Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reflections on the term Micoquian in Western and Central Europe. Change in criteria, changed deductions, change in meaning, and its significance for current research

Reflections on the term Micoquian in Western and Central Europe. Change in criteria, changed... The primary objective of this contribution is to show the intricate ways of over 100 years of research concerning the term Micoquian and its multiple shifts in meaning. A detailed analysis of the course of the research history has made it possible to identify several tendencies of shifting meaning. This concerned both its position within the chronology, its spatial extent, and decisive assemblage components. The term Micoquian has been used to describe complexes with very different characteristics. Chronologically, both assemblages dating before, during, and after the last interglacial period were referred to as Micoquian. To avoid difficulties in understanding the term, different names for the generic units of the respective assemblage units have been proposed from time to time. Due to the reflections on the research history, it is possible to investigate the question of whether and to what extent the term Micoquian should continue to be used and what significance is attached to it today, and to what extent it appears necessary to pursue other approaches to the classification of the Middle Paleolithic record. In conclusion, a multidisci- plinary approach is proposed (including lithic, faunal, radiometric, site catchment, and/or settlement dynamic analysis) to build a multifaceted framework that is able to form clusters of similarities. The formerly defined generic units (called technocomplexes, facies, groups, space–time units, and so on) are seen purely as umbrella terms to structure the Paleolithic record, without claiming to reflect the former Paleolithic reality. With the addition of a tight chronological corset, the definitions of technocomplexes (by using lithic, faunal, and possibly floral data) could allow small, manageable space–time units to be formed and then compared with one another. . . . . . Keywords Micoquien Micoquian Faustkeilschaberinventare Keilmessergruppen Micoquo-Prondnikian Bocksteinkultur Introduction spatial units in Paleolithic research and discusses the varying uses of the term in the context of over 100 years of research. This article examines the research history of the term On the whole, the majority of researchers have increasingly Micoquian. It contributes to the discussion of chronological– narrowed down the term chronologically. However, tendencies toward the use of long chronologies can also be observed oc- casionally. At times, the term Micoquian was charged with very different, incompatible meanings, which led to a parallel use This article is part of the Topical Collection on Settlement Patterns and made it difficult to give a uniform definition. The generic Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age units defined in this way are sometimes spatially or temporally separated from each other, but are nevertheless assigned the * Jens Axel Frick same term, a phenomenon that can also be observed for other jens-axel.frick@ifu.uni-tuebingen.de chrono-spatial units (e.g., the Mousterian facies of Bordes). Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Institute for Sometimes ambiguity is countered by trying to define new Pre- and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, Eberhard Karls terms for a generic unit. New definitions occasionally use University of Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, Burgsteige 11, different basic components for definition, although the same 72070 Tübingen, Germany name is used for the generic unit. The reverse case can also be Projet collectif de recherche (PCR), “Le Paléolithique supérieur observed. In contrast to biological taxonomy (e.g., McCarthy ancien en Bourgogne méridionale” associated with UMR 6298 1995), there is no recognized set of rules on the basis of which ARTeHIS at the Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France 38 Page 2 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 it is possible to provide the phenomena recognized in continue to use such a superordinate cluster, the so-called Paleolithic research with a uniform name. generic unit. The definition of the term technocomplex represents an attempt to taxonomically structure the archeological material (Clarke 1968, pp. 328–329): “These grosser entities involve Earliest definitions groups of cultures which are not related or collateral cultures but which do share polythetic complexes of type families on In the search for the origins of the term Micoquian, one comes the basis of common factors in environment, economy and across the dissertation of Hauser (1916). However, the term technology. Since it is extremely difficult to discuss an entity was already used earlier by different authors. In this early without a name let us tentatively call these gross groupings phase, the term was used primarily in direct relation to the technocomplexes.[…] The technocomplex represents the La Micoque site. First, the term was used as an adjective partly independent arrival of diverse developing culture sys- (micoquien, micoquienne) to describe corresponding phenom- tems at the same general equilibrium pattern based on a sim- ena of the La Micoque site. Convincingly, here are the classi- ilar economic strategy,in similar environments with a similar fications of bifaces, for example: technology and a similar trajectory.” (emphasis added by the author). Let us summarize this definition of technocomplexes & Peyrony (1908): pointes micoquiennes [Micoquian points] as follows: (Lithic) assemblages that share the same economic & Obermaier (1908a): Reduzierter lanzenspitzförmiger strategy, in similar environments with a similar technology Faustkeil vom Typus von La Micoque or Micoquekeil and a similar trajectory (see also Frick 2016,pp. 85–87). [Reduced lance-shaped biface of the La Micoque type or The formation of chrono-spatial units in Paleolithic re- Micoquian biface] search was and is mainly based on stone artifacts, since their & Schmidt (1912b): Langausgezogener, lanzenspitzförmiger large quantity and generally good preservation allow phenom- Fäustel vom Typus La Micoque [Long extended, lanceo- ena to be observed in space and time. With regard to the late biface of the La Micoque type] generic unit of the Micoquian, bifacial lithic objects were & Hauser (1916): Micoque-Keil-Spitze [Micoquian wedge and are mostly used as the main criterion for classification. point] In the course of the research history, it is easy to observe how the reference system, the systematic approach to these These, however, make it clear that even at the beginning of pieces, changed. At the beginning of research, individual lithic the research at this site, unusual lithic pieces (deviating from index fossils were decisive for the assignment to a generic unit the known norm) enjoyed special attention. The question of (Mortillet 1873), which could separate coarse bifaces what can be addressed as Micoquian biface will be encoun- (Acheulian) from more finely made bifaces (Mousterian). tered frequently below. The typological approach established by Bordes tried to en- Let us now return first to the site of La Micoque, discovered sure a higher objectivity by using a larger selection of pieces in 1895 and first excavated by Chauvet and Rivière in the within an assemblage. Although bifacial pieces were mea- following year (Capitan 1896a, b; Chauvet 1896; Chauvet sured here, they were still evaluated qualitatively (Bordes and Rivière 1896, 1898). Subsequently, further researchers un- 1953a, b; Bordes and Bourgon 1951). The technological lithic dertook excavations at the site (Peyrony, Coutil, Cartaillhac, investigations, which were intensified from the 1980s on- Hauser, Bordes, Laville, Rigaud, and Debénath). Rosendahl wards, provided deep insights into the production process of (2004, 2006, 2011) has summarized the extensive research his- the pieces (Tixier et al. 1980). As a result, the previously tory of the site, and therefore, it is not repeated here. determined lithic types lost their static character, since their The term Micoquien itself, for a generic unit (initially re- great mutability was shown by the extraction of reworking lated only to La Micoque) was used by Hauser years before and remolding processes. The limiting factor is that in many his dissertation: „[...] das "Micoquien", wie ich bereits 1907 cases these three approaches mix and only detailed restudies den Sondertypus der auf dieser Station gefundenen, bis jetzt show how attempts were made to classify the existing mate- von der Prähistorie dem Acheuléen (Obermaier) bzw. einem rial. Particular methodological approaches are already present- warmen Moustérien (Wiegers) zugewiesenen Artefakte ed in early work, which have become popular later on. genannt habe, eine Sonderkultur der dritten Interglazialzeit We investigate how the term Micoquian, including alterna- darstellt, [...].“ (Hauser 1915,p.443)[the “Micoquien,” as I tive terms and synonyms, was used in the course of research already called the special type of artifacts found on this station below. In order to make the shifts in meaning visible, an at- in 1907, assigned to the Acheulian (Obermaier) or to a warm tempt will then be made to analyze them over time in order to Mousterian (Wiegers) by prehistoric research until now, a spe- show the different ways in which the term has been and is used cial culture of the third interglacial period]. in research. We will also examine the question of whether, The earliest extensive descriptive and written reference to given the current state of research, it might make sense to the term for a spatial–temporal unit was most probably made Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 3 of 39 38 by Hauser (1916). However, he already used it in two ways In the 1910s already, numerous sites in France (Baudouin (Hauser 1916, p. 55). On the one hand, he used the term to 1913;Birkner 1918a;Hauser 1916; Schmidt 1911, 1912a)and describe all archeological remains found in La Micoque under Germany (Birkner 1918a;Hauser 1916;Hörmann 1916)were his direction; on the other hand, he used the term to describe assigned to the Micoquian. In the 1920s, sites were added numerous sites in Central Europe (German Micoquian). from Great Britain (Breuil 1926)and Poland (Kozłowski Chronologically, he regarded the Micoquian between the 1924) (see Fig. 1). Mousterian and the Aurignacian and justified this on the Toward the end of the 1920s, Hauser (1928) himself recorded grounds that the assemblage he regarded as Micoquian was a total of n = 116 sites throughout Europe and even in Central a mixture of Acheul-like, Moustier-like, and Aurignac-like Asia, the Middle East, and Central Africa, which he assigned to types; see also, Hauser (1916,p. 55). the Micoquian. If one compares the distribution of Micoquian This was contradicted by the assumption of H. Obermaier, sites according to Obermaier (1908a) in Western Europe and who saw the industry of La Micoque as a subgroup of the late Kozłowski (1924) in Central Europe, Hauser’s distribution map Acheulian (Obermaier 1908a, b, 1912, pp. 128–129; 1924,pp. can be regarded as vastly unrealistic (see also Fig. 2). However, 8–9). Moreover, the finds were already assigned to the this only applies if rough criteria are used for the assignment of Acheulianwithinthe firstexcavations, before Obermaier an assemblage to the Micoquian (or any other generic unit). and Hauser described them (Capitan 1896a, b). In the 1910s and early 1920s, the Micoquian was uniformly Chronologically, the Micoquian was assigned to an inter- assigned to an interglacial period, although the cultural assign- glacial, with Obermaier, Hauser, and Wiegers agreeing. ment (generic unit) sometimes differed greatly (see Fig. 3). However, the allocation to larger units was different. The use of the Micoquian biface as index fossil for the respec- Obermaier suggested an affiliation to the Acheulian tive allocation remained uniform here. (Obermaier 1908a), Hauser saw a positioning between the Mousterian and Aurignacian (Hauser 1916), and Wiegers placed the Western and Central European Micoquian in the Generic unit “warm Mousterian” defined by him (Wiegers 1920, 1928). Both Obermaier (1912, pp. 129–130) and Wiegers et al. At this point, let us briefly specify what we mean by the term (1913, p. 134) have examined the finds from La Micoque in generic unit. Since terms such as Micoquian, Mousterian, detail, but arrive at completely different conclusions, mainly Acheulian, and others (and in all their spellings) are not uni- due to their different approaches. While Obermaier emphasizes formly regarded as a term for a specific unit (in space and the Acheul character (referring to the bifacial pieces and the time), the term generic unit is used, which very generally outline of tools), Wiegers focuses on the Mousterian character implies a supposed connection within a common term. Thus, (referring to the unifacial components, the cross-section, and the generic unit is regarded as an umbrella term under which, blanks) of the finds (see also Weißmüller 1995,p.40). depending on the approach, different phenomena or charac- In this context, the fact that Hauser as a person was consid- teristics of an artifact or assemblage can be united. We see this ered controversial during his work in the Vézère valley must be as a way of dealing with the fact that very different definitions taken into account. The literature of this period includes both of the same term can be presented and examined. Thus, a defamation (Bégouën 1915a, b; Boule 1915a, 1916a, b, c;Cro- generic unit can reflect a technocomplex, a facies, a group, a Magnon 1915; Obermaier 1908b; Verneau 1915) and support space–time unit, a cultural group, a cluster of sites, etc. for the excavation work and the subsequent doctoral thesis (Bayer 1920; Birkner 1918a, b; Boule 1915b; Hörmann 1916;Mortillet 1907; Werth 1916a, b, 1919). Through this Research in the course of the 1920s fame, the concept of the Micoquian spread more and more. A total of three positions can thus be identified for the late 1910s: It already became apparent in the 1920s that the chronological position of assemblages, that were referred to as Micoquian, & The Micoquian is an independent unit, located between cannot always be clearly located in the Interglacial, even when Mousterian and Aurignacian, and is chronologically Obermaier’s industrial definitions were applied instead of assigned to an interglacial period (Hauser). Hauser’s. The best example of this is Kozłowski’s(1924) expla- & The Micoquian is part of the Acheulian, temporally be- nations of Polish sites, which were placed in the early Würm. tween the early Acheulian and the Mousterian and is chro- One could see this as the starting point where the research com- nologically assigned to an interglacial period (Obermaier). munity began to use the term Micoquian on the basis of different & The Micoquien is part of the Mousterian, temporally lo- definitions, not necessarily according to the artifact addressed, cated between the Acheulian and the cold Mousterian, and but according to the supposed chronological position. This is is chronologically assigned to an interglacial period clearly visible when the approaches of Breuil (1926, 1932a, b) (Wiegers). and Riek (1934) are juxtaposed. On the basis of Peyrony’s 38 Page 4 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 1 Cladogram of the term Micoquian and closely related terms (1908–1926). The use of the term, or related terms, is clearly visible here, either solely for the La Micoque site or with the addition of further sites (here: independent of which layers in La Micoque are called Micoquian) (1930, 1933, 1938) excavations in 1929, Breuil narrowed the The naming of independent complexes was also a contro- term Micoquien to the layer N/6 in La Micoque. He proposed versial issue in the 1920s and 1930s, with both factual a branched system of complexes that followed each other in time (Menghin 1926) and polemical national (Andree 1930)argu- or were parallel to each other, whereby the Micoquian originated ments being put forward. At the beginning of the 1930s, the from the Acheulian (the hypothesis of Obermaier) and merged term Micoquian was used for two different units. Firstly, into numerous other mousteroid industries (see Fig. 3). Breuil’s definitions were used in francophone countries, and In contrast, Riek (1934) used the term Micoquian for oc- secondly, researcher from Poland and Germany used their cupations after the Interglacial (as Kozłowski 1924 did), but own definitions. Since the Micoquian biface continued to be designated in clearly as part of the Upper Acheulian (as used as the defining element, the definitions differed mainly in Kozłowski 1924; and Obermaier 1924 did). Riek quoted the the chronological location of the assemblages. The German work of Kozłowski (in relation to the Aurignacian), but for the and Polish assemblages (early Würm), for example, were es- Micoquian he followed Obermaier’s explanations and timated to be much younger than similar sites in France (last assigned the Micoquian to the Upper Acheulian. interglacial). Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 5 of 39 38 Fig. 2 Map of sites attributed to the Micoquian: orange markings with O (1928); and red markings with Z (distribution of sites attributed to the (Unterstufe von La Micoque, lokale Fazies des jüngeren Acheuléen), Micoquian), according to Zotz (1951). Base maps from according to Obermaier (1908a), green markings with K (La TemporalMapping.org (80 m below present-day sea level) from Micoquekultur), according to Kozłowski (1924); petrol markings with GoogleEarth Pro H(Artefakt- u. Menschfundorte des Micoquien), according to Hauser Älteres (“unteres“) Acheuléen Fig. 3 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), light green (1908–1934). For an overview of the diversity of the assignment of the (Micoquian as part of the Acheulian), green gradient (Micoquian is Micoquian, the considerations of Obermaier (1908a), Schmidt (1911), Acheulian or Middle Paleolithic), dark green (Micoquian as part of the Hauser (1916), Wiegers (1920), Obermaier (1924), Kozłowski (1924), Middle Paleolithic), blue (Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic), and violet Wiegers (1928), Breuil (1932b), and Riek (1934) are outlined here. (Upper Paleolithic) 38 Page 6 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Research of the 1930s and 1940s should only be considered suitable and valid for Germany. Like Wiegers, he considered Paleolithic research to be a geo- During the 1930s and 1940s, the Micoquian became an inte- logical discipline that had to base its chronology mainly on gral part of chrono-cultural terminology and was used for geological observations. If the term culture is replaced by numerous industries in Eurasia and Africa, as the following industry in the following statement, it can be endorsed to a examples show. As with other industries, affiliation was de- large extent even today: “Es ist also nicht angängig zu sagen, termined on the basis of index fossils. For the Micoquian, the daß in einem bestimmten Zeitabschnitt nur eine ganz presence of Micoquekeile [Micoquian bifaces], and those sim- bestimmte Kultur auftreten könne oder daß alle Funde aus ilar enough, according to the researchers, to be determined as einer bestimmten Zeit zu einer einzigen Kultur gehören such, became the primary determining element. müssen.” (Andree 1939, p. 140) [Thus, it is not appropriate The first example is the Kiik-Koba site on Crimea, which to say that in a certain period of time only a certain culture was described with a La Micoque affinity from the late 1920s (industry) can appear or that all finds from a certain time must onwards due to the bifacial pieces (Bonč-Osmolovskij 1929; belong to a single culture (industry)]. Andree adopted Golomshtok 1938), but which was criticized at the same time Wiegers’ division of the generic units: Faustkeilkulturen (Zamiatnin 1929). Furthermore, the layer E in Tabun, which [Biface cultures], Breitklingenkulturen [Broad blade cultures], was called Micoquian in its first description, deserves mention and Schmalklingenkulturen [Narrow blade cultures] and (Breuil 1938;Garrodet al. 1937). Another example is rejected Menghin’s terms (Protolithic, Miolithic, and Stellenbosch in South Africa, where the upper layers were com- Neolithic), since they only represent new names for applicable paredtothe Micoquian(Grenier 1945), similar to other sites in units. Based on an index fossil approach, he suggested the Southern Africa (Breuil 1930) or the Wadi Kom Ombo in following hypothesis regarding the classification of German Egypt (Vignard 1945). In that time, it also became increasingly assemblages (Andree 1939, p. 142): hand points apparent that the term developed a life of its own, so to speak: (Handspitzen-), leaf points (Blattspitzen-), and blades cultures the meanings of what was to be understood by the term became (Klingenkulturen). more and more different. For this reason, Zamiatnin (1929,p. Broadly speaking, this approach and its terminology are 293) writes that sites from Germany, Austria, Moravia, Poland, plausible as well. At this point, however, the difficulty begins Hungary, TransylvaniaI, Crimea, and the North Caucasus are in understanding what is meant by these terms and of what part of this “culture,” whereby these sites are spread over a large types are referred to as such. According to Andree’s(1939,p. area and do not have any contemporaneity. 142) descriptions, the greatest difficulty lies with the term While industries attributed to the early Würm and showing hand point [Handspitze], because these pieces can be pro- micoquoid elements in Central Europe were referred to as duced both unifacially and bifacially and can be made from Micoquian, in Western Europe, the industries attributed to this blanks or raw pieces. In the case of very large pieces, the term unit were considered older and attributed to the Interglacial or large point [Großspitze] is used. The chronological– the period before. For example, in Germany, the post- geological framework for the hand point cultures covers the interglacial layers (layer 8, later named layer h) of period between the Günz-Mindel-Interglacial and the early Bocksteinschmiede (Wetzel 1944, p. 90; Wetzel et al. 1941), Würm and had to be seen as a step backwards even in the like the lowest layers of Vogelherd (Riek 1934), were assigned 1930s, since there already were much finer subdivisions, to the Micoquian. The important finds of Bocksteinschmiede which enjoyed a certain geochronological certainty in individ- were also acknowledged in a review by Zotz (1941), who ual cases. In order to further complicate the classifications, emphasized the micoquoid character of the finds. Andree also mentions the Western European Biface culture In addition to the common use of the established French [Faustkeilkulturen], including a larger biface and a scraper terms for generic units, which originated from the Mortillet’s from the Neanderthal (Andree 1939, p. 569). He completely school (e.g., Mortillet 1869, 1873;Mortillet 1883) and was contradicts the tripartite division of the Biface culture accord- modified and extended by numerous researchers (e.g., Breuil ing to Zotz (1939) and tries to prove that assemblages from its 1932b;Peyrony 1921), German researchers tried to introduce middle stage are actually located in the Saale (Riss) glacial, their own terms (Andree 1930, 1939;Menghin 1926, 1931; Saale-Weichsel (Riss-Würm) interglacial, and Weichsel Wiegers 1920, 1928). Some of these different approaches are (Würm) glacial (Andree 1939, p. 576). Here, the Nordic chro- illustrated (Fig. 4). nological system is chosen to structure the ice ages for the In exceptional cases, researchers went so far as to whole of Central Europe, in contrast to the system established completely reject established systems and attempted to devel- by Penck and Brückner (1909) for the Alpine region. As op independent chronological systems. Andree’s(1939)sys- Weinert (1939) pointed out, in this context, the cultural se- tem (see Fig. 4) is a good example of how approval or rejec- quence established by Mortillet is not indispensable for the tion took place within language (attitude) boundaries. Andree Central European region and the time before the Upper suggested that the units envisaged by Wiegers and Menghin Paleolithic. Even though Zotz’s temporal division is no longer Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 7 of 39 38 France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany France France Southern Germany Germany Poland Poland Poland Poland Germany Germany Germany Moustérien final Moustiergruppe (Handspitzkultur) Moustérien Mousterian Moustérien supérieur Faustkeil- (Altmühlgruppe) schaber- Faustkeil- Moustérien inventare Moustérien schaber- in Eastern inventare in Europe Moustiergruppe Moustérien Southern Eastern Micoquien (Handspitzkultur) à denticulés Oberes Acheuléen Micoquian Germany (Levalloisgruppe) final = Micoquien = Würm I MTA Weimargruppe (Handspitzkultur) (Levalloisgruppe) Western Spätacheuléen Micoquian (a part of it is the Micoquien = Riss- Micoque-Facies) Würm Obere Acheulgruppe Micoquien in Mittelacheuléen Acheuléen supérieur (Faustkeilkultur) France (Levalloisgruppe) Acheulian Untere Acheulgruppe Freiland-Acheuléen Altacheuléen Acheuléen moyen (Faustkeilkultur) Nordfrankreichs Andree (1939) Wetzel (1944) Bohmers (1944) Benet-Tygel (1944) Zotz (1951) Narr (1953) Bordes (1954) Müller-Beck (1956) Müller-Beck (1957) Fig. 4 Comparison of the chronological sequence of generic units light green (Micoquian as part of the Acheulian), green gradient proposed by various authors in the end of the 1930s to 1950s. For (Micoquian is Acheulian or Middle Paleolithic), dark green (Micoquian comparison, the approaches of Andree (1939), Wetzel (1944), Bohmers as part of the Middle Paleolithic), blue (Mousterian or Middle (1944), Zotz (1951), Narr (1953), Bordes (1954), and Müller-Beck (1956, Paleolithic), and orange (allocation according to tool types) 1957) are compared. Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), tenable today, Andree’s division of the assemblages was even Research in the 1950s more imprecise and completely contradicted the results ob- tained until then. In his presentation of the Paleolithic of Central Europe, Zotz This can also be seen in numerous reviews of his book. (1951) made reference to his teacher Obermaier and classified Grahmann (1940, pp. 188–189) writes that Andree’sclas- the Micoquian as a special form of the Upper Acheulian. The sification scheme provides developmental lines at best, but point of reference for his explanations are the artifacts ad- no chronological stages. Pittioni (1939, p. 452) also com- dressed as Micoquian bifaces, though he only describes sites ments on the different structures of the archeological ma- in Central Europe (see Fig. 2). terial and that terminological issues have always been del- McBurney (1950), who was familiar with the discussions icate, since several different names for the same object on Micoquian and Mousterian assemblages, examined the have always created confusion. McBurney (1950), too, spatial distribution of cordiform bifaces and miniature plano- spoke about the typology used by Andree (1939)and did convex points. He already noticed at this time that a dating of notfinditusefulfor comparison: “Unfortunately this last the type site (La Micoque) was not possible. However, he saw [contribution], though of crucial importance from a geo- great similarity between la Micoque and two southern German graphical point of view, is rendered a good deal less useful sites (Klausennische and Heidenschmiede), assuming that than it might otherwise have been by the author’svery both sites date back to the beginning of the last glacial, which novel typological classification.” was in line with the approaches of other authors for Bockstein, While Andree and other authors introduced terms for Vogelherd, etc. Paleolithic generic complexes, German Paleolithic researchers In France, however in the meantime, the definition coined (including Jacob-Friesen, Rust, Weinert, Wetzel, Wiegers, and by Breuil was retained for the time being. For example, Zotz) met in 1939 and agreed to continue the system intro- Blanchard (1948) continued to place the Micoquian (in his duced by Mortillet and Breuil (Zotz 1941, p. 180). This quite capacity as Acheulian VII) in the end of the Riss glacial and positive result for the retention of Mortillet’s system also man- the beginning of the last interglacial. Bordes (1954), who ifested itself in the fact that similar units were assigned the assigned numerous assemblages of the Paris Basin to the same name despite different time allocations. This problem Upper Acheulian and thus also to the Micoquian, also adhered was taken up again in the 1950s. to this concept. The connection of Upper Acheulian, Handspitzenkulturen Blattspitzenkulturen Klingenkulturen Levalloisien & Clactonien Jung-Acheuléen = Micoquien is a Früh- & Mittel-Acheuléen facies of the Jung-Acheuléen in Central Europe Moustérien Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit flachen Kernen Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Faustkeilschabern Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Blattspitzen Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Kratzern 38 Page 8 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Micoquian, and interglacial, or pre-interglacial assemblages, Research in the 1960s remained accepted academic opinion until the 1980s (Bordes 1981, 1984). From the 1960s onwards, the different use of the term But Bordes (1954, p. 440) also remarked that the sites he Micoquian manifested itself. In Western Europe, the referred to as Micoquian are very difficult to classify if bifaces Micoquian continued to be mostly assigned to the Upper are not taken into account. For Houppeville, he explained that Acheulian, the dominant element remaining the Micoquian the assemblage could be assigned to a Moustérien de tradition biface. In Central Europe, a change in the approach took place, acheuléenne de facies Levallois (like Moustier G), if these building on the work of earlier researchers (e.g., Wetzel). The various bifaces, which distinguish the assemblage as Micoquian biface increasingly lost its character as an index Micoquian, did not exist. fossil, with the Keilmesser (Prondnik, Faustkeilschaber,etc.) In some cases, even sites which do not meet the author’sown taking its place. At this time at the latest, the term Micoquian definition seem to be attributed to the Micoquian. This is clearly was used for two units, very probably separated in time and visible in a summary of the prehistory of mankind [Urgeschichte space. The result was that since then, the terms Western and der Menschheit] by Grahmann (1952, p. 260), where he writes: Eastern Micoquian have been used more and more. “Das Micoque ist immer zusammen mit der Tierwelt des letzten Interglazials vergesellschaftet.” [The Micoque is always associ- Micoquian research from Western Europe in the 1960s ated with the fauna of the last interglacial]. On the next page (but in the same paragraph), he deals with Bocksteinschmiede, Let us now first look at the research developments of the which, however, was clearly assigned to the period after the last 1960s in Western Europe. Burdo (1960), e.g., referred to interglacial (Wetzel 1935, 1944). pieces from La Cotte de-Saint-Brelade in Jersey as micoquoid. Müller-Beck (1956, 1957) already recognized this discrepan- In earlier papers, he placed the assemblage in the Mousterian cy in the definitions between Western and Central Europe, so that or Acheulian (Burdo 1951, 1956). Due to its great age, this site he described the assemblages in southern Germany, previously was later seen as evidence of a long chronology of the referred to as Micoquian, as Faustkeilschaberinventare [Hand Micoquian (Gouédo 1999) or as evidence of the repeated axe-side scraper assemblages]: “Die Faustkeilschaberinventare use (or invention) of a very specific technology (tranchet Süddeutschlands besitzen mit dem französischen Micoquien blow) (Frick et al. 2017). einen nur sehr indirekten, lockeren Zusammenhang. […]Eine At the beginning of the 1960s, Bordes (1961a)raised the etwas nähere Beziehung scheint dagegen zum späten Freiland- question of whether the MTA (Moustérien de tradition Acheuleen Nordfrankreichs (Bordes 1954), das auch mit dem acheuléenne) developed directly from the Acheulian, or anschließenden Micoquien im engeren Sinne nicht direkt whether a Micoquian was interposed, and whether the gleichgesetzt werden darf, zu bestehen. [...] Das Jungacheuleen Micoquian could also occur at the same time as the lower Nordfrankreichs ist in die letzte größere Oszillation der vorletzten MTA. At the same time, for Bordes, as also for Lumley Kaltzeit zu stellen (Bordes 1954), die Faustkeilschaber dagegen (1960), it was clear that the Micoquian must belong to the in das beginnende „Postglazial” der gleichen Periode.” (Müller- interglacial (Riss-Würm). For Daniel (1965), the Micoquian Beck 1957, p. 124). [The Hand axe-side scraper assemblages of was also a transitional industry toward the MTA. southern Germany have only a very indirect, loose connection to Through Bordes (1961b), providing a typological overview of the French Micoquian. [...] In contrast, there seems to be a some- the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the assignment of artifacts what closer relationship to the late open-air Acheulian of northern designated as Micoquian bifaces to the Upper Acheulian France […], which cannot be equated with the subsequent manifested itself and thus demonstrated the entrenchment of Micoquian in the narrower sense. [...] The Upper Acheulian of different views of what should now be addressed as northern France should be placed in the last major oscillation of Micoquian. This is also reflected in the fact that Bordes the penultimate cold period […], while the Hand axe-side (1961a) does not regard the Micoquian as part of his scrapers should be placed in the beginning “postglacial” of the Mousterian complex. Bordes (1966, p. 50) assigned La same period]. The temporal and spatial difference of these indus- Micoquetothe earlylastglacial andsaidthatthe Acheulianends tries with the same name had thus been recognized and a separate far later than previously thought: “There is perhaps place here to name was proposed for the eastern half. say some words about the date of the Micoquian at la Micoque. It From the mid-1950s onwards, Polish and German re- has been attributed to the penultimate glacial or to the last inter- searchers mostly assume that the assemblages they had agreed glacial on very flimsy evidences. Modern studies have conclu- upon as Micoquian originate from the Würmian period and sively shown that it belongs to an early moment of the last gla- should be referred to as Middle Paleolithic. The Western and ciation. So the true Acheulean ends much later than was com- Central European discrepancy in the allocation of the monly thought. But, outside of la Micoque, there are other Micoquian to the Lower or Middle Paleolithic remained large- Micoquian sites which can be older and this Late Acheulean ly unchanged from the 1950s to the 1980s (see also Fig. 4). seems to begin toward the end of the penultimate glacial.” Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 9 of 39 38 Numerous other publications from the 1960s, that dealt groups (Bockstein, Klausennische, Schambach, and with finds from Western Europe, agree that atypical bifaces, Rörshain). He saw the Micoquian as spread from southeast which can neither be assigned to the classical Acheulian nor to Europe to Western Europe and saw the oldest evidence in the MTA, are to be added to the Micoquian (e.g., Blanchard southwest France (La Micoque) and the Crimea (Kiik Koba 1963;Combier 1965;Joullié 1963; Lumley 1960). II). Furthermore, he suspected the origin of this industry in the The assemblage of the Verrières-le-Buisson site (excavated Eem interglacial (1967,p.83). between 1958 and 1967), which was later analyzed by According to Bosinski (1967), the most striking feature of Gouédo (1999), was assigned to the Micoquian, but the arti- the (Central European) Micoquian is the wechselseitig- fact names manifested the great proximity to the Acheulian, as gleichgerichtete Kantenbearbeitung [alternating unidirection- seen in the following example: bifaces micoquiens de tradi- al edge regularization, AUER], where an edge is processed tion acheuléenne [Micoquian bifaces of Acheulian tradition] unifacially over its entire length before the artifact is turned (Basse de Ménorval 1966). During the 1970s, the assemblages over so that the same edge can also be processed from the were increasingly published and assigned to the Micoquian other side. (Daniel et al. 1973;Sacchietal. 1978). Ulrix-Closset (1969– Another terminological way was chosen by Chmielewski 1970) was also able to determine that industries containing (1969, 1970, 1972, 1975), who kept the La Micoque refer- Micoquian bifaces could easily be addressed as Middle ence, but included a regional name, where three features Paleolithic if these pieces were not taken into account. This outlined the Micoquo-Prondnikian culture he referred to can be seen as one of the central observations of the 1960s and (Chmielewski 1972,p.174): “1. The production of bifacially 1970s. Even Bordes (1984) noted this in his concluding sum- retouched tools (handaxes and some scrapers) from flint nod- mary of the European material. For French research in the ules. Cores with prepared and unprepared striking platforms 1960s, the term Micoquian was only of secondary importance: for flake manufacture, mainly circular in shape, accidental it either represented a subset of the Upper Acheulian or was blades. No traces of Levalloisian technique. Large and medi- regarded as a short transition between the Acheulian and the um size of the artifacts. 2. Surfacial flat retouche covering Mousterian. Sometimes, the Micoquian was also seen as a whole or most part of the tool surfaces. 3. Side-scrapers pre- parallel development alongside the Moustérien de tradition vail over other types of tools. Numerous hand-axes and sim- acheuléenne (Giot 1962–1963). Thus, the chronological ilar bifacially retouched tools (prondniks) and scrapers. Very placement of the unit remained inconsistent. few Mousterian points. Few circular scrapers and burins, mainly made of broken tools.” He referred to sites from south- Central European Micoquian research in the 1960s ern Poland (Wylotne Cave, Ciemna Cave, Piekary I and III, Kraków Wawel) and southern Germany (Vogelherd). Using At the beginning of the 1960s, Kozłowski summarized the the stratigraphy of Ciemna cave, Chmielewski (1969) divided state of Paleolithic research in Poland and assigned the the Micoquo-Pradnikian into two parts. Ciemna 5 and Buhlen Pradnik group, as defined by Krukowski, to the Mousterian were integrated into the upper unit. The lower unit was formed (Kozłowski 1961). Sometimes, the assignment to generic by numerous assemblages (Wylotne 5, 6, 7/8; Okiennik; units was simplified by referring to an Acheulian-Micoquian Vogelherd; Piekary I and II; Hohle Stein and Ciemna 6). A (Acheulo-Micoquian, etc.), like Günther (1962) or Krüger cladogram of the assemblage cluster term Micoquian for the (1964–1965). The former considered the Micoquian as inde- 1960s is depicted in Fig. 5. pendent and the latter assigned it to the Upper Acheulian. The French Micoquian was regarded by Müller-Beck In the course of the 1960s, assemblages with asymmetrical (1966, p. 1209, note 32) as part of the Micoquoid complexes: bifaces, Keilmesser, Faustkeilschaber, Prondniks, etc., were “The term “Micoquoid” is used here only to indicate the par- classified in a variety of ways. The term Micoquian was used tial relationship with the Micoquian in Western Europe, which for assemblages of the Würm glacial (Bosinski 1967;Günther is a late stage of the hand-ax traditions there. In reality the 1964). Bosinski (1967, 1970) even made a special reference to Micoquian of France is itself just one facie; among the the finds from La Micoque N/6. Günther (1964)also sees a Micoquoid complexes.” (see Fig. 6). clear connection to La Micoque for his finds from Balve, the In his revision of the prehistory of mankind [Urgeschichte connecting elements are to him being the Micoquian bifaces. der Menschheit], Müller-Beck (Grahmann and Müller-Beck He rejects the name Micoquian, however, for the northern 1967, pp. 232–248) placed the Micoquian in Western Europe French and Belgian sites, which are supposed to be a in the Upper Lower Paleolithic (Middle Paleolithic) and classi- Levalloisio-Upper Acheulian and a legacy of the Riss- fied it after the Upper Acheulian. The main distinction he men- Acheulian, which partly reaches into the early Würm tions here is that the artifacts of the Upper Acheulian are large (Günther 1964, p. 131). Bosinski (1967), who analyzed the and those of the Micoquian rather small. He placed it into the known Middle Paleolithic finds from Western Central Europe, interglacial (the lower Upper Pleistocene by his definition) and divided the finds, that he assigned to the Micoquian into four shortly thereafter. He further distinguished a West-Micoquian 38 Page 10 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 5 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian (1964–1969). For the clarification of the Micoquian, mostly attributed to the Middle Paleolithic, the approaches of Günther (1964), Bosinski (1967), Adam (1969), and Chmielewski (1969) are jux- taposed. Notice that Adam does not mention the Micoquian in his structure of the Paleolithic [Großgliederung der Altsteinzeit]. Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), dark green (Micoquian as part of the Middle Paleolithic), and blue (Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic) (Western Europe) and East-Micoquian (Central and Eastern base, hand-axe-leaves, and small hand-axes, and designated as Europe). In the discussion of the East-Micoquian, he distin- Micoquian or, in the later phase of their evolution, as guished an older phase (Bocksteinschmiede, Vogelherd) and a Charentien of Micoque tradition. For the period of the last younger phase (Krapina, Kiik Koba, Pantanassa, Okiennik, Interglacial, we have as yet insufficient proof of the existence Ripiceni, Ilskaya, and Starosel’e). The term Micoquian, howev- of this Micoque group, yet such industries appear in several localities of South and West Germany in the late Eem, and er, is used by him only for assemblages within Europe. At the end of the 1960s, Valoch (1967) took a different path reach their climax in the early Würm.” for former Czechoslovakia, using the typology established by The works of the 1960s, mentioned above, all agreed that Bordes and assigning the finds of the Kůlna Cave (layer 7) to particular Middle Paleolithic Central European assemblages the Charentien de tradition micoquienne. Other researchers had to be related to the finds from La Micoque and that they followed a similar path later. He described how he determined had to be located in the early Würm (see Fig. 5). They all this assignment in the following year by saying (Valoch 1968, emphasized the similarity of their assemblages to the finds at p. 355): “A more significant group, appearing fairly frequently La Micoque. Chmielewski’s approach also combined the in the western part of Central Europe, is one that corresponds proximity of La Micoque with the assemblages published by to the biface group of Western Europe. It contains industries Krukowski (1939–1948) in which he combined concepts. distinguished by largely sharp-pointed hand-axes with a thick Already Kozłowski (1924), Benet-Tygel (1944), and Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 11 of 39 38 Fig. 6 Distribution of handaxe– scraper complexes in Europe. Adopted from Müller-Beck (1966, p. 1196, Fig. 5, modified). In pale blue: distribution of the Western micoquoid complex (Western Micoquian) and in pale red: distribution of the handaxe– scraper complexes (Eastern Micoquian) Krukowski (1939–1948) recognized the similarity of Polish type Schambach. He saw many parallels to the type finds and la Micoque. It is very likely that the latter used the Klausennische, but could not make a more exact assignment concept of Breuil to place Polish sites (e.g., Piekary III) into (Bosinski 1969, p. 73). Sometimes, there were also efforts to the Upper Acheulian Krukowski (1939–1948,pp. 50–53). date the site La Micoque on the basis of the Central European To what extent the temporal shift of the glacial affiliation of sites dated to Early Würm and assigned to the Micoquian sedimentary units (from Riss to Würm), as Gross (1962– (Collins 1969), which is, of course, circular reasoning. 1963) explained, is connected with the increasing location of To differentiate the French Micoquian of the Seine basin or micoquoid industries in the Würm, remains to be investigated. from La Micoque and the German sites according to Wetzel, In this context, not only newly recognized sites of the Würm Bosinski, or Müller-Beck, Bordes (1968) called the Central possessed micoquoid character, but sites that were formerly European Micoquian: “Micoquien allemande” [German described as pre-Würm are now to be attributed to the Würm. Micoquian]. Bosinski (Wetzel and Bosinski 1969,p.67) also At the end of the 1960s, it was possible to intensively considered whether it might be necessary to eschew the term investigate further sites by means of improved excavation Micoquian for one complex or another: „Vielleicht sollte man methodology and typological artifact naming (partly with dieser forschungsgeschichtlich bedingten Zweideutigkeit des technological approaches). Buhlen is a good example here Terminus „Micoquien" durch die Wahl einer neuen (Bosinski 1969; Bosinski and Kulick 1973). An important Bezeichnung entweder für das mittel-und südosteuropäische aspect of this site is the fact that the tranchet blow technology, Micoquien oder für das westeuropäische, zum Jungacheuléen previously known only from Ciemna in literature (Krukowski gehörige „Micoquien" aus dem Wege gehen.“ [Perhaps one 1939–1948), came to light at another site. Initial evaluations in should avoid this research-historically related ambiguity of the Buhlen made it necessary to extend Bosinksi’s model of four term Micoquian by choosing a new name either for the Central assemblage types of the Micoquian by the so-called Pradnik and Southeast European Micoquian or for the Western horizon (Bosinski 1969). The Bosinski assemblage types are European “Micoquian” that belongs to the Upper Acheulian]. based on the stratigraphic contexts of the Balve cave, in which Thus, by this time at the latest, it is clear that these are probably the Bockstein type is followed by the Klausennische type. two complexes that have been given the same name. Then, the type Schambach follows and the upper end is rep- resented by the type Rörshein, which is a daring assumption The non-European Micoquian in the 1960s (Bosinski 1967, p. 50). Bosinski now tried to assign the as- semblage from Buhlen IIIb to his Micoquian and assumed that The term was also in use outside Europe, for example there are it must be younger than the type Bockstein and older than the descriptions of assemblages from the Levant (e.g., Prausnitz 38 Page 12 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 1969) or from Anatolia (Esin and Benedict 1963). However, it Fig. 7 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian (1969 to 1979): a chronological positioning between 1969 and 1976 was occasionally mentioned that the term should only be used using the approaches of Bosinski (1969), Schwabedissen (1973), for assemblages in Europe. Balout (1967, p. 110) argued that Bosinski and Kulick (1973), Ulrix-Closset (1975), and Lumley (1976); terms coined for industries outside Africa (Clactonian, and b chronological positioning between 1976 and 1979 using the ap- Micoquian) should not be used in Africa unless their use can proaches of Desbrosse et al. (1976), Gábori (1976), Fiedler (1977), Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1977), and Tuffreau (1979) be clearly justified. This definition is based on conferences in 1947 (Nairobi, Pan-African Congress on Prehistory), 1955 In this case, an assemblage of the early Würm is mentioned as (Livingstone, Pan-African Congress on Prehistory), and Micoquian (Bailloud et al. 1973, p. 105): “[…], l’horizon 1965 (Burg Wartenstein Symposium by the Wenner-Gren inférieur a donné une industrie à bifaces appartenant à un Foundation) and was published in a very similar way by Micoquien récent de faciès Levallois du Würm I, le Clark et al. (1966) a year earlier. supérieur à un Moustérien tardif du Würm II, également de faciès Levallois.” [[...], the lower horizon has yielded a bifa- Negation of the term Micoquian in the 1960s cial industry belonging to a recent Micoquian of Levallois facies of Würm I, the superior one belonging to a late At the same time, the assignment to the Micoquian was also Moustérian of Würm II, also of Levallois facies]. The tempo- rescinded. An example is given to illustrate this fact. In the ral and “cultural” allocation corresponds to Bordes’ (1954) 1930s, Garrod published the finds from Tabun E as Upper approach for sites in the Parisian basin. Acheulian or Micoquian (Garrod et al. 1937). Now she The workofUlrix-Closset (1975) introduced a common adopted the nomenclature of Rust and assigned the finds to element to the Middle Paleolithic in the eastern part of the Yabrudian (Garrod 1962), as Clark (1966) did,too.The Western Europe (Belgium). She was familiar and worked with possible link between the Yabrudian and the Micoquian was the two established classification systems of Bordes and the subject of lively discussions later on (Ronen and Bosinski and equated her Moustérien à retouche bifaciale Weinstein-Evron 2000). with the German Micoquian. At the same time, she used the Mousterian facies developed by Bordes in the 1950s (see Fig. 7a). Further examples of an assignment to the Micoquian research in the 1970s Micoquian come from Eastern France. For Combier and Thévenot (1976), various sites also had at least some affinity Micoquian research from Western Europe in the 1970s to the Micoquian (in particular La Mère Grand in Rully, Saône-et-Loire). However, it is difficult to verify this alloca- According to Bosinski (1970), all layers (other than layer I) of tion on the basis of the figure that is intended to demonstrate the Peyrony excavation at La Micoque belong to the this (Combier and Thévenot 1976, p. 78, fig. 31). For us, the Micoquian (Middle Paleolithic) and layer VI corresponds to fragment of a bifacial piece shown there is not enough to make the assemblage type Bockstein. According to him, the lower such a precise assignment to a generic unit. layers possibly represent the initial phase of the Micoquian. In Western European research, the 1970s was marked by This assumption contradicts the analyses of Peyrony (1938) the extensive use of the Bordesian method. This is clearly and Breuil (1932b), who assumed that only layer VI could be visible in the very detailed summary of the French research addressed as Micoquian (as part of the Acheulian). In the same on the Paleolithic, which was compiled for the 9th UISPP Festschrift volume, Baudet (1970) applied the term Congress 1976 in Niza (Lumley 1976). Micoquian according to Bordes and Breuil to assemblages In the same year, Desbrosse et al. (1976) published their from northern France which date to the pre-Würm period. studies on Prondniks from Germolles. They pointed out the Increasingly, it can be observed that the typological artifact similarity between artifacts from Germolles (Grotte de la determination Micoquian biface is becoming more and more Verpillière I) in Saône-et-Loire and those from German and detached from the generic unit Micoquian, since the term Polish sites, even though, or precisely because, the sites were Micoquian biface can only be interpreted as form-specific classified differently. On the one hand, Germolles was attrib- and no longer contains a chrono-spatial assignment. In retro- uted to the MTA. On the other hand, the German (Buhlen) and spect, this can be seen for sites in the Paris Basin which were Polish (Ciemna and Okiennik) sites were attributed to the deposited during and after the last interglacial and yet all were Micoquian. They regarded the “racloirs-couteaux” du type assigned to a Micoquian due to the presence of pieces referred de Prondnik as a common element. For Bosinski (1969), the to as Micoquian biface. It is likely that Brézillon (1971,pp. same artifacts (but named Pradnikmesser) were the common 160–161) summarized French definitions of Micoquian bi- element of his Pradnikhorizont (see Fig. 7a). faces from this perspective. On one of these sites in the Paris In the late 1970s, Bordes (1977, p. 37) raised the question Basin mentioned earlier, Verrières-le-Buisson, the term of how the Mousterian should be defined and to what extent Micoquian is used to describe one of the “cultures” that occur. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 13 of 39 38 horyzont noży typu Ciemna Kultura lewalusko mustierska 38 Page 14 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 the Micoquian should be integrated into it: “So, one is a little As Central European assemblages have increasingly been at a loss how to define the Mousterian even in Europe. We can reconsidered, the notion of correlation between La Micoque try a chronological approach and say that the Mousterian rep- and the Central European sites has given way to the notion resents the cultures that flourished during the first half of the that these sites have similar, or to some extent identical, types last glaciation. But then wewouldhaveto include the of finds. Remarkably or particularly noticeably, Bosinski’s Micoquian, and to exclude such industries as the inter- (1967) observations of the find material increasingly shifted glacial one from Ehringsdorf (East Germany), the Rissian the point of view, with the biface referred to as the Micoquian one from Rigabe (Provence, France) or the one from layer biface receding into the background in favor of the Keilmesser 4 at la Micoque, all of which, found outside a stratigraphy, (with its multitude of names). This have started earlier, when would unhesitatingly have been called Mousterian.” This Müller-Beck (1956) adopted the term Faustkeilschaber and clearly shows that chronological and cultural classifications promulgated it intensively. of assemblages do not necessarily have to coincide. In addition to the assemblages analyzed by Bosinski, fur- Through his work in Biache-Saint-Vaast, Tuffreau (1979) ther assemblages were added in the course of the 1970s. On was able to show that the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic the basis of Bosinski’s(1967) and Müller-Beck’s(1958) in northern France probably had to be pushed far back into the nomenclature and explanations of the Micoquian, Mania and penultimate glacial period (see Fig. 7b). His assumption was Toepfer (1973) integrated the assemblages from Königsaue A that alongside the bifacial industries attributed to the and C into the Micoquian as defined by Günther (1964)and Acheulian, there are also unifacial industries (Biache-Saint- Bosinski (1967). Mania and Toepfer (1973, pp. 144–145) also Vaast) that would typologically be addressed as Mousterian found a connection between Mousterian and early glacial bi- (Moustérien typique de faciès levalloisien) in a more recent face cultures, which they initially call Micoquian: “Nach der context. This shifting back of the beginning of the Middle vergleichenden Betrachtung der frühglazailen [sic!] Biface- Paleolithic was discussed controversially at the beginning of Kulturen des europäischen Moustériens, die vorerst als the 1980s. Micoquien bezeichnet wurden, lassen sich einige allgemeine Überlegungen anstellen.” [On the basis of a comparative ex- Micoquian research from Central Europe in the 1970s amination of the early glacial Biface cultures of the European Mousterian, which were initially called Micoquian, some gen- In Central Europe, the two terms Micoquian and Micoquo- eral considerations can be made]. Building on a previous Pradnikian were mostly used synonymously. Sometimes, arti- work, the Micoquian also represented a pan-European generic facts were not described as belonging to the Micoquian, but as unit for Mania and Toepfer (1973). As can also be seen on possessing a Micoque influence (Boecking 1971,p.126): “Bei other maps (see Fig. 2), the Micoquian seems to be predom- einigen Geräten kann ein gewisser Micoque-einfluß festgestellt inantly represented in Central Europe. To the west and werden.” [For some tools, a certain Micoque influence can be completely remote La Micoque can be found, but east of the detected]. Similarly, in southwestern France, Bordes (1971,p. main distribution there are also isolated sites (see Fig. 8). 19) was also able to detect a Micoquian tendency in artifacts After completion of the excavations in the late 1960s, a from Combe-Grenal: “[…] biface à tendance micoquienne preliminary report on the Buhlen site was presented (couche 58).” [Biface with Micoquian tendency (layer 58)]. (Bosinski and Kulick 1973). It was suggested to place the This Micoquian influence or the Micoquian tendency will still assemblage IIIb (Buhlener Pradnikhorizont) chronologically be encountered frequently later on. somewhere between type Klausennische and type Schambau Kozłowski already pointed out in 1972 that the term (see also Fig. 7a). For the Weinberghöhlen (layer 5 (F′,G′,G, Micoquian may have been poorly chosen for assemblages H) near Mauern, Müller-Beck spoke of a mousteroid late with Keilmesser with Pradnik form and perhaps also for as- Micoquian followed by an assemblage of the “Altmühl semblages with Keilmesser with tranchet blow (Kozłowski group” (Koenigswald and Müller-Beck 1975) or a Central 1972,p.160): “Je ne suis pas favorable à l’introduction du European Late Micoquian (Koenigswald et al. 1974), but he nome “micoquien” pour les ensembles à couteaux-racloirs du had to admit that the available assemblage was too small to type de Pradnik en Europe centrale. Les ensembles du make reliable statements. After viewing the drawings, it Paléolithique moyen à bifaces d’Europe centrale demandent seems as though the levalloid character of the unifacial encore une classification plus détaillée. Il faut introduire pour pieces was noticed and set aside as an antithesis to the asym- ces ensembles des dénominations locales.” [I am not in favor metrical bifacial component. This type of synthesis of of the introduction of the name “Micoquian” for assemblages unifacial and bifacial assemblage components will be en- with knife-scrapers of the Pradnik type in Central Europe. The countered again in later times. Middle Paleolithic bifacial assemblages of Central Europe still Gábori (1976) was extensively occupied with the assem- require a more detailed classification. Local denominations blages of the Micoquian in the region between the Alps and must be introduced for these assemblages]. the Urals. He correlated the temporal position of assemblages Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 15 of 39 38 Fig. 8 Distribution of the Micoquian according to Mania and Toepfer (1973,Abb.37).Base map from TemporalMapping.org (80 m below present-day sea level) with the inventory types defined by Bosinski and derived a They also distinguished seven types of assemblages and sep- refined chronological assignment of the inventory types (see arated assemblages with asymmetric knives and foliated Fig. 7b). pieces (see Fig. 7b). The term Group of backed Bifaces was The assumption that the Levallois concept within the as- used by Schild and Wendorf (1977) only to group bifacial semblages described as Micoquian was of very subordinate objects of the Central European Middle Paleolithic and not importance or even completely unknown manifested itself to classify assemblages as a whole (in our understanding). visibly. For Fiedler (1977), this was impressively demonstrat- At this point, at the latest, it is obvious that different chro- ed in Buhlen IIIb: “Die meisten Werkzeuge sind in nological systems are applied in the association of assem- „Kerntechnik” durch beidflächige Retuschierung hergestellt, blages with the term Micoquian. If the Upper Acheulian während Abschlagwerkzeuge selten sind und die (Jungacheuléen) is included in the analysis, the chronological Levalloistechnik praktisch keine Rolle spielt.” [Most tools framework becomes even more complex (depending on are manufactured in “core technology” by double-surface whether the Micoquian is added to the Upper Acheulian or retouching, while blank tools are rare and the Levallois tech- theMiddlePaleolithic). nique plays practically no role]. It was only in the 1990s that it The question also arose as to whether the Micoquian might was recognized that in some sites there was a connection be- not also be part of the Moustérien. Ulrix-Closset (1975,pp. tween Keilmesser (of any shape) and the Levallois concept 11–12), for example, coined the term “Moustérien à retouche (e.g., Richter 1997). bifaciale” because she could not find a suitable name in French terminology. She did not want to use the term Discussion of a long or short chronology “Moustérien à Blattspitzen” because it did not describe the Central European assemblages (up to 50% bifaces, for the Micoquian Keilmesser and Blattspitzen) precisely enough, and the term Blattspitze was described very precisely in German literature. Since the 1970s, there has been an enormous increase in the knowledge of relative and absolute chronological dating. For her, the term “Moustérien à Blattspitzen” is synonymous with “Altmühlgruppe” as defined by Bohmers (1944, 1951) These new and more precise methods were used to re- evaluate the generic units that had previously been considered and should not be used as an umbrella term. In her understand- fixed in time. Through more precise evaluations of the chro- ing, the term “Micoquien,” as it was used by various German authors, can no longer be used, since it has already been nological position of recognized phenomena, the chronologi- cal approaches varied in length. Furthermore, the system assigned a very precise meaning (in chronological and typo- logical terms) in French literature. Thus, she attests the same established by Bosinski (1967) was used to structure the Middle Paleolithic assemblages of western Central Europe meaning to the different terms “mitteleuropäisches Micoquien” (sensu Bosinski) and Eastern Micoquian (sensu and was even extended to eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe (Gábori 1976). This short chronology for the Müller-Beck) and believes that these correspond best with a “Charentien de tradition micoquienne” (sensu Valoch). Her Micoquian stood in contrast to the long chronology for Polish sites proposed by Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1977) which “Moustérien à retouche bifaciale” is characterized by a high percentage of bifaces, bifaces scrapers (or bifacially backed spread from the early Würm to the last interglacial period. 38 Page 16 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 pieces), and foliated pieces. For her, the term emphasizes that an assemblage type within his Micoquian and thus represents it is indeed a Mousterian industry with points and scrapers, but a pars pro toto. Only one further use of the term as a synonym it is clearly characterized because of the use of a particular for the Micoquian in the literature could be discovered retouch technique. (Freericks 1995). The example shows that the former division into a western The “antipodes” Micoquian and Mousterian were and eastern Micoquian, which are represented in different time increasingly established and so Feustel (1983, p. 12) wrote in stages, is no longer applicable. Thus, the controversy remains this context: “Trotz der nun großen Vielzahl und mehr oder as to what or which assemblages should now be subsumed weniger klar zu unterscheidender Typen ist über weite Räume under the term Micoquian. hin eine gewisse Gleichförmigkeit zu beobachten; Bezeichnungen wie Moustérien und Micoquien bringen bei aller Differenziertheit im Einzelnen doch große Zusammenhänge zum Research during the 1980s Ausdruck.” [In spite of the now large number and more or less clearly distinguishable types, a certain uniformity can be ob- The 1980s brought momentum to the Micoquian discussion in served over wide spaces; designations such as Mousterian and that the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic was massively Micoquian express broad interconnections despite all the differ- postponed and now falls into the period of the Saalian/Riss entiation in the details]. glacial (Bosinski 1982; Tuffreau 1982). This shift of the tran- Ringer (1983, pp. 68–69) adopted the technological dis- sition from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic was also tinction introduced by Bosinski (1967)between theedge reflected in the assignment of the Micoquian. Three ap- retouching of the German and French Micoquian for bifaces proaches to the classification of the Micoquian and the begin- and his new defined Babonyian. Here, we want to illustrate ning of the Middle Paleolithic are shown in Fig. 9,each of these three technological production approaches on bifaces which is plausible for its region. (see Fig. 10). The produced bifaces differ not only in the order From this time on, the Micoquian in Western Europe is also in which the surfaces or edges are processed, but also in the increasingly classified as belonging to the Middle Paleolithic, different cross-sections created. but still with the difficulty that the upper layers of the epony- In many sites, even in the 1980s, it can be seen that a shift mous site have no dating and were destroyed by former exca- in the value of bifacial pieces has taken place. While in earlier vations (Rigaud 1986). The spectacular assemblages from La works the focus was on the presence of the so-called Cotte-de-Saint-Brelade (Callow and Cornford 1986), Biache- Micoquian bifaces, this increasingly shifted to the presence Saint-Vaast (Tuffreau and Sommé 1988), or Mesvin IV of asymmetric bifacial pieces that could not be described ad- (Cahen et al. 1984; Cahen and Michel 1986), which probably equately with the Bordesian typology. A dichotomy was thus date from the Saalian glacial, were able to show at that time revealed, which was met by using the Micoquian biface as a that elaborated finds could be much older than previously representative of a Micoquian according to Bordes, whereas thought. It is noteworthy in this context that two of the sites asymmetrical bifacial pieces (Keilmesser) were associated have evidence for the presence of Keilmesser with tranchet with the Central European Micoquian. This dichotomy was blow (Pradniks, see Soriano 2000, 2001), a technology that already detected in the 1950s by Müller-Beck. He emphasized was repeatedly attributed to the so-called Pradnikhorizont in the differences between the central French assemblages and the following decade (e.g., Jöris 1992). the southern German assemblages (Bordes and Müller-Beck 1956;Müller-Beck 1956, 1957). 1980s research on the Micoquian from Central Europe The presence of Keilmesser has been used as a decisive criterion for assemblage classification into the Central The existing diversity of names in relation to assemblages that European Micoquian since, at the latest, Bosinski (1967). (predominantly) have great similarities in their bifacial com- This is evident, for example, for the Micoquian layers of the ponents was discussed by Bosinski (1981). He agreed that the Kůlna cave. Valoch (1988, p. 55) writes that bifaces and assemblages referred to by Chmielewski (1969)as Micoquo- Keilmesser are of decisive importance for the classification, Pradnikien, those referred to by Ulrix-Closset (1975)as although their share in the type spectrum is rather small. Moustérien à retouche bifaciale and referred to by himself Twenty years earlier, he used the term Charentien de tradition as Micoquien, could possibly, on the basis of Kolosov micoquienne [Charentian with Micoque tradition] to express (1986), be referred to with the term Bockstein culture (see the scraper component (Valoch 1967). In the meantime, dif- also Bosinski 1985, p. 62). Kolosov adopted this term proba- ferent terms were used as synonyms for the Central European bly from Wetzel (but referred to Wetzel and Bosinski 1969), assemblages, often side by side, since both terms are roughly who used it as synonym for his Micoquian at the Bockstein to bundle the same assemblages within one term. Thus, in- site (Wetzel 1954). Obviously, this was a rather impractical creasingly similar sentences as the following one can be found suggestion, since Bosinski himself used the term Bockstein as in many publications since the 1980s (Kozłowski 1989,p. