NY)forcommentingonearlydraftsofthispaper.
Author contributions
J.Th. directed the excavations at Altdorf, prepared the ex-cavation report and undertook the morphological analysisofthelithicmaterials.A.P.undertooktheHighPowerandLow Power use-wear and residue analysis, SEM analysisandEDXanalysis.
5 References
Ambrose, S.H. (2010): Coevolution of Composite-Tool Technology, Con-structive Memory, and Language. Implications for the Evolution ofModernHumanBehavior.CurrentAnthropologyVol.51,Supplement1:135–147:Chicago.
Baales, M. (2002): Der spätpaläolithische Fundplatz Kettig. RGZM 51:Mainz.
Böeda,E.,Connan,J.,Dessort,D.,Muhesen,S.,Mercier,N.,Valladas,H.&Tisnérat,N. (1996):BitumenasahaftingmaterialonMiddlePal-aeolithicartefacts.Nature380,336338:London.
Boëda,E.,Bonilauri,S.,Connan,J.,Jarvie,D.,Mercier,N.,Tobey,M.,Valladas, H., al Sakhel, H. & Muhesen, S. (2008): Middle Palaeo-lithicbitumenuseatUmmelTlelaround70,000BP.Antiquity82(318):853–861:York.
Fullagar,R.(ed.)(1998):ACloserLook.RecentAustralianStudiesofStoneTools.SydneyUniversityArchaeologicalMethodsSeries6:Sydney.
Funke,H.(1969):Chemisch-analytischeUntersuchungenverschiedenerar-chäologischer Funde. Doctoral thesis, University of Hamburg: Ham-burg.
Grün,R.,Stringer,C.McDermott,F.Nathan,R.,Porat,N.,Robert-son,S.,Taylor,L.,Mortimer,G.,Eggins,S.&McCulloch,M.(2005):U-seriesandESRanalysesofbonesand teeth relating to thehumanburials fromSkhul. JournalofHumanEvolution49,316334:Elsevier,Amsterdam.
Grünberg,J.M.(2002):MiddlePalaeolithicbirch-barkpitch.Antiquity76,1516:Newbury.
Kels,H.,Kehl,M.,Lehmkuhl,F.,Tegtmeier,U.&Thissen,J.(2009):Na-turwissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzummittelpaläolithischenCampvon Inden-Altdorf. In: Kunow, J. (Hrsg.) Archäologie im Rheinland2008,36–39:Stuttgart.
Keeley,L.H.(1980):ExperimentalDeterminationofStoneToolUses.Uni-versityofChicagoPress:Chicago.
Kind,C.-J.(1997):DieletztenWildbeuter.HenauhofNordIIunddasEnd-mesolithikuminBaden-Württemberg.MaterialheftezurArchäologieinBaden-Württemberg,39:Stuttgart.
Koller,J.,Baumer,U.&Mania,D.(2001):High-TechintheMiddlePalaeo-lithic:Neanderthal-ManufacturedPitchIdentified.EuropeanJournalofArchaeology4,3,385397:Oxford.
Kooi,P.B. (1974):Deorkaanvan13November1972enhetontstanvan‘hoefeijservormige’grondsporen.Helinium14,57:Wetteren.
Loy,T.H.(1983):Prehistoricbloodresidues:detectionontoolsurfacesandtheidentificationofspeciesoforigin.Science220,126971:Washington.
Loy,T.H.(1991): Prehistoricorganicresidues:recentadvancesinidentifica-tion,datingandtheirantiquity.In:W.Wagner&E.Pernicka(eds.),Archaeometry‘90:Proceedingsofthe27thInternationalSymposiumonArchaeometry,Heidelberg,645656:Birkhäuser,Berlin.
Mania,D.&Toepfer,V.(1973):Königsaue.Gliederung,Ökologieundmit-telpaläolithischeFundederletztenEiszeit.VeröffentlichungendesLan-desmuseumsfürVorgeschichteHalle26:Berlin.