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 17 of 39 38 Fig. 9 Cladogram of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic transition. Here, the approaches of Bosinski (1982), Laville (1982), and Tuffreau (1982) are juxtaposed Fig. 10 Technological approach on edge retouch. (1) German Micoquian (Bosinski 1967) and (2) French Micoquian and (3) Babonyian (Ringer 1983), added by retouch stage succession 38 Page 18 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 139): “Les autres sites attribués à la ,,culture micoquo- Saint-Brelade sites were compared to the Central European prondnicienne” ou au, Micoquien de l’Europe centrale“,n’ont Micoquian most often attributed to the last glacial (Cahen que des analogies plus générales avec l’industrie de la grotte and Haesaerts 1984; Cahen et al. 1984; Cahen and Michel Ciemna.” [The other sites attributed to the “Micoquo- 1986; Callow and Cornford 1986). Thus, it was recognized Prondnician culture” or the “Micoquian of Central Europe”, that technologies that are very similar or even identical to each only have broader analogies with the Ciemna cave industry]. other can sometimes occur in clearly separated periods of time. This can be seen as a further indication that while it 1980s research on the Micoquian from Western may be appropriate to compare such phenomena technologi- Europe cally, it is not sensible to combine them in the same generic unit. In contrast to Central European researchers, Bordes (1981, 1984) maintained the connection between the Micoquian and the Upper Acheulian for the West European assemblages Micoquian research in the 1990s (see also Fig. 11a). However, he was aware that the Micoquian differed from La Micoque (and thus certainly also from the The 1990s in Central Europe: new approaches bring sites he worked on in the Seine basin) and the German forth new concepts and terms Micoquian. He also drew attention to the differences in rela- tion to tools from blanks (Bordes 1981,p.78): “Les relations Another prominent point in the history of Micoquian research du Micoquien de la Micoque et du Micoquien allemand sont is the attempt to give a new name to Keilmesser-bearing as- également peu claires: s’il y a de grandes similitudes en ce qui semblages in Central Europe. At this point, at the latest, the concerne les bifaces, l’outillage sur éclats du gisement Micoquian biface loses its significance as a name-giving as- allemand est pauvre et peu nombreux, à l’inverse de ce qui semblage element and is replaced by the Keilmesser (as re- se rencontre à la Micoque.” [The relationship between the ported, Müller-Beck used the term Faustkeilschaber for his Micoquian of la Micoque and the German Micoquian is un- generic unit), which was already regarded as definitive for clear: while there are great similarities in terms of bifacial complexes in the 1950s (Müller-Beck 1956, 1957). tools, the German sites’ flake tools are poor and few in num- To structure the material of the Bilzingsleben site, Mania ber, unlike those found in la Micoque]. Bordes’ approach is (1990) distinguished two groups of assemblages for the late complemented by the approaches of Tuffreau (1988)and Middle Paleolithic and used two characteristic bifacial object Campy et al. (1989). However, the latter two contradict each groups (Keilmesser and Blattspitzen) as the distinguishing fea- other. Tuffreau (1988) argued that the French Micoquian ture. For the first groups, he used three descriptive terms: should be placedinthe same timespanasanearly Inventare mit Keilmessern [assemblages with Keilmesser], Mousterian: before the last interglacial (Fig. 11b). This stands Keilmesserinventare [Keilmesser assemblages], and in contrast to Campy et al. (1989), who continue to regard the Keilmessergruppen [Keilmesser groups]. He described these Micoquian as an interglacial phenomenon (Fig. 11c). groups as belonging to the Micoquian (Mania 1990,p. 146): The combination of micoquoid-looking artifacts and dating “Diese Inventare werden im allgemeinen dem Micoque-Kreis into the early Würm was described repeatedly in the course of (Fundstelle La Micoque vom Vezere-Tal) zugeschrieben und the 1980s. Examples come from the extreme East of France sind durch asymmetrische, schlanke Faustkeilmesser mit (Guillaume 1982;Janot 1981), from Jura Dept. (Campy et al. seitlichem Rücken charakterisiert.” [These assemblages are 1989) or from Aube Dept. (Boëda and Mazière 1989). generally attributed to the Micoque circle (La Micoque site However, the opposite combination, the connection between of the Vezere Valley) and are characterized by asymmetrical, micoquoid artifacts and a pre-Würm dating, can be found as slender biface-knives with lateral backs]. Mania (1990, pp. well. Here, we refer to works from Central France (Despriée 146–148) does not limit his description to this assignment, and Lorain 1982) or southwestern France (Leclercq and Briois but also describes the lithic typo-technology of these assem- 1982). In the Dordogne for itself, only layer 6 of La Micoque blages: long narrow biface leaves (Faustkeilblätter) produced was considered to be the actual Micoquian (see Rigaud 1988, in the same technique, Levallois technique predominates, nu- p. 437) as Breuil did in the 1930s. merous discoid cores, differently shaped scrapers (single, dou- Focusing on the northwest of France, we can see that there ble, angled, convex, curved, straight, and transverse scrapers), were different described sites (Treissény, Bois-du-Rocher, or and numerous blades. The presence or absence of the Kervouster) that supposedly had a certain similarity to the Levallois concept will be discussed repeatedly in later works. Central European Micoquian or Jungacheuléen (Monnier In addition to the discussion of the lithic assemblages, Mania 1988,p. 77). (1990, p. 148) narrows the groups down to the early Würm Due to the presence of pieces with tranchet blow (lateral (see Fig. 12) and describes their distribution over the whole of tranchets or LSF removals), the Mesvin IV and La-Cotte-de- Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. The main area of the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 19 of 39 38 Fig. 11 a–c Cladogram of the Micoquian positioning in Western Europe (1984–1989), according to Bordes (1984), Tuffreau (1988), and Campy et al. (1989) ab c Moustérien, however, was in the west, whereas the main area In the following years, the term Keilmessergrupppen was of the Keilmesser groups was in the east. This description adopted by various authors, most of them German-speaking, barely differs from other descriptions of the previous two de- and mostly used as a synonym for the assemblages previously cades, and only the term Micoquian was replaced by the term defined as central European Micoquian. The point of refer- Keilmessergruppen. For groups that were chronologically lat- ence for this renaming was essentially that even more recent er, he adopted the term Blattspitzengruppen from the litera- investigations in La Micoque were not able to work out a clear ture, a term that has already been used by various researchers chronological classification of the upper layers. Veil et al. for sometime(e.g.,Freund 1963;Kozłowski 1961;Müller- (1994, pp. 40–41) give some reasons why the term Beck 1956; Schönweiß 1962–1963; Valoch 1955;Zotz 1951). Micoquian should be replaced: 38 Page 20 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 12 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (1990–1999), according to Mania (1990), Deloze et al. (1994), Mellars (1996), Richter (1997), and Gouédo (1999) & The type assemblage of the layer N/6 (Peyrony excava- tools, which are formally known as leaf-shaped scrapers, fo- tion) of La Micoque is not considered typical or represen- liated bifaces, etc. In this context, it has to be borne in mind tative of all the assemblages covered by the term that Keilmesser appearing in the assemblage are not to be Micoquian. understood as conditio sine qua non for belonging to these & The characteristic element in La Micoque, the Micoquian groups. Another important statement is to be reproduced here biface, is not or only very rarely present in Central literally: “Selbstverständlich soll die vorgeschlagene European sites (Lichtenberg and Königsaue are men- Zusammenfassung der Inventare unter diesem deskriptiven tioned here). Namen zunächst keine Aussage über ihre Beziehungen & Although the tool spectrum of the assemblage N/6 is con- untereinander beinhalten, seien sie nun ethnischer, funktional, sidered representative of Bosinski’s Bockstein type, it has aktivitätsspezifischer oder chronologisch-genetischer Art.” very little in common with the entirety of the sites in [Therefore, Keilmesser appearing in the assemblage are not Central and Western Europe, apart from a special process- to be understood as conditio sine qua non for belonging to ing technique [this probably refers to the alternating uni- these groups […]. Of course, the proposed consolidation of directional edge regularization, AUER]. the inventories under this descriptive name should not initially & Uncertain time setting of the type assemblage. contain any statement about their interrelationships, be they & Uncertain in situ character. ethnic, functional, activity-specific or chronological-genetic.]. & Ambiguity due to the research history of the term The preceding explanations led Jöris (1993, p. 46) to regard Micoquian. the terms Micoquian and Keilmessergruppen being synony- mous: “Micoquien [= Keilmessergruppen (VERF.)].” On the basis of these arguments, Veil et al. (1994,p. 41) Bosinski (1967) already suspected a decrease of the bifacial propose using the term Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian sensu assemblage component within his Micoquian. Kind (1992) Bosinski, Günther, Toepfer, Valoch) as it designates the adopted this assumption and attempted to divide the Middle smallest common denominator of the comprehensive Paleolithic assemblages in southern Germany into groups on Weichselian bifacial assemblages of Central and Eastern the basis of data from the literature. In addition to a tripartite Europe, and assemblages of these groups are apparently gen- division already established by Bosinski (Micoquian, erally characterized by very standardized bifacial cutting Mousterian, Leaf point group), he was able to identify another Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 21 of 39 38 mixed group which has strong similarities to the Moustérien convex and are only retouched at the convex edge, the shape group. A limiting factor in this study, which is also mentioned of the surfaces is very different. Both surfaces of Micoquian therein, is that typological evaluations from earlier years had bifaces are plano-convex. On the other hand, the surfaces of to be used. In the 1990s, Bosinski also began to understand the the MTA bifaces are generally convex and only the edges are terms Micoquian and Keilmessergruppen as synonymous plano-convex. There are also differences in symmetry. (Bosinski et al. 1995, p. 848). Numerous researchers also be- Micoquian bifaces show a double asymmetry, which can be gan to favor the term Keilmessergruppen over the term seen in cross- and longitudinal section. In the MTA bifaces, Micoquian (e.g., Street et al. 1999). however, the cross-section is only slightly asymmetrical. Parallel to the establishment of the new term However, both can be symmetrical when viewed from the top. Keilmessergruppen, the term Micoquo-Pradnikian used by During the 1990s, the question of which assemblages can or Chmielewski (1969, 1970, 1972) continued to be used and should be addressed as Micoquian was raised again. In addition Bárta (1990) thus used the term Micoquien-Prądnik-Kultur. to the sites in Brittany (Cliquet and Monnier 1993; Monnier Sometimes, it seems that the differences between Mousterian 1986), systematic research in eastern France also contributed to and Micoquian in western Central Europe have been the discussion. In this context, sites investigated by Farizy (for- emphasized more than in the eastern part, e.g., Bárta (1990,p. merly Girard) in the 1980s and early 1990s played a role. Of 125) discusses the possible existence of the Micoquien facies of importance here is the site Champlost (Yonne), which was attrib- the Mousterian. uted to a “charentoïdo-micoquien” facies (Deloze et al. 1994,p. Another approach was advocated by Richter (1997). In the 20) by its asymmetrical bifacial component and a systematic analyses of the assemblages of the G-layer complex of the Levallois reduction. Thus, the reference was assigned to the Sesselfelsgrotte, he found that sometimes the assemblages alter- Mousterian system, but the deviating bifacial component was nate between many and few or no bifacial elements. His conclu- taken into account. Of interest at this site is not only the combi- sion was that these were initial and consecutive (subsequent) nation of Levallois and asymmetrical bifacial components but assemblages with a high raw material diversity in the early stages also the known tentative TL dating between 65 and 45 ka (Farizy (initial) and only a few or no bifacial elements at all. In the late 1995). According to Farizy (1995), the Grotte de la Verpillière I stage (consecutive), the raw material diversity decreases, but the (Desbrosse et al. 1976; Desbrosse and Texier 1973b), Blanzy bifacial component increases. If the unifacial component is con- (Desbrosse and Tavoso 1970), or Bissy-sur-Fley (Desbrosse sidered to be Mousterian and the bifacial component represents and Texier 1973a) in southern Burgundy also belongs to these Micoquian, these assemblages can be considered to be sites and is part of her Industries charentiennes à influences Mousterian with Micoquian option, whereby the Micoquian op- micoquiennes. Also, in the course of motorway constructions tion increases over the duration of the settlement. In this ap- in the early 1990s, numerous open-air sites were excavated in proach, Mousterian and Micoquian are no longer perceived as northern Burgundy. In two sites (Les Hauts Massous in Vinneuf separate entities. In a further evaluation of the assemblages, that and La Prieurée in Villeneuve-l’Archevêque), the bifacial com- had previously been classified as Micoquian (or ponent was used to assign find layers of the early Würm to the Keilmessergruppen), he divided the M.M.O. into an early Micoquian (Deloze et al. 1994). In contrast to earlier French (M.M.O.-A) and a late phase (M.M.O.-B). These two phases works, these assemblages described as Micoquian were clearly differ not only in their chronological position (see Fig. 12), but assigned to the Middle Paleolithic and sometimes seen as west- also in their production of the unifacial accompanying industry. ern extensions of the Micoquian sensu Bosinski (1967). The older Micoquian (M.M.O.-A) is a (mainly) non-Levallois Understandable as it may be to place these assemblages industry, whereas the younger one (M.M.O.-B) is characterized alongside the Central European Micoquian, the question now by Levallois. arises to what extent assemblages before the Eem, during the Eem, and after the Eem might be interrelated. This is one of Micoquian research in Western Europe the questions to which Gouédo (1999) devoted himself. during the 1990s Gouédo (1999, pp. 7–16) is intensively concerned with the re- search history of the generic unit Micoquian and identifies the In contrast to research in Central Europe, where new terms definitional differences between the typological approaches of were established for the Micoquian, the term Micoquian con- Bordes (1954) and Bosinski (1967). However, both typological tinued to be used intensively in Western Europe. approaches are based on the presence of “Micoquian bifaces.” In the course of technological considerations, Boëda The decisive difference between the two approaches is what is (1991a) described characteristic differences between MTA bi- meant by this. For French research, the Micoquian biface plays faces and Micoquian bifaces and thus showed a further way to the central role, as there are hardly any other types. Outside of delineate differences between morphologically similar objects France, however, the focus is on the Keilmesser family. The by means of technological criteria. Although both pieces are further we move east, the rarer the Micoquian biface becomes. These are essential factors that attracted the attention of retouched at the edge in such a way that they become plano- 38 Page 22 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 researchers as early as the 1950s. The unifacial reduction systems other is the amount of scanned or online publications that can used at the same time are also of great relevance. In addition to be searched successively for keywords. Therefore, hopefully, typological criteria, technological criteria also play a role in bifa- an adequate selection of representative contributions has been cial pieces. Here, Gouédo (1999, pp. 15–16) refers to the mor- made to do justice to the matter. phology of the pieces and points to plano-convex cross-sections At the beginning of the 2000s, Conard and Fischer (2000) and trifacial concepts of the tools, regardless of whether they attempted to summarize and present the current state of re- occur in France or east of the Rhine, or whether the accompany- search on the Middle Paleolithic in relation to cultural units. ing industry is based on Levallois or not. He then distinguishes In contrast to Bosinski (1982), who favored a tripartition, they the views of typologists and technologists on the research object assume a dichotomy into Early Middle Paleolithic (Saalian/ Micoquian: “La vision technologiste tend donc à unifier le Rissian assemblages) and Late Middle Paleolithic (Eemian monde micoquien tout en montrant des différences entre groupes and Weichselian/Würmian assemblages). The term alors que la vision typologiste bordienne tend à accentuer ces Keilmessergruppen is preferred to the term Micoquian. They différences.” [The technologist vision therefore tends to unify also propose using the terms Keilmessergruppen and Pradnik the Micoquian world while showing differences between groups, Group as synonyms. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the while the Bordian typologist’s vision tends to accentuate these term para-burin, which was introduced into research in the differences]. Overall, he concludes that the Micoquian phenom- 1960s by Polish researchers (Chmielewski 1969; Kowalski enon is by far not considered homogeneous. Gouédo’s evolution- 1967), be preferred to the term Pradnik technique in order to ary approach to the course of the Micoquian involves a threefold emphasize it. They also assume that although the separation of division in time (Micoquien ancien, Micoquien riche en Keilmesser assemblages and Mousterian assemblages can “bifacees pointus,” and Micoquien riche en “bifaces non- sometimes be imprecise, reduction systems alone cannot be pointus”) and in its structure (groups A, B, and C). Group A is used for the separation (Conard and Fischer 2000, p. 12): based on the assemblages in Vinneuf and Verrières. Group B is “While it is clear that the distinctions between Late represented by the MTA-A and group C is based on the assem- Mousterian and Keilmesser assemblages are not always sharp, blage of Champlost (see Fig. 12). According to him, the it seems unlikely that the observed variation can be explained Micoquian originates from the classical Acheulian as in the sites solely on the basis of reduction sequences.” Nevertheless, the in Cagny around 450 to 400 ka. The Micoquien ancien and then Mousterian in particular remains a reservoir for assemblages the Micoquien riche en “bifacees pointus” contain two develop- made by blank tools with or without the use of the Levallois ment groups that are not entirely separate (groups A and C); only concept. Furthermore, they note that their approach assumes later in the Micoquien riche en “bifaces non-pointus” do the that similar assemblages do not necessarily have to be of the development lines separate. On the one hand, there is a branch same age as often assumed in earlier approaches. They also that is characterized by Keilmesser (Keilmessergruppen, group point out that no more precise classifications can be made A) and one that is called Pradnikhorizont (group C). On the other without further reliable chronological data. The isolated ge- hand, there is a branch in which only very few Keilmesser occur, neric units are summarized in Fig. 13 (left). but other types of bifacial pieces (Gouédo 1999,fig.176). This Bosinski’s(2000–2001) approach is slightly different approach attempts to draw a clear line of development for sites (Fig. 13 mid). He distinguished the assemblages of the early from Western and Central Europe that have so far been referred Middle Paleolithic according to their age, differentiating be- to as Micoquian. The Micoquian, parallel to the Mousterian, is tween two supergroups in the younger phase, which are sep- regarded as an independent development. However, it should be arated in time (early and late phase). He distinguished two noted that the context presented contains only the technical de- assemblage types within the early phase (laminar velopment and the Micoquian is regarded as a technocomplex Rheindahliense in MIS 5c, laminar Wallerheim D also in (as understood by Clarke), within which the same or very similar MIS 5c). Within the following Keilmessergruppen (los grupos concepts of tool manufacture are applied. Keilmesser), he distinguished five assemblage groups, which, in contrast to earlier works, he staggered differently in time. The Keilmessergruppen are placed between MIS 5a and the Micoquian research in the 2000s middle MIS 3. He differentiates between two chronologically successive units, which we would like to call early and late Micoquian research in Central Europe Keilmessergruppen. The early groups contain the types during the 2000s Königsaue, Bockstein, and Klausennische, which are regarded as being chronologically parallel to each other. The In the early 2000s, the amount of data that can be evaluated in late groups consist of the contemporaneous types Lebenstedt relation to the literature available increased enormously, so and Pradnikhorizont. This structure differed fundamentally that a strict selection had to be made. The reason for this is from the sequence established by Bosinski (1967). Not only do the types Rörshain (now placed into the twofold. One is the increasing amount of written literature; the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 23 of 39 38 Yonne, Western Central Central Europe France Europe Europe Blattspitzen- Grupos Blattspitzen Transition gruppe Horizonte CIM KMG C Lebenstedt Pradnik KMG B2 KMG B1 Königs- Bock- Klausen- KMG A aue stein nische Rhein- Wallerheim D dahliense Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 5e) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 6) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 7) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 8) Acheuléen Depaepe (2002) Jöris (2003) Conard & Fischer (2000) Bosinski (2001) Fig. 13 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2000–2003), according to Conard and Fischer (2000), Bosinski (2000– 2001), Depaepe (2002), and Jöris (2003) Blattspitzengruppen) and Schambach not occur, but the types Micoquien, Moustérien, Altmühlgruppe,and Szélétien Königsaue and Pradnikhorizont were also included. In his [Obviously, the text of the dissertation available on the very early works, Lebenstedt was seen as the type location Internet is not the submission version from the year 2000, of the Jungacheuléen, which was located before the Eem but a revised version. The dissertation was subsequently also (Bosinski 1963). published as a book: Böhner (2008)]. Böhner (2000, p. 1) sees a clear shift of the Micoquian into In his analysis of the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early the MIS 3 due to dating of newly excavated sites and agrees Upper Paleolithic in Bavaria, Uthmeier (2004)subsumesthe with the considerations presented by Uthmeier (2004,pp. assemblages previously referred to as Mousterian, Micoquian, 381–396) summarizing the assemblages described so far as and Blattspitzengruppen under the generic term Micoquian. Jung- Acheuléen Early Mousterian Eemian Middle Paleolithic Laminar Keilmessergruppe Late Mousterian Late MP w/ handaxes Technocomplexe du Nord-Ouest Micoquien 38 Page 24 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 He refers to the concept of the context area coined by concepts are almost insignificant, and the systematic ex- Weißmüller (1995) here, but defines it differently (Uthmeier traction of reductions is almost completely absent. 2004, p. 297): Micoquian as distribution area of technological Handaxes are rare, domination of Keilmesser with straight and typological features that combine several local groups cutting edges. within the distribution boundaries of a “technocomplex” to & KMG-B2: not defined for Central Europe. Occurs in form a larger supra-regional unit. On the basis of Richter’s Western Europe. (1997) works, he combines the Mousterian and Micoquian & KMG-C: assemblage type “Bockstein-Klausennische.” of his work area into a single technocomplex. In a similar Northern and southern Central European low mountain way, he groups assemblages with leaf points into his regional ranges. Highly variable shapes of tools, mostly straight Micoquian (Uthmeier 2004, p. 299). In his opinion, evaluation cutting edges. units and assemblages with leaf points within Bavaria are part of the regional Micoquian. Therefore, he mapped the Bosinski (2008) assumes that the majority of the assem- Micoquian without leaf points, Micoquian with isolated leaf blages to be assigned to the Keilmessergruppen are to be points (< 5%), and Micoquian with leaf points (> 5%) into one placed in the MIS 5a (Odderade), whereby according to map (see Fig. 14). Jöris (2003), assemblages belong after the first glacial AccordingtoJöris (2003, p. 53), the term Keilmessergruppen maximum, and Richter (2002) wants to place the entire should be preferred to the term Micoquian, because of the pres- Keilmessergruppen (Moustérien mit Micoquien-Option)in ence of specific bifacial tools, especially the Keilmesser. He the MIS 3 on the basis of C data. Bosinski’ssequence of referred to the discussion in Veil et al. (1994) and chronologically assemblages is based on the stratigraphic sequence of the rearranged the complexes defined by Bosinski (2000–2001) Balve cave, as determined in his doctoral thesis (Bosinski within the Keilmessergruppen (KMG). According to the data 1967). This approach (Fig. 15 mid) is congruent to the one available at that time, he assumed that the KMG date both before he published in 2000–2001 (Fig. 13 mid) and after the first glacial (MIS 4, see Fig. 13 right). He assumed a period of about 80 to 43 ka. In his opinion, the assemblages could be chronologically divided into three groups, which he Micoquian research in Western Europe called KMG A (early), B (middle), and C (late) and which es- during the 2000s sentially correspond to Bosinski’s assemblage types: So as not to completely go beyond the scope, we limit our- & KMG-A: assemblage type “Königsaue-Lebenstedt.” selves to a few (hopefully well chosen) contributions. Let us Occurs in the north German lowlands, as well as in the first take a look at the east of France, where large-scale exca- northern and southern Central European low mountain vations along a motorway route yielded numerous results. ranges. Assemblages dominated by Levallois reduction. Depaepe (2002) summarized the work in Yonne, northeast Keilmesser and scrapers with convex cutting edges. France. He extracted four Middle Paleolithic generic units & KMG-B1: “Pradnik-Horizont.” Northern Central after the Acheulian (Fig. 13 mid) and distinguished two units European low mountain ranges. Levallois reduction of “micoquoid” assemblages: Fig. 14 Sites of the Micoquian with and without leaf points, according to Uthmeier (2004, p.298,Abb.11.1) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 25 of 39 38 Fig. 15 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and West Central Along the France Central Europe (2007–2009), Europe river Rhine according to Delagnes et al. (2007), Bosinski (2008), and Koehler (2009) Transition Grand LV Nord DE Néro MTA Char. infl. micoq Keilmessergruppen (Micoquien) Quina, Rhodanien TC du Nord Ouest Rheindahlien des MIS 5c Wallertheim D Mittelpaläolithikum der letzten Warmzeit Micoquien Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 6) Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 7) Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 8) Miesenheim Kärlich-Seeufer Achenheim Delagnes et al. (2007) Bosinski (2008) Koehler (2009) & “Classical” Micoquian with handaxes according to Bordes Prieurée in Villeneuve l’Archevêque from the Saalian and Bosinski at Vinneuf C at the beginning of the Würm (MIS 6) to the early Pleniglacial (MIS 4) glacial (MIS 5) & CIM (Charentian with Micoquian influence) described by In describing “technocomplexes” in Western and Central Farizy (1995) at the Champlost site in the middle Europe, Delagnes et al. (2007) continued the division into Pleniglacial (MIS 3) mousteroid and micoquoid assemblages. Bifacial pieces can & Technocomplexe du Nord-Ouest at Le Fond de la be found in the MTA as well as in the Micoquian. The MTA is Tournerie in Lailly, at Le Domaine de Beauregard in present in southwestern France,sporadicallyinnorthern Lailly, at le Grand Chanteloup in Molinons or at La France and in England. In contrast, the Micoquian Moustérien MTA "Micoquien" Keilmesser- gruppen 38 Page 26 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 (Keilmessergruppen) is mainly concentrated in Central & Central Europe (from the Rhine to the Carpathian Europe, but similar industries were also reported from Mountains)—industries with Keilmesser (Central Brittany (Molines et al. 2001), Burgundy (Gouédo et al. European Micoquian or M.M.O.) 1994;Gouedo 1988), and the Périgord (Bourguignon 1992; & Eastern Europe (from the Carpathian Mountains to the Brenet and Folgado 2003). In addition, the contemporaneity Ural)—eastern Micoquian and different Mousterian facies of the MTA and the Keilmessergruppen was assumed & Southern Europe (Balkan)—different Mousterian facies (Fig. 15 left). Koehler’s(2009) approach to technocomplexes in France In his overview of the European Middle Paleolithic, differs from the previous one in that she attempts to include Depaepe (2014) made it clear that the facies model built by numerous regional studies in her chronology scheme, thus François Bordes has a spatial limitation. This quickly became achieving a finer structure (Fig. 15 right). With regard to visible for other regions by adopting the model and led to the micoquoid industries, she distinguishes the Micoquian (Paris definition of own generic units, which better described the Basin, alternating unidirectional edge regularization) from the features recognized. Figure 16 (mid) shows an attempt to rep- CIM (numerous often bifacial side scrapers and Levallois re- resent the generic units described by Depaepe in a cladogram. duction; eastern France), whereas the Micoquian is situated in He recognized that the term Mousterian is nearly synonymous MIS 6 to 5d and the CIM in MIS 4 to 3. All these French to the term Middle Paleolithic. For the Micoquian, he defines approaches are based on a single, uniform Late Middle two phases: phase 1—Keilmessergruppen and phase 2— Paleolithic industry (Keilmessergruppen) in Central Europe. Blattspitzengruppen. This corresponds to the approach advo- The works of Bosinski (1967, 2000–2001, 2008)or Conard cated by Richter (2014), whereby the M.M.O.-A and B cor- and Fischer (2000), however, show the complexity of the respond to the Keilmessergruppen and the M.M.O.-C to the Middle Paleolithic in western Central Europe and different Blattspitzengruppen. He also sees connections between the generic units. Micoquian, on the one hand, and the Babonyan, Szeletian, and Altmühlian, on the other hand. To complete this approach, Depaepe examines the chronological range of various lithic Micoquian research in Western and Central reduction concepts. He attests Levallois and Discoidal a long Europe during the 2010s chronology. In contrast, Quina and Laminar occur only toward the end of the Middle Paleolithic. More recently, the term Micoquian has been used mostly in Last but not least, in this chronological view of the term conjunction with the term Keilmessergruppen. However, we Micoquian, we would like to present and contrast three will first compare the approaches of Baales (2013)and models from the year 2016 with very different approaches to Kozłowski (2014) favoring a short chronology for the western deal with the Micoquian controversy. First, we consider the part of Central Europe (Fig. 16 left) and a long chronology for approach of Blaser and Chaussé (2016), who compiled the the eastern part of Central Europe (Fig. 16 right), respectively. definitions of the term Micoquian for assemblages from the For Baales, Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian) and Mousterian Paris basin. They make two remarkable observations. First, are generic units running side by side, while the they can show that the Micoquian biface (or what has been Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian) only occur between MIS 5b described as such) is not suitable for forming generic units. and MIS 3. This is in contrast to the Mousterian, which ap- Second, they can show that a total of three temporally sepa- pears from MIS 8 to MIS 3. For Kozłowski, there are three rated generic units were described as Micoquian (Fig. 17 units: a pure Mousterian, a pure Micoquian, and a mixture of right). Due to the use of the term Keilmessergruppen, which both. is now increasingly used in Central Europe, they propose to Richter (2014) takes a slightly different approach form a separate term for the industries at the beginning of the (Fig. 16 left). While the Micoquian sensu lato has a long last glaciation (but make no proposal). chronology (MIS 7 to MIS 3), the position of the M.M.O. Locht et al. (2016), who avoid using cultural allocations or (Mousterian with Micoquian Option) is exclusively in MIS generic units to describe the assemblages wherever possible, 3. The eastern Micoquian has a somewhat longer chronology consider the production systems for flakes, blades, points, and (MIS 5 to MIS 3). The MTA in Western Europe is contrasted bifaces in each chronostratigraphic phase for northern France with the M.M.O. in Central Europe. In addition, for the early (MIS 7 to early MIS 3). They come to the conclusion that the MIS 3, he designed a model of five European settlement zones individual reduction systems do not always occur and that (Richter 2014,p. 203): bifacial elements are only sporadically present in individual units (Fig. 17 left). The approach chosen by Kozłowski (2016) & Northwestern Europe—different Mousterian facies for the eastern part of Central Europe uses generic units and & Southwestern France—classical MTA and other recognizes a juxtaposition of these Mousterian and Micoquian Mousterian facies industries (Fig. 17 mid). Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 27 of 39 38 northern England Hungary, Netherlands Slovakia, Central Europe Hungary Bavaria Italy France, Middle Belgium Reduction concepts Moravia, West Central East northern Rhone Germany Central Southern Europe Spain valley Poland Europe Central Europe Poland Second Micoquian phase, Late Uluzzien Châtelperronien Néronien LRJ Blattspitzengruppen Final MP Transition Szeletian Altmühlian Micoquian ("Blattspitzengruppen" M.M.O. C First Micoquian phase, Early M.M.O. B Babonyen Micoquian ("Keilmessergruppen" Keilmesser- M.M.O. A Micoquian gruppen (Micoquien) Micoquien oriental Moustérien Mousterian frühe Klingen- industrie Mousterian & Micoquian Taubachian Pontinian Micoquian Mousterian & Micoquian Mousterian jüngeres Acheuléen Acheulean mittleres Acheuléen Kozlowski (2014) Depaepe (2014) Baales (2013) Richter (2014) Fig. 16 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2013–2014), according to Baales (2013), Richter (2014), Depaepe (2014), and Kozłowski (2014) Discussion The discovery phase (1) is characterized by a repeated change in affiliation, although the chronological assign- Shifts in chronological and epochal affiliation ment to the last interglacial is retained. In the Würmian phase (2), a twofold shift is visible: on the one hand, the In the course of more than 100 years of Paleolithic re- chronological assignment of the assemblages to the last search, in which the term Micoquian was used as a generic glacial, and on the other hand, to the Middle Paleolithic. unit, several chronological shifts of the term’s use can be In the chronological expansion phase (3), the duration of observed. A total of 58 sources were used, in which clear the Middle Paleolithic was extended to the time before information on the chronological position and its affiliation the last glacial period, and thus, numerous assemblages was given (Fig. 18). It is good to see that there is an were also assigned to the Middle Paleolithic. In the new interplay between the affiliation to the Lower (Acheulian) naming and Würmian phase (4), a new name for the or Middle Paleolithic (starting right from the beginning of corresponding assemblages was defined with the term the use of the term). From the 1950s onwards, the assump- Keilmessergruppen and an assignment to the last glacial tion that the generic unit Micoquian can be attributed to the was manifested. In the newest phase (chronological ex- Middle Paleolithic prevails. Predominantly French authors pansion but Würmian manifestation phase, 5), two ten- continue to use the term Micoquian according to Breuil and dencies are visible: on the one hand, a manifestation in Bordes and declare the assemblages to belong to the the last glacial, and on the other hand, an extension of Acheulian. The term was thus not only increasingly used the definition to older assemblages. for chronologically younger assemblages, but also underwent a spatial shift from Western Europe to Central Spatial shifts in affiliation and Eastern Europe. The sources used show five significant shifts of meaning: The spatial shift of the affiliation of assemblages to the Micoquian is closely related to the question of whether 1. Discovery phase (1908–1932) the eponymous site La Micoque should be added or not. 2. Würmian phase (1951–1969) In the descriptions before 1990, a reference (explicit or 3. Chronological expansion phase (1977–1989) not) to the eponymous site La Micoque was repeatedly 4. New naming and Würmian phase (1990–1993) made, either through the similarity of the assemblages or 5. Chronological expansion but Würmian manifestation through the use of the term Micoquian. From the 1990s phase (2014 to today) onwards, La Micoque was increasingly detached. This Moustérien Micoquien au sense large Middle Paleolithic (MIS 10 to 3) European Middle Paleolithic is nearly synonymous with the Mousterian Final Acheulean Late Middle Paleolithic (MIS 5-3) Early MP (MIS 10-6) Levallois Quina Laminar Laminar Discoidal 38 Page 28 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Western Eastern Northern France Paris basin Central Europe Central Europe preferential Final Mousterian Central Discoidal MTA Levallois with bifaces European end 5a/Flake, blade & points, somet. bifaces Micoquien (Bosinski 1967) 5a/Levallois & blades 5b/no sites 5c/LV flakes points, prism. blades, opp. flakes Micoquien 5d/LV flakes, points & prism. blades (Gouédo 1999) Micoquien (as defined MIS 5e - Levallois & by Breuil Discoidal products 1932 and Bordes 1954) MIS 6 - Levallois products & some Bifaces Initial Mousterian Micro- (bifaces & "Blatt- Proto- MIS 7 - Large Levallois flake schaber" Levallois Micoquian flakes and points indust. and discoidal "Jung- Proto- Microlithic Microlithic acheuléen" Levallois, flake flake (Bifaces/ backed industries industries Levallois) flakes Locht et al. (2016) Kozlowski (2016) Blaser & Chaussé (2016) Fig. 17 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2016), according to Locht et al. (2016), Kozłowski (2016), and Blaser and Chaussé (2016) took place with the reference to the spatial distance of Assigning new names the sites, the undated layer N/6 in La Micoque, as well as the now recognized differences in the assemblages. Looking back to the 1990s, the differences between the epon- One the one hand, despite the spatial distance, Bosinski ymous site and the Central European assemblages were (1967, 1970) explicitly interpreted the micoquoid assem- emphasized more intensively. Veil et al. (1994, p. 40) summa- blages he analyzed in Central Europe with reference to la rize the reasons for replacing the term Micoquian with a more Micoque. On the other hand, despite the name connec- appropriate one and point out that the lithic of the eponymic tion (Micoquo-Pradnikien), Chmielewski (1969)drewat- layer (La Micoque N/6) is not considered to be typical for the tention to the differences between the Central European whole of what is now considered to be part of this group in assemblages and the eponymous site. The distribution of Central and Eastern Europe. The mentioned difficulties with the Micoquian strongly depends on whether the epony- the eponymous site, as well as the fact that other northern mous site is part of the respective definition (see Figs. 2, French complexes were also called Micoquian, led to the 6, 8,and 14). search for a new term. Veil et al. (1994,pp.40–41), as well Levallois Laminar Discoidal Bifaces Micoquian (KMG) Typical Mousterian with recurrant Levallois Taubachian Taubachian Mousterian Different types of Micoquian (KMG) SE Charentian Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 29 of 39 38 as Jöris (1993), proposed the term “Keilmessergruppen,” in- troduced by Mania, as a substitute for the Micoquian (accord- 2016 ing to Bosinski, Günther, Toepfer, or Valoch). Jöris (1993,p. 45) writes in the same spirit that on the basis of the premises made against the term “Micoquien,” there is a tendency to abandon all the termini for Micoquian associated with the research history and to introduce a more neutral term, that of the Keilmessergruppen, as a substitute. Throughout the re- search history, a huge variety of terms as generic units have been proposed to replace the term Micoquian. We would like to contend ourselves here with a (certainly incomplete) list (Table 1). When we consider controversies about the eponymous site (La Micoque), we recognize a juxtaposition of terms that ei- ther have a regional reference (e.g., Prądnik River in Poland) 1997 or refer to a specific assemblage component (Keilmesser, asymmetrical knives, backed bifaces). The name controver- sies are depicted in Fig. 19. The generic units described are seen either as a subset or an intersection of the umbrella term 1988 Micoquian. Shifting the focus of bifacial elements At the beginning of the Micoquian research, the focus was on the preference of bifaces, which looked similar to pieces from la Micoque but different from comparable pieces from, e.g., Le Moustier. The importance of pieces that were mentioned from the 1940s onwards as Keilmesser, Faustkeilschaber, etc. 1976 (asymmetrical backed knives) in determining whether they belonged to a generic unit increased successively. Along with this added value, which bifacial pieces are now decisive, the spatial and temporal shift also came about. Thus, the meaning of the term Micoquian in more recent studies differs massively from what was regarded as Micoquian in the first half of the twentieth century. Linking the Mousterian with the Micoquian The attempt to systematically link the research approaches of the term Mousterian and Micoquian has been repeated in re- search. While at the beginning the industry of La Micoque was regarded as part of the Acheulian (Obermaier 1908a)or as transitional industry (Schmidt 1911, 1912a), the idea also arose that the Micoquian should be placed in the Middle Paleolithic. This raised the question of the simultaneity of 1920 Mousterian and Micoquian. The term Middle Paleolithic (Mittelpaläolithikum) was already introduced 10 years earlier (Blankenhorn 1905) and taken as a synonym for the Chronology Mousterian (see also Sollas 1911). The decisive difference, Pre-Eemian Eemian (Riss- Post-Eemian (Riss and earlier Würm interglacial (Würm -> however, was that Hauser placed the Micoquian between the -> MIS 9-6) -> MIS 5e) MIS 6d-3) Mousterian and the Aurignacian, and Wiegers saw it as the Fig. 18 Diagram of the Micoquian’s chronological positioning in the Lower Mousterian. Perhaps Breuil (1932b) was the first to course of the research history Research history 38 Page 30 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Table 1 Variety of terms of Term Translation Literature generic units to replace the term Micoquian Cykle przemysłowe - mikocki i Industrial cycles of the Micoquian and Krukowski prądnicki Pradnikian (1939–1948) Bocksteinkultur Bockstein culture Wetzel (1954) Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Upper Lower Paleolithic with Müller-Beck (1956, Faustkeilschabern handaxe–scrapers 1957) Charentien of Micoque tradition Charentien of Micoque tradition Valoch (1968) Micoquo-Prodnikien, Prondnikien Micoquo-Pradnikian, Pradnikian Chmielewski (1969, 1970) Group of backed bifaces Group of backed bifaces Schild and Wendorf (1977) Keilmessergruppen Keilmesser groups Mania (1990) Charentien à influence micoquienne Charentian of Micoquian influence Farizy (1995) Moustérien mit Micoque-Option Mousterian with Micoquian Option Richter (1997) Prondnikian, backed biface Prondnikian, backed biface assemblages Burdukiewicz (2000) assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Urbanowski (2003) Keilmessergruppe Keilmessergruppe Conard (2011) (Micoquian/Pradnikian) (Micoquian/Pradnikian) juxtapose the Micoquian (Acheulian VI–VII, now limited to the lithics from Kůlna that the common typology established layer N/6) and the Mousterian (see Fig. 3). by Bordes (1961b) was only insufficiently suitable to describe Two newer approaches are briefly examined in more detail the assemblage variability. This was particularly visible in here. We want to call the first approach an extension of typol- relation to bifacial pieces (Keilmesser) or special scrapers ogy. Valoch (1968, 1988) recognized during the analysis of (Groszaki). Quintessentially, he described the assemblage Fig. 19 Name controversies in regard to the terms Micoque, Similarity in name: Prądnik and lithic assemblage Pradnik component Tool Micoque Micoquo-Pradnikian Pradnikian Cykle przemysłowe: mikocki i prądnicki Charentien à influence micoquienne Pradnik knives assemblage Charentien of Micoque tradition Micoquian/Micoquien Pradnikhorizont Bocksteinkultur Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Faustkeilschabern Backed biface assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Keilmessergruppen Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 31 of 39 38 added by him to the Micoquian as a Charentian with Micoque Let us first turn to the eponymous site (La Micoque). The tradition, pointing out the special significance of scrapers and upper strata in La Micoque remain undated despite several special bifacial pieces, which did not occur in the Bordesian attempts (Rosendahl 1999, 2004, 2006, 2011). However, an facies (Bordes 1953a, 1984 defined the Charentian as Quina age of about 300 to 250 ka is assumed (Rosendahl 2006), or Ferrassie industry with a predominance of side scrapers, but meaning that these assemblages would fall out of Richter’s relatively few handaxes and blades). In this case, both the time frame. As Rosendahl (2004, 2006, 2011) discovered, bifacial assemblage component (Micoque tradition) and the the assemblages of the upper layers (layer 6 to 8) are domi- unifacial assemblage component (Charentian) were nated by the reduction of “ingot-shaped cores” (according to emphasized. Luttropp and Bosinski 1971). The Levallois and Discoidal The second approach extends the consideration of unifacial concept is present but very rare. However, there is no evidence and bifacial assemblage components by a settlement dynamic for Quina reduction. This would fit into the older M.M.O. element and was described by Richter (1997, 2002, 2006, 2014, according to Richter’smodel. 2016, 2018) as Mousterian with Micoque Option. His approach Another site considered here is the Bockstein. The faunal is based on the observation that in a conventional typological analysis by Krönneck (2012) assumes a probable deposition of classification, the problem arises that assemblages can be called the Micoquian assemblage (IIIa, IIIb) in the MIS 5a (or a warmer both Micoquian and Mousterian, depending on whether the phase of MIS 5). This would fit into the older M.M.O. according affiliation is derived from bifacial tools (Micoquian) or unifacial to Richter’s model, but not in the model of the KMG proposed tools (Micoquian). Thus, Micoquian and Mousterian are inter- by Jöris (2003), where the Bockstein site is placed into the MIS woven aspects of the same technological repertoire, but not 3. The unifacial reduction of the site, however, is not so easy to different cultural units that can be clearly distinguished in time grasp. Çep (2014, 2019) and Çep and Krönneck (2015)de- and space (Richter 2016, p. 118). The settlement dynamic mo- scribed it as a Quina concept in the broader sense, which carries mentum of this approach is based on the assumption that when a certain Levallois reduction. This raises the question of whether a site or area is repopulated, other objects are deposited than if it the reduction concepts for blank production have been sufficient- had been settled there for a longer period of time. On the one ly well described and separated from each other so far (Frick hand, a repopulation assemblage (Initialinventar) is character- 2016, pp. 215–218; Frick and Herkert 2014). ized by high raw material diversity, indifferent tool spectrum, and a low number of Micoquian tools. On the other hand, such Possibilities and ideas for overcoming the term a long duration assemblage (Konsekutivinventar) is character- Micoquian ized by a lower raw material diversity, a differentiated tool spectrum, and a high number of Micoquian tools. A question According to our understanding of the matter, the approach that keeps coming up is exactly what status bifacial tools con- described below could help to overcome these inconsis- stitute in this cycle. For Richter (2016,pp.118–119), bifacial tencies. However, we must stress that this hypothetical con- tools, at the beginning of land use cycles, tend to reflect their struct is still far from mature and applicable. As described initial status, but at the end of the cycle, they tend to be more above, the term Micoquian was used in a variety of different strongly reduced. The difficultyhereinthisapproachfor us lies ways to form generic units. If we look at the latest uses of the in the fact that the M.M.O. model tries to unite all Central term, there is no uniformity here either. If the aforementioned European sites in one model and to compare this model with M.M.O. is equated with the Keilmessergruppen, Richter a selected section of sites (MTA) in Western Europe (see (1997, 2002, 2014, 2016, 2018) assumes a very short chro- Richter 2014). nology (exclusively MIS 3), while Jöris (2003) proposed a longer chronology (MIS 5 to 3) and Kozłowski (2014, 2016) Structuring by means of the unifacial assemblage applies an extended chronology (MIS 7 to 3). These massive component differences in the application of the term make it difficult to compare the respective approaches. Within the assemblages referred to as Micoquian/KMG/ Let us now move on to the approach proposed here for the M.M.O., etc., the unifacial assemblage component was some- classification of assemblages. As we have seen, over the decades, times used to structure them. Thus, Richter differentiated his the bifacial assemblage component was first chosen intensively M.M.O. into an older one (with Quina and other non- in order to assign the assemblages to a generic unit. Over time, Levallois concepts) and a younger one (with Levallois con- the unifacial component has also been used. With a similar in- cept). This unambiguous temporal differentiation of the as- tensity, the further method apparatus was expanded within semblages must be accompanied by some remarks that have Paleolithic research (faunal remains, sedimentology, radiometric been compiled in the literature. We selected some examples of dating, settlement dynamic, etc.). We would therefore like to assemblages which can no longer be sorted into the M.M.O. make use of this expansion of knowledge and the apparatus of model so clearly. methods to develop a classification system for the Middle 38 Page 32 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Paleolithic. As lithologist, it is our intention to expand and spec- background, but it turned out that the unifacial assemblages ify the methodological apparatus of lithic technology. With this were hardly distinguishable from classical Mousterian assem- in mind, it must be examined: blages. With the increase of technological analyses from the 1980s onwards, assemblages were not only examined for their & Whether there are transitions between the concepts of specific (static) lithic components, but the dynamic momen- unifacial reduction, as well as bifacial and trifacial produc- tum of assemblages was also reflected. Some authors who tion already described became aware of this problem of the different levels of obser- & Whether only inadequately described concepts need to be vation avoided these difficulties by either proposing a name specified for a defined generic unit or attempting to dispense with these generic units in order to take into account the assemblage When the assemblage components are described and a components in their respective position in space and time. chronological framework exists, the assemblages are com- It is very significant when three chronologically separated pared to one another. Similarly, Locht et al. (2016), Hérisson and technologically different units (Bordesian Micoquian, et al. (2016), or Soriano (2000) also tried to describe assem- pre-Eem; Yonne Micoquian, MIS 5; and Charentién à influ- blages according to the reduction concepts and to fix them ence micoquienne, MIS 3) within a region are labeled with the chronologically. same term, as Blaser and Chaussé (2016) could show for the In other words, it is the attempt (as unbiased as possible) to Parisian basin. In addition, it appears that these three units get a clear understanding of the situation on the basis of tech- have little correspondence with the assemblage of the epony- nological and radiometric data (and by consulting further da- mous site La Micoque. ta). If we determine the types of assemblages chronologically After this extensive (but certainly not complete) discussion piece by piece, it should be possible to recognize the respec- of the use of the term Micoquian, the question remains as to tive patterns. It goes without saying that we are always whether the term should continue to be used or whether it is confronted with the dynamics of settlement: not in terms of time to classify the Middle Paleolithic using new approaches. population shifts but in terms of different types of camp sites, However, the simple assignment of a new name to a defined which can have very different assemblages, depending on unit may not always be the most elegant way. The assignment what is needed at the particular site before deposition (in terms of a new name should be strictly linked to the definitions of a of import, export, deposition, reduction, modification, or technocomplex. Recalling the aforementioned definition recycling). Here, generic units are irrelevant, because it must ((Lithic) assemblages that share the same economic strategy, first be clarified (in relation to the lithic assemblage compo- in similar environments with a similar technology and a similar nent) to what extent the unifacial, bifacial, and trifacial reduc- trajectory) and supplement it with a narrow chronological tion systems analyzed in detail relate to one another. framework, we should be able to form generic units that can be visibly separated from other units and perhaps even hint at certain settlement patterns. Conclusion As, for example, showed by the work in southwest France, it is necessary to build up and refine a regional chronological In considering the research history of such a complex and framework with which interassemblage comparisons are increas- controversial term, it is difficult to draw an appropriate con- ingly made possible (Jaubert 2011, 2014). However, in this con- clusion that adequately takes into account the different opin- text, it is important to include assemblages that are “out of the ions. First and foremost, the aim of this article is to show the ordinary” in the considerations. On the one hand, we think of complicated and intricate ways of researching the concept of decontextualized assemblages, which can be added to models by Micoquian. It was demonstrated that a shift in the meaning of new patterns of observation; on the other hand, we think of the term was made several times (see Fig. 18). This concerned technologically unusual assemblages, which, for the time being, its position within the chronology, its spatial extent, and the cannot quite be integrated into the already existing picture. decisive assemblage components. The shift in meaning is as- The essential definitions of generic units are derived from sociated with different levels of reflexivity or the question of the consideration of the lithic assemblage component; therefore, which methodological apparatus should be used to analyze the it is important to include other disciplines in the reflections. The underlying lithic artifacts. approach of Delagnes and Rendu (2011), for example, com- The shifts in meaning are therefore closely related to the bines the data on lithic production systems and fauna and was change in the way lithic assemblages are analyzed. In the early thus able to show correlations that could previously only be phase, the index fossil (in this case the Micoquian biface) was conjectured, such as the differences in subsistence strategies the point of reference for the assignment to a generic unit. The between Laminar/Levallois systems, Discoidal-Denticulate, typological considerations since the 1950s took into account a MTA, and Quina reduction systems. Due to the enormous amount of data to be processed, these large-scale reflections larger number of pieces, pushing the biface somewhat into the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 33 of 39 38 have only been possible since a short time, but they open up References numerous possibilities for us to combine the partial results of Adam KD (1969) Zur Großgliederung der Altsteinzeit Europas. Paleolithic disciplines in order to look at the finds anew and, if Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde aus dem Staatlichen Museum necessary, make changes in the generic units. From our lithic für Naturkunde in Stuttgart 207:1–16 point of view, however, it is not only necessary to merge the Andree J (1930) Über die deutschen Benennungen eiszeitlicher data, but also to intensively reflect on the lithic reduction sys- Kulturstufen. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 6:8–11 Andree J (1939) Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland und seine tems already recognized and their variations in order to use Kulturen. Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart them as a lithic basis for regional and supraregional compari- Baales M (2013) Das Eiszeitalter – Klima, Geologie und Umwelt. In: sons. Sometimes, it turns out that the intensive technological Baales M, Pollmann H-O, Stapel B (eds) Westfalen in der Alt- und examination can uncover further, previously unknown reduc- Mittelsteinzeit. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Münster, pp tion systems (e.g., Boëda 1991b, 2013; Bourguignon 1996; 21–35 Bailloud G, Daniel M, Daniel R, Sacchi C (1973) Les gisements Çep 2014; Delagnes 1993, 2000; Frick and Herkert 2014; préhistoriques du bois de Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). II. Luttropp and Bosinski 1971;Slimak 2004), which can be in- Gisement I, atelier de taille campignien. GalliaPrHist 16:105–129. corporated into the corpus as a basis for further considerations https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.1973.1439 and comparisons. Based on these reflections, we come to the Balout L (1967) Terminologie préhistorique et Quaternaire. Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 4:103–111. conclusion that the previous terms that were used as names for https://doi.org/10.3406/quate.1967.1053 generic units can only be seen as umbrella terms or coarse units Bárta J (1990) Mittelpaläolithische Funde im Gebiet der Slowakei. until the underlying assemblages are sufficiently understood to Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 31:122–134 map settlement, movement, and subsistence patterns. Basse de Ménorval E (1966) Ancienne circonscription de Paris. GalliaPrHist 9:437–446 Baudet J-L (1970) Contributions à l’Étude du Paléolithique ancien Acknowledgments This contribution arose from our desire to understand d’Europe septentrionale. In: Gripp K, Schütrumpf R, when the term Micoquian was used, how it was used, and for what purpose. Schwabedissen H (eds) Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. Teil 1 If there are inconsistencies, they are due to me not accurately understanding Archäologische Beiträge. Festschrift Alfred Rust. Fundamenta - certain facts. I would like to dedicate this contribution to Hansjürgen Müller- Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol A2. Böhlau, Köln, pp 34–51 Beck, who encouraged me to reflect intensively on Paleolithic phenomena. My thanks go to Dominique Rose for her excellent linguistic review of the Baudouin M (1913) Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen de la Vendée. manuscript and the discussions with many colleagues, greatly enriching the Chelléen, Acheuléen et Moustérien. In: Baudouin M (ed) Huitième content. I would also like to thank the reviewers and editors of the journal who Congrès préhistorique de France. Session d’Angoulême 1912. ensured that the manuscript was transformed into an article worth publishing. Congrès préhistorique de France, Paris, pp 1–76 The web page for downloading the map layers with sea levels (see Fig. 2, 8, 14), Bayer J (1920) Das Alter von La Micoque. PZ 11–12:204–208 which was used in GoogleEarth as base map (www.temporalmapping.org) can Bégouën H (1915a) Hauser et la Science Allmande. L’Anthropologie 26: no longer be accessed (last access in 2016). The cladogrammes also represent 293 my interpretation of the respective facts and are not to be seen as absolute Bégouën H (1915b) Suite de l’affaire Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:480– chronological fixations. Benet-Tygel S (1944) The Paleolithic period in Poland. Am Anthropol 46:292–316. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.3.02a00020 Funding information Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Birkner F (1918a) Die Kultur von La Micoque. WPZ 5:1–13 German Research Foundation) (grant number DFG FR 4015/1-1). Birkner F (1918b) Hauser Micoquien. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 49:7–12 Compliance with ethical standards Blanchard J (1948) La préhistoire en France. La Terre et la vie 1948:67– Research does not involve human participants and/or animals. Blanchard J (1963) Bifaces Micoquiens (La Micoque et Bellême). BSPF 60:48–56. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1963.3880 Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of Blankenhorn DM (1905) Über die Steinzeit und die Feuersteinartefakte in interest. Syrien-Palästina. ZfE 37:447–471 Blaser F, Chaussé C (2016) Saint-Illiers-la-Ville and the Micoquian of Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Weichselian sequences of the Paris Basin. Quat Int 411:163–178. Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.035 tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Boecking H (1971) Paläolithische Quarzitfundstellen im Trier- you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- Luxemburger Land. Quartär 22:125–141. https://doi.org/10.7485/ vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were QU22_08 made. The images or other third party material in this article are included Boëda É (1991a) Approche de la variabilité des systèmes de production in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a lithique des industries du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen: credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's chronique d’une variabilité attendue. Techn Cult:37–79 Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by Boëda É (1991b) La conception trifaciale d’un nouveau mode de taille statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain paléolithique. In: Bonifay E, Vandermeersch B (eds) Les premiers permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this européens. Actes du Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes. licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 38 Page 34 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Commission de Pré-et Protohistoire, vol 114. Comité des Travaux und Gegenwart Quart Sci J 14:124–140. https://doi.org/10.3285/ Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, pp 251–263 eg.14.1.14 Boëda É (2013) Techno-logique & Technologie. Une Paléo-histoire des Bosinski G (1967) Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen objets lithiques tranchants. Préhistoire au Présent. Institut Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta - Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol Universitaire de France. Université Paris Ouest Naterre La A4. Böhlau, Köln Défence. @https://rcheo-editions.com,Paris Bosinski G (1969) Eine Variante der Micoque-Technik am Fundplatz Boëda É, Mazière G (1989) Eventail des possibilités d’existence de cer- Buhlen, Kreis Waldeck. Jahresschrift mitteldeutscher tains faciès du Paléolithique ancien et moyen dans le Pays d’Othe Vorgeschichte 53:59–74 (Aube). In: Boucher A (ed) Pré et protohistoire de l’Aube: exposi- Bosinski G (1970) Bemerkungen zu der Grabung D. Peyronys in La tion présentée au Musée de Nogent-sur-Seine juin - octobre 1989. Micoque. In: Gripp K, Schütrumpf R, Schwabedissen H (eds) Édition du Association Régionale pour la Protection et l’Etude du Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. Teil 1 Archäologische Beiträge. Patrimoine Préhistorique, Vertus, pp 69–73 Festschrift Alfred Rust. Fundamenta - Monographien zur Bohmers A (1944) Die Mauerner Höhlen und ihre Bedeutung für die Urgeschichte, vol A2, 1st. edn. Böhlau, Köln, pp 52–56 Einteilung der Altsteinzeit. In: Jankuhn H (ed) Jahrestagungen. Bosinski G (1981) Découvertes récentes de Paléolithique inférieur et Bericht über die Kieler Tagung 1939. Forschungs- und moyen en Allemagne du nord-ouest. Notae Praehistoricae 1:100– Lehrgemeinschaft “Das Ahnenerbe”. Karl Wachholtz, 102 Neumünster, pp 65–73 Bosinski G (1982) The Transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in north- Bohmers A (1951) Die Höhlen von Mauern. Teil I. Kulturgeschichte der western Germany. In: Ronen A (ed) The Transition from Lower to altsteinzeitlichen Besiedlung. Palaeohistoria 1:3–107 Middle Palaeolithic and the Origins of Modern Man. International Böhner U (2000) Die Schicht E3 der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Funde aus symposium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations in dem Abri I am Schulerloch Späte Micoquien-Inventare und ihre the Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod. University of Haifa 6-14 Stellung zum Moustérien. Doctoral thesis, Friedrich-Alexander- October 1980. British archaeological reports international series Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 165–175 Böhner U (2008) Sesselfelsgrotte IV. Die Schicht E3 der Sesselfelsgrotte Bosinski G (1985) Der Neandertaler und seine Zeit. Kunst und Altertum, und die Funde aus dem Abri I am Schulerloch. Späte Micoquien- vol 118. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. Inventare und ihre Stellung zum Moustérien. Sesselfelsgrotte, vol 4. Bosinski G (2000–2001) El Paleolítico Medio en Europa Central. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart Zephyrus 53:79–142 Bonč-Osmolovskij G (1929) Le Paléolithique de Crimée. Bulletin de la Bosinski G (2008) Urgeschichte am Rhein. Tübinger Monographien zur Commission pour l’étude du Quaternaire 1:27–48 Urgeschichte. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen Bordes FH (1953a) Essai de Classification des industries « moustériennes Bosinski G, Kulick J (1973) Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen, ». BSPF 50:457–466. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1953.5156 Kreis Waldeck. Vorbericht über die Grabungen 1966–69. Germania Bordes FH (1953b) Le dernier interglaciaire et la place du Micoquien et 51:1–41 du Tayacien. L’Anthropologie 57:172–177 Bosinski G et al. (1995) Palaeolithic sites in the Rheinland. In: Schirmer Bordes FH (1954) Les limons quaternaires du Basin de la Seine. W (ed) Quaternary field trips in Central Europe, vol 2. Verlag Dr. Stratigraphie et archéologie paléolithique. Mémoire des archives Friedrich Pfeil, München, pp 831–999 de l’Institut de Paléontologie, vol 26. Masson, Paris Boule M (1915a) M. Hauser et Les Eyzies. L’Anthropologie 26:176–182 Bordes FH (1961a) Mousterian Cultures in France: Artifacts from recent Boule M (1915b) Une Marque de Sympathie pour Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:295 excavation dispel some popular misconceptions about Neanderthal man. Science 134:803–810. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134. Boule M (1916a) Hauser, docteur de la « Kultur ». L’Anthropologie 27: 3482.803 497–498 Bordes FH (1961b) Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Boule M (1916b) Hauser, ex-membre du T.C.F. L’Anthropologie 27:497 Publications de l’Institut de préhistoire de l’Université de Boule M (1916c) Nouvelles d’Allemagne et d’Hauser. L’Anthropologie Bordeaux., vol 1. Delmas, Bordeaux 27:303–304 Bordes FH (1966) Acheulean cultures in southwest France. In: Sen D, Bourguignon L (1992) Analyse du processus opératoire des coups de Gosh AK (eds) Studies in prehistory. Robert Bruce Foote memorial tranchet latéraux dans l'industrie moustérienne de l'abri du Musée volume. K. L. Mokhopadhyay, Calcutta, pp 49–57 (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne). Paléo 4:69–89. https://doi.org/ Bordes FH (1968) Le Paléolithique dans le monde. Collection l’Univers 10.3406/pal.1992.1195 des connaissances. Éditions Hachette, Paris Bourguignon L (1996) La Conception de Débitage Quina. Quaternaria Bordes FH (1971) Observations sur l’Acheuléen des grottes en Nova 6:149–166 Dordogne. Munibe 23:5–23 Brenet M, Folgado M (2003) Le débitage discoïde du gisement des Forets Bordes FH (1977) Time and space limits of the Mousterian. In: Wright R à Saint-Martin-de-Gurçon (Dordogne). In: Peresani M (ed) Discoid (ed) Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complex- lithic technology: advances and implications, British archaeological ity, Prehistory and material culture series, vol 12. Humanities Press, reports international series, vol 1120. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp New Jersey, pp 37–39 153–178 Bordes FH (1981) Vingt—cinq ans après: le complexe moustérien Breuil H (1926) Palaeolithic industries from the beginning of the Rissian revisité. BSPF 78:77–87. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1981.5336 to the beginning of the Wurmian glaciation. Man 26:176–179. Bordes FH (1984) Leçons sur le Paléolithique. Le Paléolithique en https://doi.org/10.2307/2787959 Europe vol 2. Cahiers du Quaternaire, vol 7. Éditions du CNRS, Breuil H (1930) Premières impressions de voyage sur la préhistoire Sud- Paris Africaine. L’Anthropologie 40:209–223 Bordes FH, Bourgon M (1951) Le complexe Moustérien: moustériens, Breuil H (1932a) Le Paléolithique ancien en Europe Occidentale et sa levalloisien et tayacien. L’Anthropologie 55:1–23 Chronologie. BSPF 29:570–578. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1932. Bordes FH, Müller-Beck H (1956) Zur Chronologie der Lößsedimente in Nordfrankreich und Süddeutschland. Germania 34:199–208. https:// Breuil H (1932b) Les industries à éclat du Paléolithique ancien: I. Le doi.org/10.11588/ger.1956.43812 Clactonien. Préhistoire 1:125–190 Bosinski G (1963) Eine mittelpaläolithische Formengruppe und das Breuil H (1938) The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Nature 141:304–306. Problem ihrer geochronologischen Einordnung. E&G Eiszeitalter https://doi.org/10.1038/141304a0 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 35 of 39 38 Brézillon MN (1971) La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée: Chauvet G, Rivière E (1896) La Micoque. Rev Sci 33:284–285 matériaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue Chauvet G, Rivière E (1898) Station quaternaire de La Micoque française. Gallia Préhistoire Supplément, vol 4. Éditions du (Dordogne). In: Masson G, Masson C (eds) Compte Rendu de la CNRS, Paris 26e Session, Saint-Étienne 1897, vol 2. Association Française pour Burdo RPC (1951) L’état présent des fouilles à la grotte moustérienne de l’Avancement des Sciences, Saint-Germain, pp 697–708 la Cotte de Saint-Brelade à Jersey. BSPF 48:322–324. https://doi. Chmielewski W (1969) Ensembles micoquo-prondnikiens en Europe org/10.3406/bspf.1951.2902 centrale. Geogr Pol 17:371–386 Burdo RPC (1956) Résultats des fouilles récentes (1951–1956) à la grotte Chmielewski W (1970) The Micoquian-Proudnik group of assemblages de la Cotte de Saint-Brelade à Jersey. BSPF 53:374–380. https://doi. in Central Europe. In: Filip J (ed) Actes du VIIe Congrès org/10.3406/bspf.1956.3352 International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Burdo RPC (1960) La Cotte-de-Saint-Brelade, Jersey, British Channel Prague, 21–27 Août 1966, vol 1. Institut d’Archéologie de Islands: excavation of a pre-Mousterian horizon, 1950–1958. l’Académie Tchécoslovaque des Science à Prague, Prague, pp Société Jersiaise, Jersey 311–312 Burdukiewicz JM (2000) The backed biface assemblages of East Central Chmielewski W (1972) The continuity and discontinuity of the evolution Europe. In: Ronen A, Weinstein-Euron M (eds) Toward modern of archaeological cultures in central and eastern Europe between the humans: the Yabrudian and the Micoquian 400–50 k-years ago. 55th and 25th millenaries B.C. In: Bordes F (ed) The origin of Homo Proceedings of a Congress held at the University of Haïfa sapiens, Proceedings of the Paris symposium, 2–5 September, vol November 3–9, 1996. British archaeological reports international 1969. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural series 850. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 155–165 Organization, Paris, pp 173–179 Cahen D, Haesaerts P (1984) Peuples Chasseurs de la Belgique Chmielewski W (1975) The Upper Pleistocene archeological site préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel. Institut Royal des Sciences Zwierzyniec I in Cracow. Swiatowit 34:7–59 Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles Clark JD (1966) Acheulian occupation sites in the Middle East and Cahen D, Michel J (1986) Le site paléolithique moyen ancien de Mesvin Africa: a study in cultural variability. Am Anthropol 68:202–229. IV (Hainaut Belgique). In: Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a001010 Chronostratigraphie et faciès culturels du paléolithique inférieur et Clark JD, Cole GH, Isaac GL, Kleindienst MR (1966) Precision and moyen dans l’Europe du nord-ouest: actes du Colloque international definition in African archaeology. S Afr Archaeol Bull 21:114– organisé à l’Université des sciences et techniques de Lille dans le 121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3888427 cadre du 22e Congrès préhistorique de France (Lille-Mons, 2–7 Clarke DL (1968) Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London septembre 1984). Supplément au Bulletin de l’Association Cliquet D, Monnier JL (1993) Signification et évolution du Paléolithique française pour l’étude du quaternaire, vol 26. Association française moyen récent armoricain. BSPF 90:275–282. https://doi.org/10. pour l’étude du quaternaire, Paris, pp. 89–102 3406/bspf.1993.9594 Cahen D, Haesaerts P, Szabo BJ, Van Neer W, Wanet P (1984) An Early Collins D (1969) Culture traditions and environment of early man. Middle Palaeolithic site at Mesvin IV (Mons, Belgium). Its signifi- Pleistocene cultural evolution with special reference to the stone cance for stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bull Inst R Sci Nat Belg 55: technology of northwestern Europe before the Last Glaciation. 1–20 Curr Anthropol 10:267–316 Callow P, Cornford JM (1986) La Cotte de St. Brelade, 1961–1978: Combier J (1965) Circumscription de Lyon. GalliaPrHist:103–127 excavations by C.B.M. McBurney. Geo Books, Norwich Combier J, Thévenot J-P (1976) Livret-Guide de l’Éxcursion A8. Bassin Campy M, Chaline J, Vuillemey M (1989) La Baume de Gigny (Jura). du Rhône. Paléolithique et Néolithique. IXe Congrès de Union in- Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire vol 27. Éditions du CNRS, Paris ternational des Sciences Préhistorique et Protohistoriques. Union Capitan L (1896a) La station acheuléenne de La Micoque (Dordogne). international des Sciences Préhistorique et Protohistoriques, Nice Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 7:529–532. https:// Conard NJ (2011) The demise of the Neanderthal cultural niche and the doi.org/10.3406/bmsap.1896.5664 beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in southwestern Germany. In: Capitan L (1896b) La station acheuléenne de la Micoque (Dordogne). Conard NJ, Richter J (eds) Neanderthal lifeways, subsistence and Revue mensuelle de l’École d’Anthropologie de Paris 16:406–416 technology: one hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study. Çep B (2014) Das mittelpaläolithische Silexinventar des Bocksteins im Proceedings of the international congress to commemorate “150 Lonetal (Schwäbische Alb). Vielfalt der Formen oder Fortbestand years of Neanderthal discoveries, 1856–2006”,organized by einer technologischen Idee? In: Beier H-J, Einicke R, Biermann E Silvana Condemi, Wighart von Koenigswald, Thomas Litt and (eds) "Material-Werkzeug: Werkzeug-Material" & "Klinge, Messer, Friedemann Schrenk, held at Bonn, 2006, Volume II. Vertebrate Schwert & Co - Neues aus der Schneidenwelt" Aktuelles aus der Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series. Springer, Dortrecht, Neolithforschung. Beiträge der Tagungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft pp. 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0415-2_19 Werkzeuge und Waffen Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz) 2011 & Conard NJ, Fischer B (2000) Are there recognizable cultural entities in Herxheim bei Landau in der Pfalz 2012 sowie Aktuelles. Beiträge zu the German Middle Palaeolithic? In: Ronen A, Weinstein-Evron M Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, vol 75. Beier & Beran, (eds) Toward modern humans: The Yabrudian and the Micoquian Langenweissbach, pp 79–92 400–50 k-years ago. Proceedings of a Congress held at the Çep B (2019) Das Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb. In: University of Haïfa November 3–9, 1996, British archaeological Baales M, Pasda C (eds) „All der holden Hügel ist keiner mir fremd reports international series, vol 850. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 7–21 ...“ Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Claus-Joachim Kind. Cro-Magnon H (1915) La guerre et M Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:169– Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 327. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 99–107 Daniel R (1965) Les stations moustériennes des environs de Saint-Julien- Çep B, Krönneck P (2015) Landscape and cave use in the Middle de-la-Liègue (Eure). BSPF 61:22–30. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf. Paleolithic of Bockstein: new results from the lithic and fauna anal- ysis. In: Conard NJ, Delagnes A (eds) Settlement dynamics of the 1965.4009 Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Tübingen publications in Daniel M, Daniel R, Degros J, Vinot A (1973) Les gisements prehistory, vol IV. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp 227–251 préhistoriques du Bois de Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). I Le site Chauvet G (1896) Station quaternaire de La Micoque. Bulletin de la paléolithique du Terrier. GalliaPrHist 16:63–103. https://doi.org/10. Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente 16:92–98 3406/galip.1973.1438 38 Page 36 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Delagnes A (1993) Un mode de production inédit au Paléolithique moyen Verpillière I (Saône-et-Loire, France). PLoS ONE 12:1–44. https:// dans l’industrie du niveau 6e du Pucheuil (Seine-Maritime). Paléo 5: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188990 111–120 Gábori M (1976) Les civilisations du Paleolithique moyen entre les Alpes Delagnes A (2000) Blade production during the Middle Paleolithic in et l’Oural. Esquisse historique. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest northwestern Europe. In: Dong W (ed) Proceedings of the 1999 Garrod DAE (1962) The Middle Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Beijing International Symposium on Paleoanthropology. In problem of Mount Carmel man. J R Anthropol Inst G B Irel 92:232– Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the discovery of the first skull-cap of the Peking Man. Supplement to Acra Anthropologica Garrod DAE, Bate DMA, McCown TD, Keith A (1937) The Stone Age Sinica 19. Institute of Vertebrate Paleonology and of Mount Carmel. Joint expedition of the British School of Paleoanthropology, Beijing, pp 181–188 Archaeology in Jerusalem and the American School of Prehistoric Delagnes A, Rendu W (2011) Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology Research (1929–1934) vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford and subsistence strategies in western France. JAS 38:1771–1783. Giot PR (1962–1963) Problemes de Geologie Quaternaire en Bretagne. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.04.007 Quartär 14:1–14 Delagnes A, Jaubert J, Meignen L (2007) Les technocomplexes du Golomshtok EA (1938) The Old Stone Age in European Russia. TAPS Paléolithique moyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre 29:190–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/1005529 diachronique et géographique. In: Vandermeersch B, Maureille B Gouedo JM (1988) Etude préliminaire de la technologie de l’industrie de (eds) Les néandertaliens: biologie et cultures, Documents Champlost: exemples de la chaîne opératoire Levallois et des préhistoriques vol, vol 23. Comité des Travaux Historiques et racloirs à retouche biface. Revue archéologique de Picardie 1:149– Scientifiques, Paris, pp 213–229 Deloze V, Depaepe P, Gouédo J-M, Krier V, Locht J-L (1994) Le Gouédo J-M (1999) Le technocomplexe micoquien en Europe de l’ouest Paleolithique dans le Nord du Senonais (Yonne): Contexte et centrale: exemples de trois gisements du sud-est du basin parisien, Geomorphologique, Industries Lithiques et Chronostratigraphie. Vinneuf et Champlost (Yonne), Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). Documents d’archeologie Française, vol 47. Maison des Sciences Doctoral thesis, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille 1 de l’Homme, Paris Gouédo J-M, Alix P, Beaune SAd, Krier V, Locht J-L (1994) Études Depaepe P (2002) Le Paléolithique moyen de la vallée de la Vanne archéologiques: Vinneuf/Les Hauts Massous (plateau du (Yonne). Matières premières, indistries lithiques et occupations Sénonais). In: Deloze V, Depaepe P, Gouédo J-M, Krier V, Locht humanines. Doctoral thesis, Université des Science et J-L (eds) Le Paléolithique moyen dans le nord du Sénonais (Yonne). Technologies de Lille, Université de Lille I Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris, pp. 83–118. Depaepe P (2014) European Middle Paleolithic: geography and culture. Grahmann R (1940) Andree, Julius. Der eiszeitliche Mensch in In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer, New Deutschland und seine Kulturen. Geogr Z 46:188–189 York, pp 2645–2670 Grahmann R (1952) Urgeschichte der Menschheit. Einführung in die Desbrosse R, Tavoso A (1970) Un gisement moustérien à Blanzy (Saône Abstammungs- und Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit, 1st edn. W. et Loire). Quartär 21:21–45. https://doi.org/10.7485/QU21_02 Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart Desbrosse R, Texier P-J (1973a) La station moustérienne de Bissy-sur- Grahmann R, Müller-Beck H (1967) Urgeschichte der Menschheit, 3rd Fley (S.-&-L.). La Physiophile 79:8–31 edn. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart Desbrosse R, Texier P-J (1973b) Les silex de Germolles dans la collection Grenier A (1945) Compte rendu d’une note de l’abbé Breuil sur ses Jeannin. La Physiophile 79:64–69 recherches sur le paléolithique sud-africain. Comptes rendus des Desbrosse R, Kozłowski JK, Zuate y Zuber J (1976) Prondniks de la séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 89:51–55. France et d‘Europe centrale. L’Anthropologie 80:431–488 https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1945.77821 Despriée J, Lorain J (1982) Les industries du Paléolithique inférieur et Gross H (1962–1963) Der gegenwärtige Stand der Geochronologie des moyen de la vallée du Loir Vendômois dans leur contexte Spätpleistozäns in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Quartär 14:49–68 géologique. Quaternaire 19:113–122. https://doi.org/10.3406/ Guillaume C (1982) Les gisements du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen de quate.1982.1427 Lorraine. Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Esin U, Benedict P (1963) Recent developments in the prehistory of Quaternaire 19:135–146. https://doi.org/10.3406/quate.1982.1431 Anatolia. Curr Anthropol 4:339–346 Günther G (1962) Neue Ausgrabungen in der Balver Höhle. PZ 40:271– Farizy C (1995) Industries Charentiennes à Influences Micoquiennes, 272. https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.1962.40.1-2.269 l’Exemple de l’Est de la France. Paléo Supplément:173–178. Günther K (1964) Die alsteinzeitlichen Funde der Balver Höhle. Mit https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1995.1393 Beiträgen von Bernhard Bahnschulte und Florian Heller. Feustel R (1983) Die früheste Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte. Alt- Bodenaltertümer Westfalens, vol 8. Aschendorffsche Thüringen 19:7–15 Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münster Fiedler L (1977) Altsteinzeitliche Fundplätze in Hessen. Führer zur Hauser O (1915) Letter of Otto Hauser to Berliner Gesellschaft für hessischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vol 2. Landesamt für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. ZfE 47:443–444 Denkmalpflege Hessen, Wiesbaden Hauser O (1916) Über eine neue Chronologie des mittleren Freericks M (1995) Transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique Paläolithikums im Vézèretal: Speziell mit bezug auf meine supérieur en Allemagne: quelques exemples. Paléo Supplément: Ausgrabungen auf la Micoque. Doctoral thesis, Friedrich- 117–122. https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1995.1388 Alexanders-Universität zu Erlangen Freund G (1963) Die ältere und mittlere Steinzeit in Bayern. Jahresbericht Hauser O (1928) Die große zentraleuropäische Urrasse: La Micoque - der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 4:9–166 Ehringsdorf - Byci skála - Predmost - Kisla Nedzimova. Ein Frick JA (2016) On technological and spatial patterns of lithic objects. Beitrag zur Entstehung der Weißen Rasse. Verlag für Urgeschichte Evidence from the Middle Paleolithic at Grotte de la Verpillière II, und Menschforschung, Weimar Germolles, France. Doctoral thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-14816 Hérisson D et al (2016) The emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic in north-western Europe and its southern fringes. Quat Int 411:233– Frick JA, Herkert K (2014) Lithic technology and logic of technicity. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 23:129–172 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.049 Frick JA, Herkert K, Hoyer CT, Floss H (2017) The performance of Hörmann K (1916) Sitzung der Anthropologischen Sektion der tranchet blows at the Late Middle Paleolithic site of Grotte de la Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 37 of 39 38 Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Kozłowski JK, Kozłowski SK (1977) Epoka kamienia na ziemiach Urgeschichte 47:30–31 Polskich. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa Janot A (1981) Essai de chronologie des industries paléolithiques à Krönneck P (2012) Die pleistozäne Makrofauna des Bocksteins (Lonetal quartzites de la région sud de Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle). BSPF – Schwäbische Alb). Ein neuer Ansatz zur Rekonstruktion der 78:306–316. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1981.5284 Paläoumwelt. Doctoral thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Jaubert J (2011) Les archéo-séquences du Paléolithique moyen du Sud- Krüger H (1964–1965) Zwei Blattspitzen unterschiedlicher Morphologie Ouest de la France: Quel bilan un quart de siècle après François aus dem Paläolithikum Oberhessens. Quartär 15–16:155–166 Bordes? In: Delpech F, Jaubert J (eds) François Bordes et la Krukowski S (1939–1948) Paleolit. In: Krukowski S, Kostrezewski RJ Préhistoire Colloque International François Bordes, Bordeaux, 22– (eds) Prehistoria ziem polskich. Encyklopedia Polska, vol 4. 24 Avril 2009. Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, Kracow, pp 1–117 scientifiques, Bordeaux, pp 235–253 Laville H (1982) On the transition from “Lower” to “Middle” Palaeolithic Jaubert J (2014) Middle Palaeolithic archeo-sequences from southwestern in south-west France. In: Ronen A (ed) The transition from Lower to France: where do we stand a quarter century after François Bordes? Middle Palaeolithic and the origins of modern man. International In: Derevianko AP, Drozdov NI (eds) Topical issues of the Asian symposium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations Paleolithic. Proceedings of the international symposium in in the Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod. University of Haifa Krasnoyarsk, July 6–12, 2012. Institute of Archaeology and 6-14 October 1980. British archaeological reports international se- Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, pp 44–62 ries 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 131–135 Jöris O (1992) Pradniktechnik im Micoquien der Balver Höhle. Leclercq X, Briois F (1982) Une station du Paléolithique inférieur près de Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22:1–12 Pamiers, à Fontvives (Ariège). BSPF 79:305–318. https://doi.org/ Jöris O (1993) Die Pradniktechnik in Buhlen (Oberer Fundplatz). Eine 10.3406/bspf.1982.5339 technologische Studie anhand ausgewählter Beispiele. Magister’s Locht J-L et al (2016) Timescales, space and culture during the Middle thesis, University of Köln Palaeolithic in northwestern France. Quat Int 411:129–148. https:// Jöris O (2003) Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.053 spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen: Der Versuch einer Lumley H (1960) Clactonien et Tayacien dans la région méditerranéenne kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen française. C R Seances Acad Sci 250:1887–1888 Formengruppe in ihrem europäischen Kontext. BerRGK 84:49–153 Lumley H (ed) (1976) Le Civilisations Paléolithiques et Mésolithiques de Joullié H (1963) Bifaces micoquiens et lancéolés de la vallée de l’Aisne la France. La Préhistoire Française, vol 1, 1st. edn. Éditions du aux environs de Vailly-sur-Aisne. Bulletin de la Société CNRS, Paris Archéologique Champenoise 56:10–17 Luttropp A, Bosinski G (1971) Der Altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Kind C-J (1992) Bemerkungen zur Differenzierung des süddeutschen Reutersruh bei Ziegenhain in Hessen. Fundamenta - Mittelpaläolithikums. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22: Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol A6. Böhlau-Verlag, Köln 151–159 Mania D (1990) Auf den Spuren des Urmenschen: Die Funde aus der Koehler H (2009) Comportements et identité techniques au Paléolithique Steinrinne von Bilzingsleben. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, moyen (Weichsélien ancien) dans le Bassin parisien: une question Berlin d'échelle d'analyse? Doctoral thesis, Université Paris X-Nanterre la Mania D, Toepfer V (1973) Königsaue: Gliederung, Ökologie und Défense mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit. Veröffentlichungen Koenigswald WV, Müller-Beck H (1975) Das Pleistozän der des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle, vol 26. Deutscher Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern). Quartär 26:107–118. Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin https://doi.org/10.7485/QU26_06 McBurney CMB (1950) The geographical study of the Older Palaeolithic Koenigswald Wv, Müller-Beck H, Pressmar E (1974) Die Archäologie stages in Europe. PPS 16:163–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/ und Paläontologie in den Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern): S0079497X00019009 Grabungen 1937–1967 vol 3. Institut für Urgeschichte McCarthy I (1995) Manufacturing classification: lessons from organiza- Kolosov YG (1986) Akkajskaya Musterskaya Kultura. Naukova Dumka, tional systematics and biological taxonomy. Integr Manuf Syst 6: Kiew 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576069510099365 Kowalski S (1967) Ciekwsze zabytki paleolityczne z najnowszych Mellars PA (1996) The Neanderthal legacy. An archaeological perspec- badan’ archeologicznych (1963–1965) w Jaskini Ciemnej w tive of western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton Ojcowie, pow. Olkusz. Mater Archeol 8:39–44 Menghin O (1926) Zur Terminologie des Paläolithikums. WPZ 13:1–13 Kozłowski L (1924) Die ältere Steinzeit in Polen. Die Eiszeit Zeitschrift Menghin O (1931) Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit. Anton Scholl & Co., für allgemeine Eiszeitforschung 1:112–163 Wien Kozłowski JK (1961) Bemerkungen über den Stand der Molines N, Hinguant S, Monnier J-L (2001) Le Paléolithique moyen à Paläolithforschung in Polen. ArchAustr 30:118–143 outils bifaciaux dans l’Ouest de la France: synthèse des données Kozłowski JK (1972) Comment on Bosinki (1972) Late Middle anciennes et récentes. In: Cliquet D (ed) Les Industries à Outils Palaeolithic groups in north-western Germany and their relations Bifaciaux du Paléolithique Moyen d’Europe Occidentale. Actes de to early Upper Palaeolithic industries. In: Bordes F (ed) The origin la table ronde organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie - France). 14 et of Homo sapiens. Proceedings of the Paris symposium, 2–5 15 octobre 1999. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de September 1969, organized by UNESCO in co-operation with the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA). Unesco, l’Université de Liège, vol 98. Université de Liège, Liège, pp 109– Paris, pp 160–160 Kozłowski JK (1989) La fin du paléolithique moyen en Pologne. Monnier JL (1986) Chronostratigraphie et faciès cultureles du Anthropologie (Brno) 27:133–142 Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Bretagne. Comparaison avec Kozłowski JK (2014) Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: les régions loessiques. In: Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) Mousterian vs Micoquian. Quat Int 326–327:344–363. https://doi. Chronostratigraphie et faciès culturels du paléolithique inférieur et org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020 moyen dans l’Europe du nord-ouest: actes du Colloque international Kozłowski JK (2016) Taxonomy of the Early Middle Palaeolithic in organisé à l’Université des sciences et techniques de Lille dans le Central Europe. Litikum 4:19–27. https://doi.org/10.23898/ cadre du 22e Congrès préhistorique de France (Lille-Mons, 2–7 litikuma0016 septembre 1984). Supplément au Bulletin de Association française 38 Page 38 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 pour l’étude du quaternaire, vol 26. Association française pour Pittioni R (1939) Andree Julius. Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland l’étude du quaternaire, Paris, pp 113–127 und seine Kulturen. Anthropos Stud Anthropol Palaeoethnol Monnier J-L (1988) Chronostratigraphie et écologie des industries Palaeontol Quat Geol 34:451–452 paléolithiques de la Bretagne. Revue archéologique de Picardie 1– Prausnitz MW (1969) The sequence of Early to Middle Paleolithic flint 2:75–80. https://doi.org/10.3406/pica.1988.1578 industries along the Galilean littoral. IEJ 19:129–136 Mortillet Gd (1869) Essai d’une classification des cavernes et des stations Richter J (1997) Sesselfelsgrotte III. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der sous abri fondée sur les produits de l’industrie humaine. In: Mortillet Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Quartär- GD (ed) Matériaux pour L’histoire primitive et naturelle de Bibliothek, vol 7. Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbrücken L’Homme et l’étude du sol, de la faune et de la flore qui s’y Richter J (2002) Die C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die rattachent, vol 5. Reinwald, Paris, pp. 172–179. Zeitstellung des Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania 80:1–22 Mortillet Gd (1873) Classification des diverses périodes de l’âge de la Richter J (2006) Neanderthals in their landscape. In: Demarsin B, Otte M pierre. In: Mortillet GD (ed) Compte Rendu du Congrès (eds) Neanderthals in Europe. Actes de la conférence internationale, International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique. au Musée gallo-romain de Tongres, 17–19 septembre 2004. Études 6ième Session, Bruxelles, 1872. Weissenbruch, Paris, pp 432–444 et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, vol 117. Mortillet G (1883) Le préhistorique. Antiquité de l’homme vol 8. Université de Liège, Liège, pp 51–66 Bibliothèque des Sciences Contemporaines. Ch. Ferdinand Richter J (2014) L’impact environnemental sur la formation des assem- Reinwald, Paris blages lithiques unifaciaux et bifaciaux « micoquiens » ou « MMO » Mortillet A (1907) Présentation d’une carte topographique de Otto d’Europe centrale. In: Jaubert J, Fourment N, Depaepe P (eds) Hauser. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de France 4:500–501. Paléolithique et Mésolithique. Transitions, ruptures et continuité en https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1907.7835 Préhistoire. Transitions, rupture and continuity in prehistory. Müller-Beck H (1956) Das obere Altpaläolithikum in Süddeutschland. XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France. Bordeaux - Les Eyzies, Ein Versuch zur ältesten Geschichte des Menschen, vol 1. 31 mai-5 juin 2010), vol 2. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp Hamburger Buchdruckerei und Verlagsanstalt Auerdruck, Hamburg 195–205 Müller-Beck H (1957) Paläolithische Kulturen und Pleistozäne Richter J (2016) Leave at the height of the party: a critical review of the Middle Paleolithic in Western Central Europe from its beginnings to Stratigraphie in Süddeutschland. E&G Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart Quart Sci J 8:116–140. https://doi.org/10.3285/eg.08.1.07 its rapid decline. Quat Int 411:107–128 Richter J (2018) Altsteinzeit: Der Weg der frühen Menschen von Afrika Müller-Beck H (1958) Zur Bezeichnung paläolithischer Artefakttypen. bis in die Mitte Europas. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Alt-Thüringen 3:140–200 Riek G (1934) Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal: Die Müller-Beck H (1966) Paleohunters in America: origins and diffusion. Kulturen. Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung Franz F. Heine, Science 152:1191–1210. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.152.3726. 1191 Tübingen Rigaud J-P (1986) Circonscription d’Aquitaine. GalliaPrHist 29:233–258 Narr KJ (1953) Zur Frage altpaläolithischer Kulturkreise. Anthropos 48: 773–794 Rigaud J-P (ed) (1988) La Grotte Vaufrey. paléoenvironnement, chronologie, activités humaines. Mémoire de la Sociéte Obermaier H (1908a) Die Steingeräte des französischen Altpaläolithikums: Eine kritische Studie über ihre Stratigraphie Préhistorique Française, vol 19. Société Préhistorique Française, und Evolution. Mittheilungen der Prähistorischen Commission der Châlons-sur-Marne Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol 1–2. A. Hölder, Ringer Á (1983) Bábonyien. Eine mittelpaläolithische Wien Blattwerkzeugindustrie in Nordostungarn. Doctoral thesis, Eötvös Obermaier H (1908b) M. Hauser et la Micoque. RÉA 10:85–88. https:// Loránd University doi.org/10.3406/rea.1908.1532 Ronen A, Weinstein-Evron M (2000) Toward modern humans. The Obermaier H (1912) Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Der Mensch aller Zeiten. Yabrudian and Micoquian. 400–50 k-years ago. Proceedings of a Congress held at the University of Haifa, November 3–9, 1996. Natur und Kultur der Völker der Erde, vol 1. Allgemeine British archaeological reports international series, vol 850. Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin Archaeopress, Oxford Obermaier H (1924) Acheuléen. In: Ebert M (ed) Erster Band. Aal - Rosendahl G (1999) La Micoque und das Micoquien in den Beschneidung, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, vol 1. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, pp 8–10 altsteinzeitlichen Sammlungen des Reiss-Museums Mannheim. Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter Neue Folge 6:315–351 Penck AFK, Brückner E (1909) Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. Tauchnitz, Leipzig Rosendahl G (2004) Die oberen Schichten von La Micoque (Dordogne, Frankreich). Doctoral thesis, Universität zu Köln Peyrony D (1908) A propos des fouilles de La Micoque et des travaux récents parus sur ce gisement. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie de Rosendahl G (2006) Les Couches Supérieures de la Micoque Paris 11:380–382 (Dordogne). Paléo:161–192 Peyrony D (1921) Le Moustérien - Ses faciès. In: Calmétie A (ed) Rosendahl G (2011) Technological analysis of the bifacial tools from La Compte Rendu de la 44ème Session de la Association Française Micoque and its implications. In: Conard NJ, Richter J (eds) Neanderthal lifeways. Subsistence and technology. One hundred pour l’Avancement des Sciences, Strasbourg 1920. Masson, Paris, fifty years of Neanderthal study, Vertebrate paleobiology and paleo- pp 496–497 Peyrony D (1930) Le Gisement préhistorique de la Micoque et ses nou- anthropological series. Springer, New York, pp 133–138 Sacchi C, Chantret F, Klimek É, Vandermeersch B, Vinot A (1978) Les velles industries. In: Perrier G (ed) Compte Rendu de la 53e Session. Accociation Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences. Le Havre Gisements Préhistoriques du Bois de Verrières-Le-Buisson 1929. Accociation Française pour l’avancement des Sciences, Paris, (Essonne). III. Le Site Paléolithique du Terrier. GalliaPrHist 21: 47–89. https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.1978.1583 pp 487–488 Peyrony D (1933) La Micoque et ses diverses industries. In: XVe Congrès Schild R, Wendorf F (1977) The prehistory of Dakhla Oasis and Adjacent Desert. Ossolineum, Wroclaw International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique. Ve session de l’Institut international d’anthropologie: Paris, 20–27 Schmidt RR (1911) Die Grundlagen für die Diliuvialchronologie und septembre 1931. E. Nourry, Paris, pp 1–6 Paläethnologie Westeuropas. ZfE 43:945–974 Peyrony D (1938) La Micoque. Les Fouilles récentes.—Leur significa- Schmidt RR (1912a) Archäologischer Teil. Die Diluvialen Kulturen tion. BSPF 35:257–283. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1938.12316 Deutschlands. In: Schmidt RR (ed) Die diluviale Vorzeit Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 39 of 39 38 Deutschlands. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Nägele Valoch K (1968) Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern und Dr. Sproesser, Stuttgart, pp 1–156 Europe. CurrAnthr 9:351–390 Schmidt RR (ed) (1912b) Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands. Valoch K (1988) Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961–1976. Anthropos - Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Nägele und Dr. Studien zur Anthropologie, Paläoethnologie, Paläanthropologie und Sproesser, Stuttgart Quartärgeologie, vol 24. Moravské Muzeum, Brno Schönweiß W (1962–1963) Paläolithische Funde vom Hahnenberg im Veil S et al (1994) Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz aus der Weichsel- schwäbisch-bayrischen Ries. Quartär 14:95–104 Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg, Lkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Germania 72:1–66 Schwabedissen H (1973) E. Archaeological research: 1. Palaeolithic and Verneau R (1915) Un mot au sujet des collections Hauser. Mesolithic periods. Eiszeit Gegenw 23–24:340–359. https://doi.org/ L’Anthropologie 26:597–599 10.23689/fidgeo-1565 Vignard E (1945) Levalloisien et Moustérien d’Europe et d’Afrique. Leur Slimak L (2004) Les dernières expressions du Moustérien entre Loire et place dans le quaternaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de Rhône. Doctoral thesis, Université de Provence France 42:155–168. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1945.2007 Sollas WJ (1911) Ancient hunters and their modern representatives, 1st. Weinert H (1939) Andree, Julius: Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland edn. MacMillian and Co., London und seine Kulturen. Zeitschrift fü Morphologie und Anthropologie Soriano S (2000) Outillage bifacial et outillage sur éclat au Paléolithique 38:344–345 ancien et moyen: coexistence et interaction. Doctoral thesis, Paris X Weißmüller W (1995) Sesselfelsgrotte II. Die Silexartefakte der Unteren Nanterre-La Defense Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Soriano S (2001) Statut fonctionnel de l’outillage bifacial dans les indus- Moustérien. Quartär-Bibliothek, vol 6. Saarbrückener Druckerei tries du Paléolithique moyen: Propositions méthodologiques. In: und Verlag, Saarbrücken Cliquet D (ed) Les industries à outils bifaciuaux du Paléolithique Werth E (1916a) Das Micoquien-Hauser in Deutschland. ZfE 48:89–92 moyen d’Europe occidentale. Actes de la table-ronde internationale Werth E (1916b) Hausers Micoquien. Korrespondenz-Blatt der organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie - France) - 14 et 15 octobre Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und 1999. Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Urgeschichte 47:71–72 Liège, vol 98. Liège, pp 77–83 Werth E (1919) Die Kultur von La Micoque. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Street M, Baales M, Jöris O (1999) Beiträge zur Chronologie Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und archäologischer Fundstellen des letzten Glazials im nördlichen Urgeschichte 50:10–12 Rheinland. Terrestrische Quartärgeologie 1999:426–465 Wetzel R (1935) Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal, Markung Tixier J, Inizan M-L, Roche H (1980) Terminologie et Technologie vol 1. Rammingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben Neue Folge 8:16–20 Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, vol 47. Cercle de Recherche et Wetzel R (1944) Die Faustkeilfunde der Grabung Bocksteinschmiede. In: d’Études de Prehistoriques, Valbonne Jankuhn H (ed) Jahrestagungen. Bericht über die Kieler Tagung Tuffreau A (1979) Les débuts du Paléolithique moyen dans la France 1939. Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft „Das Ahnenerbe“. Karl septentrionale. BSPF:140–142. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1979. Wachholtz, Neumünster, pp 81–92 Tuffreau A (1982) The transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in northern Wetzel R (1954) Quartärforschung im Lonetal. E&G Eiszeitalter und France. In: Ronen A (ed) The transition from Lower to Middle Gegenwart Quart Sci J 4–5:106–141. https://doi.org/10.3285/eg. Palaeolithic and the origins of modern man. International sympo- 04-5.1.10 sium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations in the Wetzel R, Bosinski G (1969) Die Bocksteinschmiede in Lonetal Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod: University of Haifa 6–14 (Markung Rammingen, Kreis Ulm) vol Teil II: Tafeln. October 1980. British archaeological reports international series Veröffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 137–150 Stuttgart Reihe A Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vol 15, 1st edn. Müller Tuffreau A (1988) Les habitats du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen dans & Graff, Stuttgart le Nord de la France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Somme). Revue Wetzel R, Völzing O, Gieseler W, Keller K (1941) Die Lontalforschung. archéologique de Picardie 1–2:91–104. https://doi.org/10.3406/ Plan und Zwischenbericht. Jahresband der Wissenschaftlichen pica.1988.1580 Akademie Tübingen des NSD-Dozentenbundes 2:79–130 Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) (1988) Le Gisement Paléolithique moyen de Wiegers F (1920) Diluvialprähistorie als geologische Wissenschaft. Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Volume I. Stratigraphie, Abbandlungen der Preosischen Geologischen Landesanstalt. Neue Environnement, Études Archéologiques (1ère partie). Mémoire de Folge, vol 84, Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt edn. la Société Préhistorique Française, vol 21, 1st. edn. Éditions du Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, Berlin Éditions du CNRS, Paris Wiegers F (1928) Allgemeine Diluvialprähistorie. Diluviale Ulrix-Closset M (1969–1970) Biface micoquien provenant de la sablière Vorgeschichte des Menschen, vol 1. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stouvenakers à Omal (Province de Liège). Bulletin des Chercheurs Stuttgart de la Wallonie 21:307–311 Wiegers F, Schuchhardt C, Hilzheimer M (1913) Eine Studienreise zu den Ulrix-Closset M (1975) Le Paléolithique moyen dans le Bassin mosan en paläolithischen Fundstellen der Dordogne. ZfE 45:126–160 Belgique. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de Zamiatnin SN (1929) Station Moustérienne Ilskaya province de Kouban l’Université de Liège. Publications exceptionnelles, vol 3. Éditions (Caucase du Nord). Rev Anthropol 7:282–295 Universa, Wetteren Zotz LF (1939) Die Altsteinzeit in Niederschlesien. Verlag Kurt Urbanowski M (2003) Pradnik knives as an element of Micoqian techno- Kabitzsch, Leipzig stylistic specifics. Doctoral thesis, Warswa University Zotz LF (1941) Die Altsteinzeitkunde auf der Jahrestagung 1939 der Uthmeier T (2004) Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern: Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft “Das Ahnenerbe”. Quartär 12: Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel-zum 179–180 Jungpaläolithikum. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag Zotz LF (1951) Altsteinzeitkunde Mitteleuropas. Ferdinand Enke, Valoch K (1955) Beitrag zur Frage der Blattspitzen im Paläolithikum Stuttgart Mährens. Germania 33:10–12. https://doi.org/10.11588/ger.1955. Valoch K (1967) Le Paléolithique moyen en Tchécoslovaquie. Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- L’Anthropologie 71:135–144 tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Springer Journals