McDougal, I.,Brown,F.&Fleagle, J.F. (2005):StratigraphicplacementandageofmodernhumansfromKibish,Ethiopia.Nature433,733–736:London.
Odell, G.H. & Odell-Vereecken, F. (1980):Verifying the Reliability ofLithic UseWear Assessments by“BlindTests”: The Low Power Ap-proach.JournalofFieldArchaeology7,87—120:Boston.
Palmer,F.(2007):DieEntstehungvonBirkenpechineinerFeuerstelleunterpaläolithischenBedingungen.MitteilungenderGesellschaftfürUrge-schichte,16,75—83:Tübingen.
Pawlik,A. (1995):DiemikroskopischeAnalysevonSteingeräten.Experi-mente – Auswertungsmethoden – Artefaktanalyse. UrgeschichtlicheMaterialhefte10.ArchaeologicaVenatoria,245:Tübingen.
Pawlik,A.(1997):FunktionsanalyseanArtefaktenausHenauhofNordII.In:C.-J.Kind,DieletztenWildbeuter.HenauhofNordIIunddasEnd-mesolithikuminBaden-Württemberg.MaterialheftezurArchäologieinBaden-Württemberg,39,150178:Tübingen.
Pawlik,A. (2004): IdentificationofHaftingTracesandResiduesbyScan-ningElectronMicroscopesandEnergy-dispersiveAnalysisofX-rays.In:E.A.Walker,F.Wenban-Smith&F.Healy(eds.),Lithics inAc-tion:papersfromtheconferenceLithicStudiesintheYear2000,OxbowBooks,172183:Oxford.
Päffgen,B.&Thissen,J.(2005):DerFaustkeilvonGeuenich.In:Kunow,J.(Hrsg.)ArchäologieimRheinland2004,3738:Stuttgart.
Pawlik,A.&Thissen,J.(2008):BirkenpechgewinnungundRentierjagdimIndetal. In: Kunow, J. (Hrsg.) Archäologie im Rheinland 2007, 4144:Stuttgart.
Rottländer, R.C.A. (1991): Untersuchungen an der Kittmasse von ge-schäfteten Feuersteinklingen. In: H.T. Waterbolk & W. van Zeist(eds.), Niederwil,eineSiedlungderPfynerKultur.IVHolzartefakteundTextilien.AcademicaHelveticaI/IV,249250,Bern.
Sandermann,W.(1965):Untersuchungenvorgeschichtlicher„Gräberharze“undKitte.TechnischeBeiträgezurArchäologie2,5873:Mainz.
Shea,J.J.2007:BehavioraldifferencesbetweenMiddleandUpperPalaeo-lithicHomo sapiensintheeastMediterraneanLevant.JournalofAn-thropologicalResearch63(4),449488:NewMexico.
Thissen J. (1997): Jäger und Sammler. Paläolithikum und MesolithikumimGebietdesLinkenNiederrhein.Doctoralthesis,UniversityofCo-logne:Köln.
ThissenJ.(2006):DiepaläolithischenFreilandstationenvonRheindahlenimLösszwischenMaasundNiederrhein.In:Kunow,J.(Hrsg.)RheinischeAusgrabungen59.PhilippvonZabern,Mainz.
ThissenJ.(2007):EinCampdesMicoquienimIndetalbeiAltdorf.In:Ku-now,J.(Hrsg.)ArchäologieimRheinland2006,4245:Stuttgart.
Torrence, R. & Barton, H. (eds.), (2006): Ancient Starch Research. LeftCoastPressInc.,California:WalnutCreek.
Weiner,J.(1988):PraktischeVersuchezurHerstellungvonBirkenpech.Ar-chäologischesKorrespondenzblatt18,329–334:Mainz.
Weiner,J.(1992):WosinddieRetorten?ÜberlegungenzurHerstellungvonBirkenpech im Neolithikum. Acta praehistorica et archaeologica 23,1519:Berlin.
Weiner,J.(2005):AnotherWordonPitch.Somecommentsona“StickyIs-sue”fromOldEurope.BulletinofPrimitiveTechnology29,2027:Berlin.