Reflections on the term Micoquian in Western and Central Europe. Change in criteria, changed deductions, change in meaning, and its significance for current research

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/reflections-on-the-term-micoquian-in-western-and-central-europe-change-9SCq8VIPz2

References (209)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
1866-9557
eISSN
1866-9565
DOI
10.1007/s12520-019-00967-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The primary objective of this contribution is to show the intricate ways of over 100 years of research concerning the term Micoquian and its multiple shifts in meaning. A detailed analysis of the course of the research history has made it possible to identify several tendencies of shifting meaning. This concerned both its position within the chronology, its spatial extent, and decisive assemblage components. The term Micoquian has been used to describe complexes with very different characteristics. Chronologically, both assemblages dating before, during, and after the last interglacial period were referred to as Micoquian. To avoid difficulties in understanding the term, different names for the generic units of the respective assemblage units have been proposed from time to time. Due to the reflections on the research history, it is possible to investigate the question of whether and to what extent the term Micoquian should continue to be used and what significance is attached to it today, and to what extent it appears necessary to pursue other approaches to the classification of the Middle Paleolithic record. In conclusion, a multidisci- plinary approach is proposed (including lithic, faunal, radiometric, site catchment, and/or settlement dynamic analysis) to build a multifaceted framework that is able to form clusters of similarities. The formerly defined generic units (called technocomplexes, facies, groups, space–time units, and so on) are seen purely as umbrella terms to structure the Paleolithic record, without claiming to reflect the former Paleolithic reality. With the addition of a tight chronological corset, the definitions of technocomplexes (by using lithic, faunal, and possibly floral data) could allow small, manageable space–time units to be formed and then compared with one another. . . . . . Keywords Micoquien Micoquian Faustkeilschaberinventare Keilmessergruppen Micoquo-Prondnikian Bocksteinkultur Introduction spatial units in Paleolithic research and discusses the varying uses of the term in the context of over 100 years of research. This article examines the research history of the term On the whole, the majority of researchers have increasingly Micoquian. It contributes to the discussion of chronological– narrowed down the term chronologically. However, tendencies toward the use of long chronologies can also be observed oc- casionally. At times, the term Micoquian was charged with very different, incompatible meanings, which led to a parallel use This article is part of the Topical Collection on Settlement Patterns and made it difficult to give a uniform definition. The generic Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age units defined in this way are sometimes spatially or temporally separated from each other, but are nevertheless assigned the * Jens Axel Frick same term, a phenomenon that can also be observed for other jens-axel.frick@ifu.uni-tuebingen.de chrono-spatial units (e.g., the Mousterian facies of Bordes). Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Institute for Sometimes ambiguity is countered by trying to define new Pre- and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, Eberhard Karls terms for a generic unit. New definitions occasionally use University of Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, Burgsteige 11, different basic components for definition, although the same 72070 Tübingen, Germany name is used for the generic unit. The reverse case can also be Projet collectif de recherche (PCR), “Le Paléolithique supérieur observed. In contrast to biological taxonomy (e.g., McCarthy ancien en Bourgogne méridionale” associated with UMR 6298 1995), there is no recognized set of rules on the basis of which ARTeHIS at the Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France 38 Page 2 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 it is possible to provide the phenomena recognized in continue to use such a superordinate cluster, the so-called Paleolithic research with a uniform name. generic unit. The definition of the term technocomplex represents an attempt to taxonomically structure the archeological material (Clarke 1968, pp. 328–329): “These grosser entities involve Earliest definitions groups of cultures which are not related or collateral cultures but which do share polythetic complexes of type families on In the search for the origins of the term Micoquian, one comes the basis of common factors in environment, economy and across the dissertation of Hauser (1916). However, the term technology. Since it is extremely difficult to discuss an entity was already used earlier by different authors. In this early without a name let us tentatively call these gross groupings phase, the term was used primarily in direct relation to the technocomplexes.[…] The technocomplex represents the La Micoque site. First, the term was used as an adjective partly independent arrival of diverse developing culture sys- (micoquien, micoquienne) to describe corresponding phenom- tems at the same general equilibrium pattern based on a sim- ena of the La Micoque site. Convincingly, here are the classi- ilar economic strategy,in similar environments with a similar fications of bifaces, for example: technology and a similar trajectory.” (emphasis added by the author). Let us summarize this definition of technocomplexes & Peyrony (1908): pointes micoquiennes [Micoquian points] as follows: (Lithic) assemblages that share the same economic & Obermaier (1908a): Reduzierter lanzenspitzförmiger strategy, in similar environments with a similar technology Faustkeil vom Typus von La Micoque or Micoquekeil and a similar trajectory (see also Frick 2016,pp. 85–87). [Reduced lance-shaped biface of the La Micoque type or The formation of chrono-spatial units in Paleolithic re- Micoquian biface] search was and is mainly based on stone artifacts, since their & Schmidt (1912b): Langausgezogener, lanzenspitzförmiger large quantity and generally good preservation allow phenom- Fäustel vom Typus La Micoque [Long extended, lanceo- ena to be observed in space and time. With regard to the late biface of the La Micoque type] generic unit of the Micoquian, bifacial lithic objects were & Hauser (1916): Micoque-Keil-Spitze [Micoquian wedge and are mostly used as the main criterion for classification. point] In the course of the research history, it is easy to observe how the reference system, the systematic approach to these These, however, make it clear that even at the beginning of pieces, changed. At the beginning of research, individual lithic the research at this site, unusual lithic pieces (deviating from index fossils were decisive for the assignment to a generic unit the known norm) enjoyed special attention. The question of (Mortillet 1873), which could separate coarse bifaces what can be addressed as Micoquian biface will be encoun- (Acheulian) from more finely made bifaces (Mousterian). tered frequently below. The typological approach established by Bordes tried to en- Let us now return first to the site of La Micoque, discovered sure a higher objectivity by using a larger selection of pieces in 1895 and first excavated by Chauvet and Rivière in the within an assemblage. Although bifacial pieces were mea- following year (Capitan 1896a, b; Chauvet 1896; Chauvet sured here, they were still evaluated qualitatively (Bordes and Rivière 1896, 1898). Subsequently, further researchers un- 1953a, b; Bordes and Bourgon 1951). The technological lithic dertook excavations at the site (Peyrony, Coutil, Cartaillhac, investigations, which were intensified from the 1980s on- Hauser, Bordes, Laville, Rigaud, and Debénath). Rosendahl wards, provided deep insights into the production process of (2004, 2006, 2011) has summarized the extensive research his- the pieces (Tixier et al. 1980). As a result, the previously tory of the site, and therefore, it is not repeated here. determined lithic types lost their static character, since their The term Micoquien itself, for a generic unit (initially re- great mutability was shown by the extraction of reworking lated only to La Micoque) was used by Hauser years before and remolding processes. The limiting factor is that in many his dissertation: „[...] das "Micoquien", wie ich bereits 1907 cases these three approaches mix and only detailed restudies den Sondertypus der auf dieser Station gefundenen, bis jetzt show how attempts were made to classify the existing mate- von der Prähistorie dem Acheuléen (Obermaier) bzw. einem rial. Particular methodological approaches are already present- warmen Moustérien (Wiegers) zugewiesenen Artefakte ed in early work, which have become popular later on. genannt habe, eine Sonderkultur der dritten Interglazialzeit We investigate how the term Micoquian, including alterna- darstellt, [...].“ (Hauser 1915,p.443)[the “Micoquien,” as I tive terms and synonyms, was used in the course of research already called the special type of artifacts found on this station below. In order to make the shifts in meaning visible, an at- in 1907, assigned to the Acheulian (Obermaier) or to a warm tempt will then be made to analyze them over time in order to Mousterian (Wiegers) by prehistoric research until now, a spe- show the different ways in which the term has been and is used cial culture of the third interglacial period]. in research. We will also examine the question of whether, The earliest extensive descriptive and written reference to given the current state of research, it might make sense to the term for a spatial–temporal unit was most probably made Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 3 of 39 38 by Hauser (1916). However, he already used it in two ways In the 1910s already, numerous sites in France (Baudouin (Hauser 1916, p. 55). On the one hand, he used the term to 1913;Birkner 1918a;Hauser 1916; Schmidt 1911, 1912a)and describe all archeological remains found in La Micoque under Germany (Birkner 1918a;Hauser 1916;Hörmann 1916)were his direction; on the other hand, he used the term to describe assigned to the Micoquian. In the 1920s, sites were added numerous sites in Central Europe (German Micoquian). from Great Britain (Breuil 1926)and Poland (Kozłowski Chronologically, he regarded the Micoquian between the 1924) (see Fig. 1). Mousterian and the Aurignacian and justified this on the Toward the end of the 1920s, Hauser (1928) himself recorded grounds that the assemblage he regarded as Micoquian was a total of n = 116 sites throughout Europe and even in Central a mixture of Acheul-like, Moustier-like, and Aurignac-like Asia, the Middle East, and Central Africa, which he assigned to types; see also, Hauser (1916,p. 55). the Micoquian. If one compares the distribution of Micoquian This was contradicted by the assumption of H. Obermaier, sites according to Obermaier (1908a) in Western Europe and who saw the industry of La Micoque as a subgroup of the late Kozłowski (1924) in Central Europe, Hauser’s distribution map Acheulian (Obermaier 1908a, b, 1912, pp. 128–129; 1924,pp. can be regarded as vastly unrealistic (see also Fig. 2). However, 8–9). Moreover, the finds were already assigned to the this only applies if rough criteria are used for the assignment of Acheulianwithinthe firstexcavations, before Obermaier an assemblage to the Micoquian (or any other generic unit). and Hauser described them (Capitan 1896a, b). In the 1910s and early 1920s, the Micoquian was uniformly Chronologically, the Micoquian was assigned to an inter- assigned to an interglacial period, although the cultural assign- glacial, with Obermaier, Hauser, and Wiegers agreeing. ment (generic unit) sometimes differed greatly (see Fig. 3). However, the allocation to larger units was different. The use of the Micoquian biface as index fossil for the respec- Obermaier suggested an affiliation to the Acheulian tive allocation remained uniform here. (Obermaier 1908a), Hauser saw a positioning between the Mousterian and Aurignacian (Hauser 1916), and Wiegers placed the Western and Central European Micoquian in the Generic unit “warm Mousterian” defined by him (Wiegers 1920, 1928). Both Obermaier (1912, pp. 129–130) and Wiegers et al. At this point, let us briefly specify what we mean by the term (1913, p. 134) have examined the finds from La Micoque in generic unit. Since terms such as Micoquian, Mousterian, detail, but arrive at completely different conclusions, mainly Acheulian, and others (and in all their spellings) are not uni- due to their different approaches. While Obermaier emphasizes formly regarded as a term for a specific unit (in space and the Acheul character (referring to the bifacial pieces and the time), the term generic unit is used, which very generally outline of tools), Wiegers focuses on the Mousterian character implies a supposed connection within a common term. Thus, (referring to the unifacial components, the cross-section, and the generic unit is regarded as an umbrella term under which, blanks) of the finds (see also Weißmüller 1995,p.40). depending on the approach, different phenomena or charac- In this context, the fact that Hauser as a person was consid- teristics of an artifact or assemblage can be united. We see this ered controversial during his work in the Vézère valley must be as a way of dealing with the fact that very different definitions taken into account. The literature of this period includes both of the same term can be presented and examined. Thus, a defamation (Bégouën 1915a, b; Boule 1915a, 1916a, b, c;Cro- generic unit can reflect a technocomplex, a facies, a group, a Magnon 1915; Obermaier 1908b; Verneau 1915) and support space–time unit, a cultural group, a cluster of sites, etc. for the excavation work and the subsequent doctoral thesis (Bayer 1920; Birkner 1918a, b; Boule 1915b; Hörmann 1916;Mortillet 1907; Werth 1916a, b, 1919). Through this Research in the course of the 1920s fame, the concept of the Micoquian spread more and more. A total of three positions can thus be identified for the late 1910s: It already became apparent in the 1920s that the chronological position of assemblages, that were referred to as Micoquian, & The Micoquian is an independent unit, located between cannot always be clearly located in the Interglacial, even when Mousterian and Aurignacian, and is chronologically Obermaier’s industrial definitions were applied instead of assigned to an interglacial period (Hauser). Hauser’s. The best example of this is Kozłowski’s(1924) expla- & The Micoquian is part of the Acheulian, temporally be- nations of Polish sites, which were placed in the early Würm. tween the early Acheulian and the Mousterian and is chro- One could see this as the starting point where the research com- nologically assigned to an interglacial period (Obermaier). munity began to use the term Micoquian on the basis of different & The Micoquien is part of the Mousterian, temporally lo- definitions, not necessarily according to the artifact addressed, cated between the Acheulian and the cold Mousterian, and but according to the supposed chronological position. This is is chronologically assigned to an interglacial period clearly visible when the approaches of Breuil (1926, 1932a, b) (Wiegers). and Riek (1934) are juxtaposed. On the basis of Peyrony’s 38 Page 4 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 1 Cladogram of the term Micoquian and closely related terms (1908–1926). The use of the term, or related terms, is clearly visible here, either solely for the La Micoque site or with the addition of further sites (here: independent of which layers in La Micoque are called Micoquian) (1930, 1933, 1938) excavations in 1929, Breuil narrowed the The naming of independent complexes was also a contro- term Micoquien to the layer N/6 in La Micoque. He proposed versial issue in the 1920s and 1930s, with both factual a branched system of complexes that followed each other in time (Menghin 1926) and polemical national (Andree 1930)argu- or were parallel to each other, whereby the Micoquian originated ments being put forward. At the beginning of the 1930s, the from the Acheulian (the hypothesis of Obermaier) and merged term Micoquian was used for two different units. Firstly, into numerous other mousteroid industries (see Fig. 3). Breuil’s definitions were used in francophone countries, and In contrast, Riek (1934) used the term Micoquian for oc- secondly, researcher from Poland and Germany used their cupations after the Interglacial (as Kozłowski 1924 did), but own definitions. Since the Micoquian biface continued to be designated in clearly as part of the Upper Acheulian (as used as the defining element, the definitions differed mainly in Kozłowski 1924; and Obermaier 1924 did). Riek quoted the the chronological location of the assemblages. The German work of Kozłowski (in relation to the Aurignacian), but for the and Polish assemblages (early Würm), for example, were es- Micoquian he followed Obermaier’s explanations and timated to be much younger than similar sites in France (last assigned the Micoquian to the Upper Acheulian. interglacial). Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 5 of 39 38 Fig. 2 Map of sites attributed to the Micoquian: orange markings with O (1928); and red markings with Z (distribution of sites attributed to the (Unterstufe von La Micoque, lokale Fazies des jüngeren Acheuléen), Micoquian), according to Zotz (1951). Base maps from according to Obermaier (1908a), green markings with K (La TemporalMapping.org (80 m below present-day sea level) from Micoquekultur), according to Kozłowski (1924); petrol markings with GoogleEarth Pro H(Artefakt- u. Menschfundorte des Micoquien), according to Hauser Älteres (“unteres“) Acheuléen Fig. 3 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), light green (1908–1934). For an overview of the diversity of the assignment of the (Micoquian as part of the Acheulian), green gradient (Micoquian is Micoquian, the considerations of Obermaier (1908a), Schmidt (1911), Acheulian or Middle Paleolithic), dark green (Micoquian as part of the Hauser (1916), Wiegers (1920), Obermaier (1924), Kozłowski (1924), Middle Paleolithic), blue (Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic), and violet Wiegers (1928), Breuil (1932b), and Riek (1934) are outlined here. (Upper Paleolithic) 38 Page 6 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Research of the 1930s and 1940s should only be considered suitable and valid for Germany. Like Wiegers, he considered Paleolithic research to be a geo- During the 1930s and 1940s, the Micoquian became an inte- logical discipline that had to base its chronology mainly on gral part of chrono-cultural terminology and was used for geological observations. If the term culture is replaced by numerous industries in Eurasia and Africa, as the following industry in the following statement, it can be endorsed to a examples show. As with other industries, affiliation was de- large extent even today: “Es ist also nicht angängig zu sagen, termined on the basis of index fossils. For the Micoquian, the daß in einem bestimmten Zeitabschnitt nur eine ganz presence of Micoquekeile [Micoquian bifaces], and those sim- bestimmte Kultur auftreten könne oder daß alle Funde aus ilar enough, according to the researchers, to be determined as einer bestimmten Zeit zu einer einzigen Kultur gehören such, became the primary determining element. müssen.” (Andree 1939, p. 140) [Thus, it is not appropriate The first example is the Kiik-Koba site on Crimea, which to say that in a certain period of time only a certain culture was described with a La Micoque affinity from the late 1920s (industry) can appear or that all finds from a certain time must onwards due to the bifacial pieces (Bonč-Osmolovskij 1929; belong to a single culture (industry)]. Andree adopted Golomshtok 1938), but which was criticized at the same time Wiegers’ division of the generic units: Faustkeilkulturen (Zamiatnin 1929). Furthermore, the layer E in Tabun, which [Biface cultures], Breitklingenkulturen [Broad blade cultures], was called Micoquian in its first description, deserves mention and Schmalklingenkulturen [Narrow blade cultures] and (Breuil 1938;Garrodet al. 1937). Another example is rejected Menghin’s terms (Protolithic, Miolithic, and Stellenbosch in South Africa, where the upper layers were com- Neolithic), since they only represent new names for applicable paredtothe Micoquian(Grenier 1945), similar to other sites in units. Based on an index fossil approach, he suggested the Southern Africa (Breuil 1930) or the Wadi Kom Ombo in following hypothesis regarding the classification of German Egypt (Vignard 1945). In that time, it also became increasingly assemblages (Andree 1939, p. 142): hand points apparent that the term developed a life of its own, so to speak: (Handspitzen-), leaf points (Blattspitzen-), and blades cultures the meanings of what was to be understood by the term became (Klingenkulturen). more and more different. For this reason, Zamiatnin (1929,p. Broadly speaking, this approach and its terminology are 293) writes that sites from Germany, Austria, Moravia, Poland, plausible as well. At this point, however, the difficulty begins Hungary, TransylvaniaI, Crimea, and the North Caucasus are in understanding what is meant by these terms and of what part of this “culture,” whereby these sites are spread over a large types are referred to as such. According to Andree’s(1939,p. area and do not have any contemporaneity. 142) descriptions, the greatest difficulty lies with the term While industries attributed to the early Würm and showing hand point [Handspitze], because these pieces can be pro- micoquoid elements in Central Europe were referred to as duced both unifacially and bifacially and can be made from Micoquian, in Western Europe, the industries attributed to this blanks or raw pieces. In the case of very large pieces, the term unit were considered older and attributed to the Interglacial or large point [Großspitze] is used. The chronological– the period before. For example, in Germany, the post- geological framework for the hand point cultures covers the interglacial layers (layer 8, later named layer h) of period between the Günz-Mindel-Interglacial and the early Bocksteinschmiede (Wetzel 1944, p. 90; Wetzel et al. 1941), Würm and had to be seen as a step backwards even in the like the lowest layers of Vogelherd (Riek 1934), were assigned 1930s, since there already were much finer subdivisions, to the Micoquian. The important finds of Bocksteinschmiede which enjoyed a certain geochronological certainty in individ- were also acknowledged in a review by Zotz (1941), who ual cases. In order to further complicate the classifications, emphasized the micoquoid character of the finds. Andree also mentions the Western European Biface culture In addition to the common use of the established French [Faustkeilkulturen], including a larger biface and a scraper terms for generic units, which originated from the Mortillet’s from the Neanderthal (Andree 1939, p. 569). He completely school (e.g., Mortillet 1869, 1873;Mortillet 1883) and was contradicts the tripartite division of the Biface culture accord- modified and extended by numerous researchers (e.g., Breuil ing to Zotz (1939) and tries to prove that assemblages from its 1932b;Peyrony 1921), German researchers tried to introduce middle stage are actually located in the Saale (Riss) glacial, their own terms (Andree 1930, 1939;Menghin 1926, 1931; Saale-Weichsel (Riss-Würm) interglacial, and Weichsel Wiegers 1920, 1928). Some of these different approaches are (Würm) glacial (Andree 1939, p. 576). Here, the Nordic chro- illustrated (Fig. 4). nological system is chosen to structure the ice ages for the In exceptional cases, researchers went so far as to whole of Central Europe, in contrast to the system established completely reject established systems and attempted to devel- by Penck and Brückner (1909) for the Alpine region. As op independent chronological systems. Andree’s(1939)sys- Weinert (1939) pointed out, in this context, the cultural se- tem (see Fig. 4) is a good example of how approval or rejec- quence established by Mortillet is not indispensable for the tion took place within language (attitude) boundaries. Andree Central European region and the time before the Upper suggested that the units envisaged by Wiegers and Menghin Paleolithic. Even though Zotz’s temporal division is no longer Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 7 of 39 38 France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany France France Southern Germany Germany Poland Poland Poland Poland Germany Germany Germany Moustérien final Moustiergruppe (Handspitzkultur) Moustérien Mousterian Moustérien supérieur Faustkeil- (Altmühlgruppe) schaber- Faustkeil- Moustérien inventare Moustérien schaber- in Eastern inventare in Europe Moustiergruppe Moustérien Southern Eastern Micoquien (Handspitzkultur) à denticulés Oberes Acheuléen Micoquian Germany (Levalloisgruppe) final = Micoquien = Würm I MTA Weimargruppe (Handspitzkultur) (Levalloisgruppe) Western Spätacheuléen Micoquian (a part of it is the Micoquien = Riss- Micoque-Facies) Würm Obere Acheulgruppe Micoquien in Mittelacheuléen Acheuléen supérieur (Faustkeilkultur) France (Levalloisgruppe) Acheulian Untere Acheulgruppe Freiland-Acheuléen Altacheuléen Acheuléen moyen (Faustkeilkultur) Nordfrankreichs Andree (1939) Wetzel (1944) Bohmers (1944) Benet-Tygel (1944) Zotz (1951) Narr (1953) Bordes (1954) Müller-Beck (1956) Müller-Beck (1957) Fig. 4 Comparison of the chronological sequence of generic units light green (Micoquian as part of the Acheulian), green gradient proposed by various authors in the end of the 1930s to 1950s. For (Micoquian is Acheulian or Middle Paleolithic), dark green (Micoquian comparison, the approaches of Andree (1939), Wetzel (1944), Bohmers as part of the Middle Paleolithic), blue (Mousterian or Middle (1944), Zotz (1951), Narr (1953), Bordes (1954), and Müller-Beck (1956, Paleolithic), and orange (allocation according to tool types) 1957) are compared. Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), tenable today, Andree’s division of the assemblages was even Research in the 1950s more imprecise and completely contradicted the results ob- tained until then. In his presentation of the Paleolithic of Central Europe, Zotz This can also be seen in numerous reviews of his book. (1951) made reference to his teacher Obermaier and classified Grahmann (1940, pp. 188–189) writes that Andree’sclas- the Micoquian as a special form of the Upper Acheulian. The sification scheme provides developmental lines at best, but point of reference for his explanations are the artifacts ad- no chronological stages. Pittioni (1939, p. 452) also com- dressed as Micoquian bifaces, though he only describes sites ments on the different structures of the archeological ma- in Central Europe (see Fig. 2). terial and that terminological issues have always been del- McBurney (1950), who was familiar with the discussions icate, since several different names for the same object on Micoquian and Mousterian assemblages, examined the have always created confusion. McBurney (1950), too, spatial distribution of cordiform bifaces and miniature plano- spoke about the typology used by Andree (1939)and did convex points. He already noticed at this time that a dating of notfinditusefulfor comparison: “Unfortunately this last the type site (La Micoque) was not possible. However, he saw [contribution], though of crucial importance from a geo- great similarity between la Micoque and two southern German graphical point of view, is rendered a good deal less useful sites (Klausennische and Heidenschmiede), assuming that than it might otherwise have been by the author’svery both sites date back to the beginning of the last glacial, which novel typological classification.” was in line with the approaches of other authors for Bockstein, While Andree and other authors introduced terms for Vogelherd, etc. Paleolithic generic complexes, German Paleolithic researchers In France, however in the meantime, the definition coined (including Jacob-Friesen, Rust, Weinert, Wetzel, Wiegers, and by Breuil was retained for the time being. For example, Zotz) met in 1939 and agreed to continue the system intro- Blanchard (1948) continued to place the Micoquian (in his duced by Mortillet and Breuil (Zotz 1941, p. 180). This quite capacity as Acheulian VII) in the end of the Riss glacial and positive result for the retention of Mortillet’s system also man- the beginning of the last interglacial. Bordes (1954), who ifested itself in the fact that similar units were assigned the assigned numerous assemblages of the Paris Basin to the same name despite different time allocations. This problem Upper Acheulian and thus also to the Micoquian, also adhered was taken up again in the 1950s. to this concept. The connection of Upper Acheulian, Handspitzenkulturen Blattspitzenkulturen Klingenkulturen Levalloisien & Clactonien Jung-Acheuléen = Micoquien is a Früh- & Mittel-Acheuléen facies of the Jung-Acheuléen in Central Europe Moustérien Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit flachen Kernen Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Faustkeilschabern Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Blattspitzen Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Kratzern 38 Page 8 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Micoquian, and interglacial, or pre-interglacial assemblages, Research in the 1960s remained accepted academic opinion until the 1980s (Bordes 1981, 1984). From the 1960s onwards, the different use of the term But Bordes (1954, p. 440) also remarked that the sites he Micoquian manifested itself. In Western Europe, the referred to as Micoquian are very difficult to classify if bifaces Micoquian continued to be mostly assigned to the Upper are not taken into account. For Houppeville, he explained that Acheulian, the dominant element remaining the Micoquian the assemblage could be assigned to a Moustérien de tradition biface. In Central Europe, a change in the approach took place, acheuléenne de facies Levallois (like Moustier G), if these building on the work of earlier researchers (e.g., Wetzel). The various bifaces, which distinguish the assemblage as Micoquian biface increasingly lost its character as an index Micoquian, did not exist. fossil, with the Keilmesser (Prondnik, Faustkeilschaber,etc.) In some cases, even sites which do not meet the author’sown taking its place. At this time at the latest, the term Micoquian definition seem to be attributed to the Micoquian. This is clearly was used for two units, very probably separated in time and visible in a summary of the prehistory of mankind [Urgeschichte space. The result was that since then, the terms Western and der Menschheit] by Grahmann (1952, p. 260), where he writes: Eastern Micoquian have been used more and more. “Das Micoque ist immer zusammen mit der Tierwelt des letzten Interglazials vergesellschaftet.” [The Micoque is always associ- Micoquian research from Western Europe in the 1960s ated with the fauna of the last interglacial]. On the next page (but in the same paragraph), he deals with Bocksteinschmiede, Let us now first look at the research developments of the which, however, was clearly assigned to the period after the last 1960s in Western Europe. Burdo (1960), e.g., referred to interglacial (Wetzel 1935, 1944). pieces from La Cotte de-Saint-Brelade in Jersey as micoquoid. Müller-Beck (1956, 1957) already recognized this discrepan- In earlier papers, he placed the assemblage in the Mousterian cy in the definitions between Western and Central Europe, so that or Acheulian (Burdo 1951, 1956). Due to its great age, this site he described the assemblages in southern Germany, previously was later seen as evidence of a long chronology of the referred to as Micoquian, as Faustkeilschaberinventare [Hand Micoquian (Gouédo 1999) or as evidence of the repeated axe-side scraper assemblages]: “Die Faustkeilschaberinventare use (or invention) of a very specific technology (tranchet Süddeutschlands besitzen mit dem französischen Micoquien blow) (Frick et al. 2017). einen nur sehr indirekten, lockeren Zusammenhang. […]Eine At the beginning of the 1960s, Bordes (1961a)raised the etwas nähere Beziehung scheint dagegen zum späten Freiland- question of whether the MTA (Moustérien de tradition Acheuleen Nordfrankreichs (Bordes 1954), das auch mit dem acheuléenne) developed directly from the Acheulian, or anschließenden Micoquien im engeren Sinne nicht direkt whether a Micoquian was interposed, and whether the gleichgesetzt werden darf, zu bestehen. [...] Das Jungacheuleen Micoquian could also occur at the same time as the lower Nordfrankreichs ist in die letzte größere Oszillation der vorletzten MTA. At the same time, for Bordes, as also for Lumley Kaltzeit zu stellen (Bordes 1954), die Faustkeilschaber dagegen (1960), it was clear that the Micoquian must belong to the in das beginnende „Postglazial” der gleichen Periode.” (Müller- interglacial (Riss-Würm). For Daniel (1965), the Micoquian Beck 1957, p. 124). [The Hand axe-side scraper assemblages of was also a transitional industry toward the MTA. southern Germany have only a very indirect, loose connection to Through Bordes (1961b), providing a typological overview of the French Micoquian. [...] In contrast, there seems to be a some- the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the assignment of artifacts what closer relationship to the late open-air Acheulian of northern designated as Micoquian bifaces to the Upper Acheulian France […], which cannot be equated with the subsequent manifested itself and thus demonstrated the entrenchment of Micoquian in the narrower sense. [...] The Upper Acheulian of different views of what should now be addressed as northern France should be placed in the last major oscillation of Micoquian. This is also reflected in the fact that Bordes the penultimate cold period […], while the Hand axe-side (1961a) does not regard the Micoquian as part of his scrapers should be placed in the beginning “postglacial” of the Mousterian complex. Bordes (1966, p. 50) assigned La same period]. The temporal and spatial difference of these indus- Micoquetothe earlylastglacial andsaidthatthe Acheulianends tries with the same name had thus been recognized and a separate far later than previously thought: “There is perhaps place here to name was proposed for the eastern half. say some words about the date of the Micoquian at la Micoque. It From the mid-1950s onwards, Polish and German re- has been attributed to the penultimate glacial or to the last inter- searchers mostly assume that the assemblages they had agreed glacial on very flimsy evidences. Modern studies have conclu- upon as Micoquian originate from the Würmian period and sively shown that it belongs to an early moment of the last gla- should be referred to as Middle Paleolithic. The Western and ciation. So the true Acheulean ends much later than was com- Central European discrepancy in the allocation of the monly thought. But, outside of la Micoque, there are other Micoquian to the Lower or Middle Paleolithic remained large- Micoquian sites which can be older and this Late Acheulean ly unchanged from the 1950s to the 1980s (see also Fig. 4). seems to begin toward the end of the penultimate glacial.” Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 9 of 39 38 Numerous other publications from the 1960s, that dealt groups (Bockstein, Klausennische, Schambach, and with finds from Western Europe, agree that atypical bifaces, Rörshain). He saw the Micoquian as spread from southeast which can neither be assigned to the classical Acheulian nor to Europe to Western Europe and saw the oldest evidence in the MTA, are to be added to the Micoquian (e.g., Blanchard southwest France (La Micoque) and the Crimea (Kiik Koba 1963;Combier 1965;Joullié 1963; Lumley 1960). II). Furthermore, he suspected the origin of this industry in the The assemblage of the Verrières-le-Buisson site (excavated Eem interglacial (1967,p.83). between 1958 and 1967), which was later analyzed by According to Bosinski (1967), the most striking feature of Gouédo (1999), was assigned to the Micoquian, but the arti- the (Central European) Micoquian is the wechselseitig- fact names manifested the great proximity to the Acheulian, as gleichgerichtete Kantenbearbeitung [alternating unidirection- seen in the following example: bifaces micoquiens de tradi- al edge regularization, AUER], where an edge is processed tion acheuléenne [Micoquian bifaces of Acheulian tradition] unifacially over its entire length before the artifact is turned (Basse de Ménorval 1966). During the 1970s, the assemblages over so that the same edge can also be processed from the were increasingly published and assigned to the Micoquian other side. (Daniel et al. 1973;Sacchietal. 1978). Ulrix-Closset (1969– Another terminological way was chosen by Chmielewski 1970) was also able to determine that industries containing (1969, 1970, 1972, 1975), who kept the La Micoque refer- Micoquian bifaces could easily be addressed as Middle ence, but included a regional name, where three features Paleolithic if these pieces were not taken into account. This outlined the Micoquo-Prondnikian culture he referred to can be seen as one of the central observations of the 1960s and (Chmielewski 1972,p.174): “1. The production of bifacially 1970s. Even Bordes (1984) noted this in his concluding sum- retouched tools (handaxes and some scrapers) from flint nod- mary of the European material. For French research in the ules. Cores with prepared and unprepared striking platforms 1960s, the term Micoquian was only of secondary importance: for flake manufacture, mainly circular in shape, accidental it either represented a subset of the Upper Acheulian or was blades. No traces of Levalloisian technique. Large and medi- regarded as a short transition between the Acheulian and the um size of the artifacts. 2. Surfacial flat retouche covering Mousterian. Sometimes, the Micoquian was also seen as a whole or most part of the tool surfaces. 3. Side-scrapers pre- parallel development alongside the Moustérien de tradition vail over other types of tools. Numerous hand-axes and sim- acheuléenne (Giot 1962–1963). Thus, the chronological ilar bifacially retouched tools (prondniks) and scrapers. Very placement of the unit remained inconsistent. few Mousterian points. Few circular scrapers and burins, mainly made of broken tools.” He referred to sites from south- Central European Micoquian research in the 1960s ern Poland (Wylotne Cave, Ciemna Cave, Piekary I and III, Kraków Wawel) and southern Germany (Vogelherd). Using At the beginning of the 1960s, Kozłowski summarized the the stratigraphy of Ciemna cave, Chmielewski (1969) divided state of Paleolithic research in Poland and assigned the the Micoquo-Pradnikian into two parts. Ciemna 5 and Buhlen Pradnik group, as defined by Krukowski, to the Mousterian were integrated into the upper unit. The lower unit was formed (Kozłowski 1961). Sometimes, the assignment to generic by numerous assemblages (Wylotne 5, 6, 7/8; Okiennik; units was simplified by referring to an Acheulian-Micoquian Vogelherd; Piekary I and II; Hohle Stein and Ciemna 6). A (Acheulo-Micoquian, etc.), like Günther (1962) or Krüger cladogram of the assemblage cluster term Micoquian for the (1964–1965). The former considered the Micoquian as inde- 1960s is depicted in Fig. 5. pendent and the latter assigned it to the Upper Acheulian. The French Micoquian was regarded by Müller-Beck In the course of the 1960s, assemblages with asymmetrical (1966, p. 1209, note 32) as part of the Micoquoid complexes: bifaces, Keilmesser, Faustkeilschaber, Prondniks, etc., were “The term “Micoquoid” is used here only to indicate the par- classified in a variety of ways. The term Micoquian was used tial relationship with the Micoquian in Western Europe, which for assemblages of the Würm glacial (Bosinski 1967;Günther is a late stage of the hand-ax traditions there. In reality the 1964). Bosinski (1967, 1970) even made a special reference to Micoquian of France is itself just one facie; among the the finds from La Micoque N/6. Günther (1964)also sees a Micoquoid complexes.” (see Fig. 6). clear connection to La Micoque for his finds from Balve, the In his revision of the prehistory of mankind [Urgeschichte connecting elements are to him being the Micoquian bifaces. der Menschheit], Müller-Beck (Grahmann and Müller-Beck He rejects the name Micoquian, however, for the northern 1967, pp. 232–248) placed the Micoquian in Western Europe French and Belgian sites, which are supposed to be a in the Upper Lower Paleolithic (Middle Paleolithic) and classi- Levalloisio-Upper Acheulian and a legacy of the Riss- fied it after the Upper Acheulian. The main distinction he men- Acheulian, which partly reaches into the early Würm tions here is that the artifacts of the Upper Acheulian are large (Günther 1964, p. 131). Bosinski (1967), who analyzed the and those of the Micoquian rather small. He placed it into the known Middle Paleolithic finds from Western Central Europe, interglacial (the lower Upper Pleistocene by his definition) and divided the finds, that he assigned to the Micoquian into four shortly thereafter. He further distinguished a West-Micoquian 38 Page 10 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 5 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian (1964–1969). For the clarification of the Micoquian, mostly attributed to the Middle Paleolithic, the approaches of Günther (1964), Bosinski (1967), Adam (1969), and Chmielewski (1969) are jux- taposed. Notice that Adam does not mention the Micoquian in his structure of the Paleolithic [Großgliederung der Altsteinzeit]. Color code: yellow (Lower Paleolithic, Acheulian), dark green (Micoquian as part of the Middle Paleolithic), and blue (Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic) (Western Europe) and East-Micoquian (Central and Eastern base, hand-axe-leaves, and small hand-axes, and designated as Europe). In the discussion of the East-Micoquian, he distin- Micoquian or, in the later phase of their evolution, as guished an older phase (Bocksteinschmiede, Vogelherd) and a Charentien of Micoque tradition. For the period of the last younger phase (Krapina, Kiik Koba, Pantanassa, Okiennik, Interglacial, we have as yet insufficient proof of the existence Ripiceni, Ilskaya, and Starosel’e). The term Micoquian, howev- of this Micoque group, yet such industries appear in several localities of South and West Germany in the late Eem, and er, is used by him only for assemblages within Europe. At the end of the 1960s, Valoch (1967) took a different path reach their climax in the early Würm.” for former Czechoslovakia, using the typology established by The works of the 1960s, mentioned above, all agreed that Bordes and assigning the finds of the Kůlna Cave (layer 7) to particular Middle Paleolithic Central European assemblages the Charentien de tradition micoquienne. Other researchers had to be related to the finds from La Micoque and that they followed a similar path later. He described how he determined had to be located in the early Würm (see Fig. 5). They all this assignment in the following year by saying (Valoch 1968, emphasized the similarity of their assemblages to the finds at p. 355): “A more significant group, appearing fairly frequently La Micoque. Chmielewski’s approach also combined the in the western part of Central Europe, is one that corresponds proximity of La Micoque with the assemblages published by to the biface group of Western Europe. It contains industries Krukowski (1939–1948) in which he combined concepts. distinguished by largely sharp-pointed hand-axes with a thick Already Kozłowski (1924), Benet-Tygel (1944), and Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 11 of 39 38 Fig. 6 Distribution of handaxe– scraper complexes in Europe. Adopted from Müller-Beck (1966, p. 1196, Fig. 5, modified). In pale blue: distribution of the Western micoquoid complex (Western Micoquian) and in pale red: distribution of the handaxe– scraper complexes (Eastern Micoquian) Krukowski (1939–1948) recognized the similarity of Polish type Schambach. He saw many parallels to the type finds and la Micoque. It is very likely that the latter used the Klausennische, but could not make a more exact assignment concept of Breuil to place Polish sites (e.g., Piekary III) into (Bosinski 1969, p. 73). Sometimes, there were also efforts to the Upper Acheulian Krukowski (1939–1948,pp. 50–53). date the site La Micoque on the basis of the Central European To what extent the temporal shift of the glacial affiliation of sites dated to Early Würm and assigned to the Micoquian sedimentary units (from Riss to Würm), as Gross (1962– (Collins 1969), which is, of course, circular reasoning. 1963) explained, is connected with the increasing location of To differentiate the French Micoquian of the Seine basin or micoquoid industries in the Würm, remains to be investigated. from La Micoque and the German sites according to Wetzel, In this context, not only newly recognized sites of the Würm Bosinski, or Müller-Beck, Bordes (1968) called the Central possessed micoquoid character, but sites that were formerly European Micoquian: “Micoquien allemande” [German described as pre-Würm are now to be attributed to the Würm. Micoquian]. Bosinski (Wetzel and Bosinski 1969,p.67) also At the end of the 1960s, it was possible to intensively considered whether it might be necessary to eschew the term investigate further sites by means of improved excavation Micoquian for one complex or another: „Vielleicht sollte man methodology and typological artifact naming (partly with dieser forschungsgeschichtlich bedingten Zweideutigkeit des technological approaches). Buhlen is a good example here Terminus „Micoquien" durch die Wahl einer neuen (Bosinski 1969; Bosinski and Kulick 1973). An important Bezeichnung entweder für das mittel-und südosteuropäische aspect of this site is the fact that the tranchet blow technology, Micoquien oder für das westeuropäische, zum Jungacheuléen previously known only from Ciemna in literature (Krukowski gehörige „Micoquien" aus dem Wege gehen.“ [Perhaps one 1939–1948), came to light at another site. Initial evaluations in should avoid this research-historically related ambiguity of the Buhlen made it necessary to extend Bosinksi’s model of four term Micoquian by choosing a new name either for the Central assemblage types of the Micoquian by the so-called Pradnik and Southeast European Micoquian or for the Western horizon (Bosinski 1969). The Bosinski assemblage types are European “Micoquian” that belongs to the Upper Acheulian]. based on the stratigraphic contexts of the Balve cave, in which Thus, by this time at the latest, it is clear that these are probably the Bockstein type is followed by the Klausennische type. two complexes that have been given the same name. Then, the type Schambach follows and the upper end is rep- resented by the type Rörshein, which is a daring assumption The non-European Micoquian in the 1960s (Bosinski 1967, p. 50). Bosinski now tried to assign the as- semblage from Buhlen IIIb to his Micoquian and assumed that The term was also in use outside Europe, for example there are it must be younger than the type Bockstein and older than the descriptions of assemblages from the Levant (e.g., Prausnitz 38 Page 12 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 1969) or from Anatolia (Esin and Benedict 1963). However, it Fig. 7 Cladogram of the chronological positioning of the term Micoquian (1969 to 1979): a chronological positioning between 1969 and 1976 was occasionally mentioned that the term should only be used using the approaches of Bosinski (1969), Schwabedissen (1973), for assemblages in Europe. Balout (1967, p. 110) argued that Bosinski and Kulick (1973), Ulrix-Closset (1975), and Lumley (1976); terms coined for industries outside Africa (Clactonian, and b chronological positioning between 1976 and 1979 using the ap- Micoquian) should not be used in Africa unless their use can proaches of Desbrosse et al. (1976), Gábori (1976), Fiedler (1977), Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1977), and Tuffreau (1979) be clearly justified. This definition is based on conferences in 1947 (Nairobi, Pan-African Congress on Prehistory), 1955 In this case, an assemblage of the early Würm is mentioned as (Livingstone, Pan-African Congress on Prehistory), and Micoquian (Bailloud et al. 1973, p. 105): “[…], l’horizon 1965 (Burg Wartenstein Symposium by the Wenner-Gren inférieur a donné une industrie à bifaces appartenant à un Foundation) and was published in a very similar way by Micoquien récent de faciès Levallois du Würm I, le Clark et al. (1966) a year earlier. supérieur à un Moustérien tardif du Würm II, également de faciès Levallois.” [[...], the lower horizon has yielded a bifa- Negation of the term Micoquian in the 1960s cial industry belonging to a recent Micoquian of Levallois facies of Würm I, the superior one belonging to a late At the same time, the assignment to the Micoquian was also Moustérian of Würm II, also of Levallois facies]. The tempo- rescinded. An example is given to illustrate this fact. In the ral and “cultural” allocation corresponds to Bordes’ (1954) 1930s, Garrod published the finds from Tabun E as Upper approach for sites in the Parisian basin. Acheulian or Micoquian (Garrod et al. 1937). Now she The workofUlrix-Closset (1975) introduced a common adopted the nomenclature of Rust and assigned the finds to element to the Middle Paleolithic in the eastern part of the Yabrudian (Garrod 1962), as Clark (1966) did,too.The Western Europe (Belgium). She was familiar and worked with possible link between the Yabrudian and the Micoquian was the two established classification systems of Bordes and the subject of lively discussions later on (Ronen and Bosinski and equated her Moustérien à retouche bifaciale Weinstein-Evron 2000). with the German Micoquian. At the same time, she used the Mousterian facies developed by Bordes in the 1950s (see Fig. 7a). Further examples of an assignment to the Micoquian research in the 1970s Micoquian come from Eastern France. For Combier and Thévenot (1976), various sites also had at least some affinity Micoquian research from Western Europe in the 1970s to the Micoquian (in particular La Mère Grand in Rully, Saône-et-Loire). However, it is difficult to verify this alloca- According to Bosinski (1970), all layers (other than layer I) of tion on the basis of the figure that is intended to demonstrate the Peyrony excavation at La Micoque belong to the this (Combier and Thévenot 1976, p. 78, fig. 31). For us, the Micoquian (Middle Paleolithic) and layer VI corresponds to fragment of a bifacial piece shown there is not enough to make the assemblage type Bockstein. According to him, the lower such a precise assignment to a generic unit. layers possibly represent the initial phase of the Micoquian. In Western European research, the 1970s was marked by This assumption contradicts the analyses of Peyrony (1938) the extensive use of the Bordesian method. This is clearly and Breuil (1932b), who assumed that only layer VI could be visible in the very detailed summary of the French research addressed as Micoquian (as part of the Acheulian). In the same on the Paleolithic, which was compiled for the 9th UISPP Festschrift volume, Baudet (1970) applied the term Congress 1976 in Niza (Lumley 1976). Micoquian according to Bordes and Breuil to assemblages In the same year, Desbrosse et al. (1976) published their from northern France which date to the pre-Würm period. studies on Prondniks from Germolles. They pointed out the Increasingly, it can be observed that the typological artifact similarity between artifacts from Germolles (Grotte de la determination Micoquian biface is becoming more and more Verpillière I) in Saône-et-Loire and those from German and detached from the generic unit Micoquian, since the term Polish sites, even though, or precisely because, the sites were Micoquian biface can only be interpreted as form-specific classified differently. On the one hand, Germolles was attrib- and no longer contains a chrono-spatial assignment. In retro- uted to the MTA. On the other hand, the German (Buhlen) and spect, this can be seen for sites in the Paris Basin which were Polish (Ciemna and Okiennik) sites were attributed to the deposited during and after the last interglacial and yet all were Micoquian. They regarded the “racloirs-couteaux” du type assigned to a Micoquian due to the presence of pieces referred de Prondnik as a common element. For Bosinski (1969), the to as Micoquian biface. It is likely that Brézillon (1971,pp. same artifacts (but named Pradnikmesser) were the common 160–161) summarized French definitions of Micoquian bi- element of his Pradnikhorizont (see Fig. 7a). faces from this perspective. On one of these sites in the Paris In the late 1970s, Bordes (1977, p. 37) raised the question Basin mentioned earlier, Verrières-le-Buisson, the term of how the Mousterian should be defined and to what extent Micoquian is used to describe one of the “cultures” that occur. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 13 of 39 38 horyzont noży typu Ciemna Kultura lewalusko mustierska 38 Page 14 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 the Micoquian should be integrated into it: “So, one is a little As Central European assemblages have increasingly been at a loss how to define the Mousterian even in Europe. We can reconsidered, the notion of correlation between La Micoque try a chronological approach and say that the Mousterian rep- and the Central European sites has given way to the notion resents the cultures that flourished during the first half of the that these sites have similar, or to some extent identical, types last glaciation. But then wewouldhaveto include the of finds. Remarkably or particularly noticeably, Bosinski’s Micoquian, and to exclude such industries as the inter- (1967) observations of the find material increasingly shifted glacial one from Ehringsdorf (East Germany), the Rissian the point of view, with the biface referred to as the Micoquian one from Rigabe (Provence, France) or the one from layer biface receding into the background in favor of the Keilmesser 4 at la Micoque, all of which, found outside a stratigraphy, (with its multitude of names). This have started earlier, when would unhesitatingly have been called Mousterian.” This Müller-Beck (1956) adopted the term Faustkeilschaber and clearly shows that chronological and cultural classifications promulgated it intensively. of assemblages do not necessarily have to coincide. In addition to the assemblages analyzed by Bosinski, fur- Through his work in Biache-Saint-Vaast, Tuffreau (1979) ther assemblages were added in the course of the 1970s. On was able to show that the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic the basis of Bosinski’s(1967) and Müller-Beck’s(1958) in northern France probably had to be pushed far back into the nomenclature and explanations of the Micoquian, Mania and penultimate glacial period (see Fig. 7b). His assumption was Toepfer (1973) integrated the assemblages from Königsaue A that alongside the bifacial industries attributed to the and C into the Micoquian as defined by Günther (1964)and Acheulian, there are also unifacial industries (Biache-Saint- Bosinski (1967). Mania and Toepfer (1973, pp. 144–145) also Vaast) that would typologically be addressed as Mousterian found a connection between Mousterian and early glacial bi- (Moustérien typique de faciès levalloisien) in a more recent face cultures, which they initially call Micoquian: “Nach der context. This shifting back of the beginning of the Middle vergleichenden Betrachtung der frühglazailen [sic!] Biface- Paleolithic was discussed controversially at the beginning of Kulturen des europäischen Moustériens, die vorerst als the 1980s. Micoquien bezeichnet wurden, lassen sich einige allgemeine Überlegungen anstellen.” [On the basis of a comparative ex- Micoquian research from Central Europe in the 1970s amination of the early glacial Biface cultures of the European Mousterian, which were initially called Micoquian, some gen- In Central Europe, the two terms Micoquian and Micoquo- eral considerations can be made]. Building on a previous Pradnikian were mostly used synonymously. Sometimes, arti- work, the Micoquian also represented a pan-European generic facts were not described as belonging to the Micoquian, but as unit for Mania and Toepfer (1973). As can also be seen on possessing a Micoque influence (Boecking 1971,p.126): “Bei other maps (see Fig. 2), the Micoquian seems to be predom- einigen Geräten kann ein gewisser Micoque-einfluß festgestellt inantly represented in Central Europe. To the west and werden.” [For some tools, a certain Micoque influence can be completely remote La Micoque can be found, but east of the detected]. Similarly, in southwestern France, Bordes (1971,p. main distribution there are also isolated sites (see Fig. 8). 19) was also able to detect a Micoquian tendency in artifacts After completion of the excavations in the late 1960s, a from Combe-Grenal: “[…] biface à tendance micoquienne preliminary report on the Buhlen site was presented (couche 58).” [Biface with Micoquian tendency (layer 58)]. (Bosinski and Kulick 1973). It was suggested to place the This Micoquian influence or the Micoquian tendency will still assemblage IIIb (Buhlener Pradnikhorizont) chronologically be encountered frequently later on. somewhere between type Klausennische and type Schambau Kozłowski already pointed out in 1972 that the term (see also Fig. 7a). For the Weinberghöhlen (layer 5 (F′,G′,G, Micoquian may have been poorly chosen for assemblages H) near Mauern, Müller-Beck spoke of a mousteroid late with Keilmesser with Pradnik form and perhaps also for as- Micoquian followed by an assemblage of the “Altmühl semblages with Keilmesser with tranchet blow (Kozłowski group” (Koenigswald and Müller-Beck 1975) or a Central 1972,p.160): “Je ne suis pas favorable à l’introduction du European Late Micoquian (Koenigswald et al. 1974), but he nome “micoquien” pour les ensembles à couteaux-racloirs du had to admit that the available assemblage was too small to type de Pradnik en Europe centrale. Les ensembles du make reliable statements. After viewing the drawings, it Paléolithique moyen à bifaces d’Europe centrale demandent seems as though the levalloid character of the unifacial encore une classification plus détaillée. Il faut introduire pour pieces was noticed and set aside as an antithesis to the asym- ces ensembles des dénominations locales.” [I am not in favor metrical bifacial component. This type of synthesis of of the introduction of the name “Micoquian” for assemblages unifacial and bifacial assemblage components will be en- with knife-scrapers of the Pradnik type in Central Europe. The countered again in later times. Middle Paleolithic bifacial assemblages of Central Europe still Gábori (1976) was extensively occupied with the assem- require a more detailed classification. Local denominations blages of the Micoquian in the region between the Alps and must be introduced for these assemblages]. the Urals. He correlated the temporal position of assemblages Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 15 of 39 38 Fig. 8 Distribution of the Micoquian according to Mania and Toepfer (1973,Abb.37).Base map from TemporalMapping.org (80 m below present-day sea level) with the inventory types defined by Bosinski and derived a They also distinguished seven types of assemblages and sep- refined chronological assignment of the inventory types (see arated assemblages with asymmetric knives and foliated Fig. 7b). pieces (see Fig. 7b). The term Group of backed Bifaces was The assumption that the Levallois concept within the as- used by Schild and Wendorf (1977) only to group bifacial semblages described as Micoquian was of very subordinate objects of the Central European Middle Paleolithic and not importance or even completely unknown manifested itself to classify assemblages as a whole (in our understanding). visibly. For Fiedler (1977), this was impressively demonstrat- At this point, at the latest, it is obvious that different chro- ed in Buhlen IIIb: “Die meisten Werkzeuge sind in nological systems are applied in the association of assem- „Kerntechnik” durch beidflächige Retuschierung hergestellt, blages with the term Micoquian. If the Upper Acheulian während Abschlagwerkzeuge selten sind und die (Jungacheuléen) is included in the analysis, the chronological Levalloistechnik praktisch keine Rolle spielt.” [Most tools framework becomes even more complex (depending on are manufactured in “core technology” by double-surface whether the Micoquian is added to the Upper Acheulian or retouching, while blank tools are rare and the Levallois tech- theMiddlePaleolithic). nique plays practically no role]. It was only in the 1990s that it The question also arose as to whether the Micoquian might was recognized that in some sites there was a connection be- not also be part of the Moustérien. Ulrix-Closset (1975,pp. tween Keilmesser (of any shape) and the Levallois concept 11–12), for example, coined the term “Moustérien à retouche (e.g., Richter 1997). bifaciale” because she could not find a suitable name in French terminology. She did not want to use the term Discussion of a long or short chronology “Moustérien à Blattspitzen” because it did not describe the Central European assemblages (up to 50% bifaces, for the Micoquian Keilmesser and Blattspitzen) precisely enough, and the term Blattspitze was described very precisely in German literature. Since the 1970s, there has been an enormous increase in the knowledge of relative and absolute chronological dating. For her, the term “Moustérien à Blattspitzen” is synonymous with “Altmühlgruppe” as defined by Bohmers (1944, 1951) These new and more precise methods were used to re- evaluate the generic units that had previously been considered and should not be used as an umbrella term. In her understand- fixed in time. Through more precise evaluations of the chro- ing, the term “Micoquien,” as it was used by various German authors, can no longer be used, since it has already been nological position of recognized phenomena, the chronologi- cal approaches varied in length. Furthermore, the system assigned a very precise meaning (in chronological and typo- logical terms) in French literature. Thus, she attests the same established by Bosinski (1967) was used to structure the Middle Paleolithic assemblages of western Central Europe meaning to the different terms “mitteleuropäisches Micoquien” (sensu Bosinski) and Eastern Micoquian (sensu and was even extended to eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe (Gábori 1976). This short chronology for the Müller-Beck) and believes that these correspond best with a “Charentien de tradition micoquienne” (sensu Valoch). Her Micoquian stood in contrast to the long chronology for Polish sites proposed by Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1977) which “Moustérien à retouche bifaciale” is characterized by a high percentage of bifaces, bifaces scrapers (or bifacially backed spread from the early Würm to the last interglacial period. 38 Page 16 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 pieces), and foliated pieces. For her, the term emphasizes that an assemblage type within his Micoquian and thus represents it is indeed a Mousterian industry with points and scrapers, but a pars pro toto. Only one further use of the term as a synonym it is clearly characterized because of the use of a particular for the Micoquian in the literature could be discovered retouch technique. (Freericks 1995). The example shows that the former division into a western The “antipodes” Micoquian and Mousterian were and eastern Micoquian, which are represented in different time increasingly established and so Feustel (1983, p. 12) wrote in stages, is no longer applicable. Thus, the controversy remains this context: “Trotz der nun großen Vielzahl und mehr oder as to what or which assemblages should now be subsumed weniger klar zu unterscheidender Typen ist über weite Räume under the term Micoquian. hin eine gewisse Gleichförmigkeit zu beobachten; Bezeichnungen wie Moustérien und Micoquien bringen bei aller Differenziertheit im Einzelnen doch große Zusammenhänge zum Research during the 1980s Ausdruck.” [In spite of the now large number and more or less clearly distinguishable types, a certain uniformity can be ob- The 1980s brought momentum to the Micoquian discussion in served over wide spaces; designations such as Mousterian and that the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic was massively Micoquian express broad interconnections despite all the differ- postponed and now falls into the period of the Saalian/Riss entiation in the details]. glacial (Bosinski 1982; Tuffreau 1982). This shift of the tran- Ringer (1983, pp. 68–69) adopted the technological dis- sition from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic was also tinction introduced by Bosinski (1967)between theedge reflected in the assignment of the Micoquian. Three ap- retouching of the German and French Micoquian for bifaces proaches to the classification of the Micoquian and the begin- and his new defined Babonyian. Here, we want to illustrate ning of the Middle Paleolithic are shown in Fig. 9,each of these three technological production approaches on bifaces which is plausible for its region. (see Fig. 10). The produced bifaces differ not only in the order From this time on, the Micoquian in Western Europe is also in which the surfaces or edges are processed, but also in the increasingly classified as belonging to the Middle Paleolithic, different cross-sections created. but still with the difficulty that the upper layers of the epony- In many sites, even in the 1980s, it can be seen that a shift mous site have no dating and were destroyed by former exca- in the value of bifacial pieces has taken place. While in earlier vations (Rigaud 1986). The spectacular assemblages from La works the focus was on the presence of the so-called Cotte-de-Saint-Brelade (Callow and Cornford 1986), Biache- Micoquian bifaces, this increasingly shifted to the presence Saint-Vaast (Tuffreau and Sommé 1988), or Mesvin IV of asymmetric bifacial pieces that could not be described ad- (Cahen et al. 1984; Cahen and Michel 1986), which probably equately with the Bordesian typology. A dichotomy was thus date from the Saalian glacial, were able to show at that time revealed, which was met by using the Micoquian biface as a that elaborated finds could be much older than previously representative of a Micoquian according to Bordes, whereas thought. It is noteworthy in this context that two of the sites asymmetrical bifacial pieces (Keilmesser) were associated have evidence for the presence of Keilmesser with tranchet with the Central European Micoquian. This dichotomy was blow (Pradniks, see Soriano 2000, 2001), a technology that already detected in the 1950s by Müller-Beck. He emphasized was repeatedly attributed to the so-called Pradnikhorizont in the differences between the central French assemblages and the following decade (e.g., Jöris 1992). the southern German assemblages (Bordes and Müller-Beck 1956;Müller-Beck 1956, 1957). 1980s research on the Micoquian from Central Europe The presence of Keilmesser has been used as a decisive criterion for assemblage classification into the Central The existing diversity of names in relation to assemblages that European Micoquian since, at the latest, Bosinski (1967). (predominantly) have great similarities in their bifacial com- This is evident, for example, for the Micoquian layers of the ponents was discussed by Bosinski (1981). He agreed that the Kůlna cave. Valoch (1988, p. 55) writes that bifaces and assemblages referred to by Chmielewski (1969)as Micoquo- Keilmesser are of decisive importance for the classification, Pradnikien, those referred to by Ulrix-Closset (1975)as although their share in the type spectrum is rather small. Moustérien à retouche bifaciale and referred to by himself Twenty years earlier, he used the term Charentien de tradition as Micoquien, could possibly, on the basis of Kolosov micoquienne [Charentian with Micoque tradition] to express (1986), be referred to with the term Bockstein culture (see the scraper component (Valoch 1967). In the meantime, dif- also Bosinski 1985, p. 62). Kolosov adopted this term proba- ferent terms were used as synonyms for the Central European bly from Wetzel (but referred to Wetzel and Bosinski 1969), assemblages, often side by side, since both terms are roughly who used it as synonym for his Micoquian at the Bockstein to bundle the same assemblages within one term. Thus, in- site (Wetzel 1954). Obviously, this was a rather impractical creasingly similar sentences as the following one can be found suggestion, since Bosinski himself used the term Bockstein as in many publications since the 1980s (Kozłowski 1989,p. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 17 of 39 38 Fig. 9 Cladogram of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic transition. Here, the approaches of Bosinski (1982), Laville (1982), and Tuffreau (1982) are juxtaposed Fig. 10 Technological approach on edge retouch. (1) German Micoquian (Bosinski 1967) and (2) French Micoquian and (3) Babonyian (Ringer 1983), added by retouch stage succession 38 Page 18 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 139): “Les autres sites attribués à la ,,culture micoquo- Saint-Brelade sites were compared to the Central European prondnicienne” ou au, Micoquien de l’Europe centrale“,n’ont Micoquian most often attributed to the last glacial (Cahen que des analogies plus générales avec l’industrie de la grotte and Haesaerts 1984; Cahen et al. 1984; Cahen and Michel Ciemna.” [The other sites attributed to the “Micoquo- 1986; Callow and Cornford 1986). Thus, it was recognized Prondnician culture” or the “Micoquian of Central Europe”, that technologies that are very similar or even identical to each only have broader analogies with the Ciemna cave industry]. other can sometimes occur in clearly separated periods of time. This can be seen as a further indication that while it 1980s research on the Micoquian from Western may be appropriate to compare such phenomena technologi- Europe cally, it is not sensible to combine them in the same generic unit. In contrast to Central European researchers, Bordes (1981, 1984) maintained the connection between the Micoquian and the Upper Acheulian for the West European assemblages Micoquian research in the 1990s (see also Fig. 11a). However, he was aware that the Micoquian differed from La Micoque (and thus certainly also from the The 1990s in Central Europe: new approaches bring sites he worked on in the Seine basin) and the German forth new concepts and terms Micoquian. He also drew attention to the differences in rela- tion to tools from blanks (Bordes 1981,p.78): “Les relations Another prominent point in the history of Micoquian research du Micoquien de la Micoque et du Micoquien allemand sont is the attempt to give a new name to Keilmesser-bearing as- également peu claires: s’il y a de grandes similitudes en ce qui semblages in Central Europe. At this point, at the latest, the concerne les bifaces, l’outillage sur éclats du gisement Micoquian biface loses its significance as a name-giving as- allemand est pauvre et peu nombreux, à l’inverse de ce qui semblage element and is replaced by the Keilmesser (as re- se rencontre à la Micoque.” [The relationship between the ported, Müller-Beck used the term Faustkeilschaber for his Micoquian of la Micoque and the German Micoquian is un- generic unit), which was already regarded as definitive for clear: while there are great similarities in terms of bifacial complexes in the 1950s (Müller-Beck 1956, 1957). tools, the German sites’ flake tools are poor and few in num- To structure the material of the Bilzingsleben site, Mania ber, unlike those found in la Micoque]. Bordes’ approach is (1990) distinguished two groups of assemblages for the late complemented by the approaches of Tuffreau (1988)and Middle Paleolithic and used two characteristic bifacial object Campy et al. (1989). However, the latter two contradict each groups (Keilmesser and Blattspitzen) as the distinguishing fea- other. Tuffreau (1988) argued that the French Micoquian ture. For the first groups, he used three descriptive terms: should be placedinthe same timespanasanearly Inventare mit Keilmessern [assemblages with Keilmesser], Mousterian: before the last interglacial (Fig. 11b). This stands Keilmesserinventare [Keilmesser assemblages], and in contrast to Campy et al. (1989), who continue to regard the Keilmessergruppen [Keilmesser groups]. He described these Micoquian as an interglacial phenomenon (Fig. 11c). groups as belonging to the Micoquian (Mania 1990,p. 146): The combination of micoquoid-looking artifacts and dating “Diese Inventare werden im allgemeinen dem Micoque-Kreis into the early Würm was described repeatedly in the course of (Fundstelle La Micoque vom Vezere-Tal) zugeschrieben und the 1980s. Examples come from the extreme East of France sind durch asymmetrische, schlanke Faustkeilmesser mit (Guillaume 1982;Janot 1981), from Jura Dept. (Campy et al. seitlichem Rücken charakterisiert.” [These assemblages are 1989) or from Aube Dept. (Boëda and Mazière 1989). generally attributed to the Micoque circle (La Micoque site However, the opposite combination, the connection between of the Vezere Valley) and are characterized by asymmetrical, micoquoid artifacts and a pre-Würm dating, can be found as slender biface-knives with lateral backs]. Mania (1990, pp. well. Here, we refer to works from Central France (Despriée 146–148) does not limit his description to this assignment, and Lorain 1982) or southwestern France (Leclercq and Briois but also describes the lithic typo-technology of these assem- 1982). In the Dordogne for itself, only layer 6 of La Micoque blages: long narrow biface leaves (Faustkeilblätter) produced was considered to be the actual Micoquian (see Rigaud 1988, in the same technique, Levallois technique predominates, nu- p. 437) as Breuil did in the 1930s. merous discoid cores, differently shaped scrapers (single, dou- Focusing on the northwest of France, we can see that there ble, angled, convex, curved, straight, and transverse scrapers), were different described sites (Treissény, Bois-du-Rocher, or and numerous blades. The presence or absence of the Kervouster) that supposedly had a certain similarity to the Levallois concept will be discussed repeatedly in later works. Central European Micoquian or Jungacheuléen (Monnier In addition to the discussion of the lithic assemblages, Mania 1988,p. 77). (1990, p. 148) narrows the groups down to the early Würm Due to the presence of pieces with tranchet blow (lateral (see Fig. 12) and describes their distribution over the whole of tranchets or LSF removals), the Mesvin IV and La-Cotte-de- Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. The main area of the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 19 of 39 38 Fig. 11 a–c Cladogram of the Micoquian positioning in Western Europe (1984–1989), according to Bordes (1984), Tuffreau (1988), and Campy et al. (1989) ab c Moustérien, however, was in the west, whereas the main area In the following years, the term Keilmessergrupppen was of the Keilmesser groups was in the east. This description adopted by various authors, most of them German-speaking, barely differs from other descriptions of the previous two de- and mostly used as a synonym for the assemblages previously cades, and only the term Micoquian was replaced by the term defined as central European Micoquian. The point of refer- Keilmessergruppen. For groups that were chronologically lat- ence for this renaming was essentially that even more recent er, he adopted the term Blattspitzengruppen from the litera- investigations in La Micoque were not able to work out a clear ture, a term that has already been used by various researchers chronological classification of the upper layers. Veil et al. for sometime(e.g.,Freund 1963;Kozłowski 1961;Müller- (1994, pp. 40–41) give some reasons why the term Beck 1956; Schönweiß 1962–1963; Valoch 1955;Zotz 1951). Micoquian should be replaced: 38 Page 20 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Fig. 12 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (1990–1999), according to Mania (1990), Deloze et al. (1994), Mellars (1996), Richter (1997), and Gouédo (1999) & The type assemblage of the layer N/6 (Peyrony excava- tools, which are formally known as leaf-shaped scrapers, fo- tion) of La Micoque is not considered typical or represen- liated bifaces, etc. In this context, it has to be borne in mind tative of all the assemblages covered by the term that Keilmesser appearing in the assemblage are not to be Micoquian. understood as conditio sine qua non for belonging to these & The characteristic element in La Micoque, the Micoquian groups. Another important statement is to be reproduced here biface, is not or only very rarely present in Central literally: “Selbstverständlich soll die vorgeschlagene European sites (Lichtenberg and Königsaue are men- Zusammenfassung der Inventare unter diesem deskriptiven tioned here). Namen zunächst keine Aussage über ihre Beziehungen & Although the tool spectrum of the assemblage N/6 is con- untereinander beinhalten, seien sie nun ethnischer, funktional, sidered representative of Bosinski’s Bockstein type, it has aktivitätsspezifischer oder chronologisch-genetischer Art.” very little in common with the entirety of the sites in [Therefore, Keilmesser appearing in the assemblage are not Central and Western Europe, apart from a special process- to be understood as conditio sine qua non for belonging to ing technique [this probably refers to the alternating uni- these groups […]. Of course, the proposed consolidation of directional edge regularization, AUER]. the inventories under this descriptive name should not initially & Uncertain time setting of the type assemblage. contain any statement about their interrelationships, be they & Uncertain in situ character. ethnic, functional, activity-specific or chronological-genetic.]. & Ambiguity due to the research history of the term The preceding explanations led Jöris (1993, p. 46) to regard Micoquian. the terms Micoquian and Keilmessergruppen being synony- mous: “Micoquien [= Keilmessergruppen (VERF.)].” On the basis of these arguments, Veil et al. (1994,p. 41) Bosinski (1967) already suspected a decrease of the bifacial propose using the term Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian sensu assemblage component within his Micoquian. Kind (1992) Bosinski, Günther, Toepfer, Valoch) as it designates the adopted this assumption and attempted to divide the Middle smallest common denominator of the comprehensive Paleolithic assemblages in southern Germany into groups on Weichselian bifacial assemblages of Central and Eastern the basis of data from the literature. In addition to a tripartite Europe, and assemblages of these groups are apparently gen- division already established by Bosinski (Micoquian, erally characterized by very standardized bifacial cutting Mousterian, Leaf point group), he was able to identify another Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 21 of 39 38 mixed group which has strong similarities to the Moustérien convex and are only retouched at the convex edge, the shape group. A limiting factor in this study, which is also mentioned of the surfaces is very different. Both surfaces of Micoquian therein, is that typological evaluations from earlier years had bifaces are plano-convex. On the other hand, the surfaces of to be used. In the 1990s, Bosinski also began to understand the the MTA bifaces are generally convex and only the edges are terms Micoquian and Keilmessergruppen as synonymous plano-convex. There are also differences in symmetry. (Bosinski et al. 1995, p. 848). Numerous researchers also be- Micoquian bifaces show a double asymmetry, which can be gan to favor the term Keilmessergruppen over the term seen in cross- and longitudinal section. In the MTA bifaces, Micoquian (e.g., Street et al. 1999). however, the cross-section is only slightly asymmetrical. Parallel to the establishment of the new term However, both can be symmetrical when viewed from the top. Keilmessergruppen, the term Micoquo-Pradnikian used by During the 1990s, the question of which assemblages can or Chmielewski (1969, 1970, 1972) continued to be used and should be addressed as Micoquian was raised again. In addition Bárta (1990) thus used the term Micoquien-Prądnik-Kultur. to the sites in Brittany (Cliquet and Monnier 1993; Monnier Sometimes, it seems that the differences between Mousterian 1986), systematic research in eastern France also contributed to and Micoquian in western Central Europe have been the discussion. In this context, sites investigated by Farizy (for- emphasized more than in the eastern part, e.g., Bárta (1990,p. merly Girard) in the 1980s and early 1990s played a role. Of 125) discusses the possible existence of the Micoquien facies of importance here is the site Champlost (Yonne), which was attrib- the Mousterian. uted to a “charentoïdo-micoquien” facies (Deloze et al. 1994,p. Another approach was advocated by Richter (1997). In the 20) by its asymmetrical bifacial component and a systematic analyses of the assemblages of the G-layer complex of the Levallois reduction. Thus, the reference was assigned to the Sesselfelsgrotte, he found that sometimes the assemblages alter- Mousterian system, but the deviating bifacial component was nate between many and few or no bifacial elements. His conclu- taken into account. Of interest at this site is not only the combi- sion was that these were initial and consecutive (subsequent) nation of Levallois and asymmetrical bifacial components but assemblages with a high raw material diversity in the early stages also the known tentative TL dating between 65 and 45 ka (Farizy (initial) and only a few or no bifacial elements at all. In the late 1995). According to Farizy (1995), the Grotte de la Verpillière I stage (consecutive), the raw material diversity decreases, but the (Desbrosse et al. 1976; Desbrosse and Texier 1973b), Blanzy bifacial component increases. If the unifacial component is con- (Desbrosse and Tavoso 1970), or Bissy-sur-Fley (Desbrosse sidered to be Mousterian and the bifacial component represents and Texier 1973a) in southern Burgundy also belongs to these Micoquian, these assemblages can be considered to be sites and is part of her Industries charentiennes à influences Mousterian with Micoquian option, whereby the Micoquian op- micoquiennes. Also, in the course of motorway constructions tion increases over the duration of the settlement. In this ap- in the early 1990s, numerous open-air sites were excavated in proach, Mousterian and Micoquian are no longer perceived as northern Burgundy. In two sites (Les Hauts Massous in Vinneuf separate entities. In a further evaluation of the assemblages, that and La Prieurée in Villeneuve-l’Archevêque), the bifacial com- had previously been classified as Micoquian (or ponent was used to assign find layers of the early Würm to the Keilmessergruppen), he divided the M.M.O. into an early Micoquian (Deloze et al. 1994). In contrast to earlier French (M.M.O.-A) and a late phase (M.M.O.-B). These two phases works, these assemblages described as Micoquian were clearly differ not only in their chronological position (see Fig. 12), but assigned to the Middle Paleolithic and sometimes seen as west- also in their production of the unifacial accompanying industry. ern extensions of the Micoquian sensu Bosinski (1967). The older Micoquian (M.M.O.-A) is a (mainly) non-Levallois Understandable as it may be to place these assemblages industry, whereas the younger one (M.M.O.-B) is characterized alongside the Central European Micoquian, the question now by Levallois. arises to what extent assemblages before the Eem, during the Eem, and after the Eem might be interrelated. This is one of Micoquian research in Western Europe the questions to which Gouédo (1999) devoted himself. during the 1990s Gouédo (1999, pp. 7–16) is intensively concerned with the re- search history of the generic unit Micoquian and identifies the In contrast to research in Central Europe, where new terms definitional differences between the typological approaches of were established for the Micoquian, the term Micoquian con- Bordes (1954) and Bosinski (1967). However, both typological tinued to be used intensively in Western Europe. approaches are based on the presence of “Micoquian bifaces.” In the course of technological considerations, Boëda The decisive difference between the two approaches is what is (1991a) described characteristic differences between MTA bi- meant by this. For French research, the Micoquian biface plays faces and Micoquian bifaces and thus showed a further way to the central role, as there are hardly any other types. Outside of delineate differences between morphologically similar objects France, however, the focus is on the Keilmesser family. The by means of technological criteria. Although both pieces are further we move east, the rarer the Micoquian biface becomes. These are essential factors that attracted the attention of retouched at the edge in such a way that they become plano- 38 Page 22 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 researchers as early as the 1950s. The unifacial reduction systems other is the amount of scanned or online publications that can used at the same time are also of great relevance. In addition to be searched successively for keywords. Therefore, hopefully, typological criteria, technological criteria also play a role in bifa- an adequate selection of representative contributions has been cial pieces. Here, Gouédo (1999, pp. 15–16) refers to the mor- made to do justice to the matter. phology of the pieces and points to plano-convex cross-sections At the beginning of the 2000s, Conard and Fischer (2000) and trifacial concepts of the tools, regardless of whether they attempted to summarize and present the current state of re- occur in France or east of the Rhine, or whether the accompany- search on the Middle Paleolithic in relation to cultural units. ing industry is based on Levallois or not. He then distinguishes In contrast to Bosinski (1982), who favored a tripartition, they the views of typologists and technologists on the research object assume a dichotomy into Early Middle Paleolithic (Saalian/ Micoquian: “La vision technologiste tend donc à unifier le Rissian assemblages) and Late Middle Paleolithic (Eemian monde micoquien tout en montrant des différences entre groupes and Weichselian/Würmian assemblages). The term alors que la vision typologiste bordienne tend à accentuer ces Keilmessergruppen is preferred to the term Micoquian. They différences.” [The technologist vision therefore tends to unify also propose using the terms Keilmessergruppen and Pradnik the Micoquian world while showing differences between groups, Group as synonyms. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the while the Bordian typologist’s vision tends to accentuate these term para-burin, which was introduced into research in the differences]. Overall, he concludes that the Micoquian phenom- 1960s by Polish researchers (Chmielewski 1969; Kowalski enon is by far not considered homogeneous. Gouédo’s evolution- 1967), be preferred to the term Pradnik technique in order to ary approach to the course of the Micoquian involves a threefold emphasize it. They also assume that although the separation of division in time (Micoquien ancien, Micoquien riche en Keilmesser assemblages and Mousterian assemblages can “bifacees pointus,” and Micoquien riche en “bifaces non- sometimes be imprecise, reduction systems alone cannot be pointus”) and in its structure (groups A, B, and C). Group A is used for the separation (Conard and Fischer 2000, p. 12): based on the assemblages in Vinneuf and Verrières. Group B is “While it is clear that the distinctions between Late represented by the MTA-A and group C is based on the assem- Mousterian and Keilmesser assemblages are not always sharp, blage of Champlost (see Fig. 12). According to him, the it seems unlikely that the observed variation can be explained Micoquian originates from the classical Acheulian as in the sites solely on the basis of reduction sequences.” Nevertheless, the in Cagny around 450 to 400 ka. The Micoquien ancien and then Mousterian in particular remains a reservoir for assemblages the Micoquien riche en “bifacees pointus” contain two develop- made by blank tools with or without the use of the Levallois ment groups that are not entirely separate (groups A and C); only concept. Furthermore, they note that their approach assumes later in the Micoquien riche en “bifaces non-pointus” do the that similar assemblages do not necessarily have to be of the development lines separate. On the one hand, there is a branch same age as often assumed in earlier approaches. They also that is characterized by Keilmesser (Keilmessergruppen, group point out that no more precise classifications can be made A) and one that is called Pradnikhorizont (group C). On the other without further reliable chronological data. The isolated ge- hand, there is a branch in which only very few Keilmesser occur, neric units are summarized in Fig. 13 (left). but other types of bifacial pieces (Gouédo 1999,fig.176). This Bosinski’s(2000–2001) approach is slightly different approach attempts to draw a clear line of development for sites (Fig. 13 mid). He distinguished the assemblages of the early from Western and Central Europe that have so far been referred Middle Paleolithic according to their age, differentiating be- to as Micoquian. The Micoquian, parallel to the Mousterian, is tween two supergroups in the younger phase, which are sep- regarded as an independent development. However, it should be arated in time (early and late phase). He distinguished two noted that the context presented contains only the technical de- assemblage types within the early phase (laminar velopment and the Micoquian is regarded as a technocomplex Rheindahliense in MIS 5c, laminar Wallerheim D also in (as understood by Clarke), within which the same or very similar MIS 5c). Within the following Keilmessergruppen (los grupos concepts of tool manufacture are applied. Keilmesser), he distinguished five assemblage groups, which, in contrast to earlier works, he staggered differently in time. The Keilmessergruppen are placed between MIS 5a and the Micoquian research in the 2000s middle MIS 3. He differentiates between two chronologically successive units, which we would like to call early and late Micoquian research in Central Europe Keilmessergruppen. The early groups contain the types during the 2000s Königsaue, Bockstein, and Klausennische, which are regarded as being chronologically parallel to each other. The In the early 2000s, the amount of data that can be evaluated in late groups consist of the contemporaneous types Lebenstedt relation to the literature available increased enormously, so and Pradnikhorizont. This structure differed fundamentally that a strict selection had to be made. The reason for this is from the sequence established by Bosinski (1967). Not only do the types Rörshain (now placed into the twofold. One is the increasing amount of written literature; the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 23 of 39 38 Yonne, Western Central Central Europe France Europe Europe Blattspitzen- Grupos Blattspitzen Transition gruppe Horizonte CIM KMG C Lebenstedt Pradnik KMG B2 KMG B1 Königs- Bock- Klausen- KMG A aue stein nische Rhein- Wallerheim D dahliense Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 5e) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 6) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 7) Paleolítico Medio antiguo (MIS 8) Acheuléen Depaepe (2002) Jöris (2003) Conard & Fischer (2000) Bosinski (2001) Fig. 13 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2000–2003), according to Conard and Fischer (2000), Bosinski (2000– 2001), Depaepe (2002), and Jöris (2003) Blattspitzengruppen) and Schambach not occur, but the types Micoquien, Moustérien, Altmühlgruppe,and Szélétien Königsaue and Pradnikhorizont were also included. In his [Obviously, the text of the dissertation available on the very early works, Lebenstedt was seen as the type location Internet is not the submission version from the year 2000, of the Jungacheuléen, which was located before the Eem but a revised version. The dissertation was subsequently also (Bosinski 1963). published as a book: Böhner (2008)]. Böhner (2000, p. 1) sees a clear shift of the Micoquian into In his analysis of the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early the MIS 3 due to dating of newly excavated sites and agrees Upper Paleolithic in Bavaria, Uthmeier (2004)subsumesthe with the considerations presented by Uthmeier (2004,pp. assemblages previously referred to as Mousterian, Micoquian, 381–396) summarizing the assemblages described so far as and Blattspitzengruppen under the generic term Micoquian. Jung- Acheuléen Early Mousterian Eemian Middle Paleolithic Laminar Keilmessergruppe Late Mousterian Late MP w/ handaxes Technocomplexe du Nord-Ouest Micoquien 38 Page 24 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 He refers to the concept of the context area coined by concepts are almost insignificant, and the systematic ex- Weißmüller (1995) here, but defines it differently (Uthmeier traction of reductions is almost completely absent. 2004, p. 297): Micoquian as distribution area of technological Handaxes are rare, domination of Keilmesser with straight and typological features that combine several local groups cutting edges. within the distribution boundaries of a “technocomplex” to & KMG-B2: not defined for Central Europe. Occurs in form a larger supra-regional unit. On the basis of Richter’s Western Europe. (1997) works, he combines the Mousterian and Micoquian & KMG-C: assemblage type “Bockstein-Klausennische.” of his work area into a single technocomplex. In a similar Northern and southern Central European low mountain way, he groups assemblages with leaf points into his regional ranges. Highly variable shapes of tools, mostly straight Micoquian (Uthmeier 2004, p. 299). In his opinion, evaluation cutting edges. units and assemblages with leaf points within Bavaria are part of the regional Micoquian. Therefore, he mapped the Bosinski (2008) assumes that the majority of the assem- Micoquian without leaf points, Micoquian with isolated leaf blages to be assigned to the Keilmessergruppen are to be points (< 5%), and Micoquian with leaf points (> 5%) into one placed in the MIS 5a (Odderade), whereby according to map (see Fig. 14). Jöris (2003), assemblages belong after the first glacial AccordingtoJöris (2003, p. 53), the term Keilmessergruppen maximum, and Richter (2002) wants to place the entire should be preferred to the term Micoquian, because of the pres- Keilmessergruppen (Moustérien mit Micoquien-Option)in ence of specific bifacial tools, especially the Keilmesser. He the MIS 3 on the basis of C data. Bosinski’ssequence of referred to the discussion in Veil et al. (1994) and chronologically assemblages is based on the stratigraphic sequence of the rearranged the complexes defined by Bosinski (2000–2001) Balve cave, as determined in his doctoral thesis (Bosinski within the Keilmessergruppen (KMG). According to the data 1967). This approach (Fig. 15 mid) is congruent to the one available at that time, he assumed that the KMG date both before he published in 2000–2001 (Fig. 13 mid) and after the first glacial (MIS 4, see Fig. 13 right). He assumed a period of about 80 to 43 ka. In his opinion, the assemblages could be chronologically divided into three groups, which he Micoquian research in Western Europe called KMG A (early), B (middle), and C (late) and which es- during the 2000s sentially correspond to Bosinski’s assemblage types: So as not to completely go beyond the scope, we limit our- & KMG-A: assemblage type “Königsaue-Lebenstedt.” selves to a few (hopefully well chosen) contributions. Let us Occurs in the north German lowlands, as well as in the first take a look at the east of France, where large-scale exca- northern and southern Central European low mountain vations along a motorway route yielded numerous results. ranges. Assemblages dominated by Levallois reduction. Depaepe (2002) summarized the work in Yonne, northeast Keilmesser and scrapers with convex cutting edges. France. He extracted four Middle Paleolithic generic units & KMG-B1: “Pradnik-Horizont.” Northern Central after the Acheulian (Fig. 13 mid) and distinguished two units European low mountain ranges. Levallois reduction of “micoquoid” assemblages: Fig. 14 Sites of the Micoquian with and without leaf points, according to Uthmeier (2004, p.298,Abb.11.1) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 25 of 39 38 Fig. 15 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and West Central Along the France Central Europe (2007–2009), Europe river Rhine according to Delagnes et al. (2007), Bosinski (2008), and Koehler (2009) Transition Grand LV Nord DE Néro MTA Char. infl. micoq Keilmessergruppen (Micoquien) Quina, Rhodanien TC du Nord Ouest Rheindahlien des MIS 5c Wallertheim D Mittelpaläolithikum der letzten Warmzeit Micoquien Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 6) Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 7) Frühes Mittelpal. (MIS 8) Miesenheim Kärlich-Seeufer Achenheim Delagnes et al. (2007) Bosinski (2008) Koehler (2009) & “Classical” Micoquian with handaxes according to Bordes Prieurée in Villeneuve l’Archevêque from the Saalian and Bosinski at Vinneuf C at the beginning of the Würm (MIS 6) to the early Pleniglacial (MIS 4) glacial (MIS 5) & CIM (Charentian with Micoquian influence) described by In describing “technocomplexes” in Western and Central Farizy (1995) at the Champlost site in the middle Europe, Delagnes et al. (2007) continued the division into Pleniglacial (MIS 3) mousteroid and micoquoid assemblages. Bifacial pieces can & Technocomplexe du Nord-Ouest at Le Fond de la be found in the MTA as well as in the Micoquian. The MTA is Tournerie in Lailly, at Le Domaine de Beauregard in present in southwestern France,sporadicallyinnorthern Lailly, at le Grand Chanteloup in Molinons or at La France and in England. In contrast, the Micoquian Moustérien MTA "Micoquien" Keilmesser- gruppen 38 Page 26 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 (Keilmessergruppen) is mainly concentrated in Central & Central Europe (from the Rhine to the Carpathian Europe, but similar industries were also reported from Mountains)—industries with Keilmesser (Central Brittany (Molines et al. 2001), Burgundy (Gouédo et al. European Micoquian or M.M.O.) 1994;Gouedo 1988), and the Périgord (Bourguignon 1992; & Eastern Europe (from the Carpathian Mountains to the Brenet and Folgado 2003). In addition, the contemporaneity Ural)—eastern Micoquian and different Mousterian facies of the MTA and the Keilmessergruppen was assumed & Southern Europe (Balkan)—different Mousterian facies (Fig. 15 left). Koehler’s(2009) approach to technocomplexes in France In his overview of the European Middle Paleolithic, differs from the previous one in that she attempts to include Depaepe (2014) made it clear that the facies model built by numerous regional studies in her chronology scheme, thus François Bordes has a spatial limitation. This quickly became achieving a finer structure (Fig. 15 right). With regard to visible for other regions by adopting the model and led to the micoquoid industries, she distinguishes the Micoquian (Paris definition of own generic units, which better described the Basin, alternating unidirectional edge regularization) from the features recognized. Figure 16 (mid) shows an attempt to rep- CIM (numerous often bifacial side scrapers and Levallois re- resent the generic units described by Depaepe in a cladogram. duction; eastern France), whereas the Micoquian is situated in He recognized that the term Mousterian is nearly synonymous MIS 6 to 5d and the CIM in MIS 4 to 3. All these French to the term Middle Paleolithic. For the Micoquian, he defines approaches are based on a single, uniform Late Middle two phases: phase 1—Keilmessergruppen and phase 2— Paleolithic industry (Keilmessergruppen) in Central Europe. Blattspitzengruppen. This corresponds to the approach advo- The works of Bosinski (1967, 2000–2001, 2008)or Conard cated by Richter (2014), whereby the M.M.O.-A and B cor- and Fischer (2000), however, show the complexity of the respond to the Keilmessergruppen and the M.M.O.-C to the Middle Paleolithic in western Central Europe and different Blattspitzengruppen. He also sees connections between the generic units. Micoquian, on the one hand, and the Babonyan, Szeletian, and Altmühlian, on the other hand. To complete this approach, Depaepe examines the chronological range of various lithic Micoquian research in Western and Central reduction concepts. He attests Levallois and Discoidal a long Europe during the 2010s chronology. In contrast, Quina and Laminar occur only toward the end of the Middle Paleolithic. More recently, the term Micoquian has been used mostly in Last but not least, in this chronological view of the term conjunction with the term Keilmessergruppen. However, we Micoquian, we would like to present and contrast three will first compare the approaches of Baales (2013)and models from the year 2016 with very different approaches to Kozłowski (2014) favoring a short chronology for the western deal with the Micoquian controversy. First, we consider the part of Central Europe (Fig. 16 left) and a long chronology for approach of Blaser and Chaussé (2016), who compiled the the eastern part of Central Europe (Fig. 16 right), respectively. definitions of the term Micoquian for assemblages from the For Baales, Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian) and Mousterian Paris basin. They make two remarkable observations. First, are generic units running side by side, while the they can show that the Micoquian biface (or what has been Keilmessergruppen (Micoquian) only occur between MIS 5b described as such) is not suitable for forming generic units. and MIS 3. This is in contrast to the Mousterian, which ap- Second, they can show that a total of three temporally sepa- pears from MIS 8 to MIS 3. For Kozłowski, there are three rated generic units were described as Micoquian (Fig. 17 units: a pure Mousterian, a pure Micoquian, and a mixture of right). Due to the use of the term Keilmessergruppen, which both. is now increasingly used in Central Europe, they propose to Richter (2014) takes a slightly different approach form a separate term for the industries at the beginning of the (Fig. 16 left). While the Micoquian sensu lato has a long last glaciation (but make no proposal). chronology (MIS 7 to MIS 3), the position of the M.M.O. Locht et al. (2016), who avoid using cultural allocations or (Mousterian with Micoquian Option) is exclusively in MIS generic units to describe the assemblages wherever possible, 3. The eastern Micoquian has a somewhat longer chronology consider the production systems for flakes, blades, points, and (MIS 5 to MIS 3). The MTA in Western Europe is contrasted bifaces in each chronostratigraphic phase for northern France with the M.M.O. in Central Europe. In addition, for the early (MIS 7 to early MIS 3). They come to the conclusion that the MIS 3, he designed a model of five European settlement zones individual reduction systems do not always occur and that (Richter 2014,p. 203): bifacial elements are only sporadically present in individual units (Fig. 17 left). The approach chosen by Kozłowski (2016) & Northwestern Europe—different Mousterian facies for the eastern part of Central Europe uses generic units and & Southwestern France—classical MTA and other recognizes a juxtaposition of these Mousterian and Micoquian Mousterian facies industries (Fig. 17 mid). Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 27 of 39 38 northern England Hungary, Netherlands Slovakia, Central Europe Hungary Bavaria Italy France, Middle Belgium Reduction concepts Moravia, West Central East northern Rhone Germany Central Southern Europe Spain valley Poland Europe Central Europe Poland Second Micoquian phase, Late Uluzzien Châtelperronien Néronien LRJ Blattspitzengruppen Final MP Transition Szeletian Altmühlian Micoquian ("Blattspitzengruppen" M.M.O. C First Micoquian phase, Early M.M.O. B Babonyen Micoquian ("Keilmessergruppen" Keilmesser- M.M.O. A Micoquian gruppen (Micoquien) Micoquien oriental Moustérien Mousterian frühe Klingen- industrie Mousterian & Micoquian Taubachian Pontinian Micoquian Mousterian & Micoquian Mousterian jüngeres Acheuléen Acheulean mittleres Acheuléen Kozlowski (2014) Depaepe (2014) Baales (2013) Richter (2014) Fig. 16 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2013–2014), according to Baales (2013), Richter (2014), Depaepe (2014), and Kozłowski (2014) Discussion The discovery phase (1) is characterized by a repeated change in affiliation, although the chronological assign- Shifts in chronological and epochal affiliation ment to the last interglacial is retained. In the Würmian phase (2), a twofold shift is visible: on the one hand, the In the course of more than 100 years of Paleolithic re- chronological assignment of the assemblages to the last search, in which the term Micoquian was used as a generic glacial, and on the other hand, to the Middle Paleolithic. unit, several chronological shifts of the term’s use can be In the chronological expansion phase (3), the duration of observed. A total of 58 sources were used, in which clear the Middle Paleolithic was extended to the time before information on the chronological position and its affiliation the last glacial period, and thus, numerous assemblages was given (Fig. 18). It is good to see that there is an were also assigned to the Middle Paleolithic. In the new interplay between the affiliation to the Lower (Acheulian) naming and Würmian phase (4), a new name for the or Middle Paleolithic (starting right from the beginning of corresponding assemblages was defined with the term the use of the term). From the 1950s onwards, the assump- Keilmessergruppen and an assignment to the last glacial tion that the generic unit Micoquian can be attributed to the was manifested. In the newest phase (chronological ex- Middle Paleolithic prevails. Predominantly French authors pansion but Würmian manifestation phase, 5), two ten- continue to use the term Micoquian according to Breuil and dencies are visible: on the one hand, a manifestation in Bordes and declare the assemblages to belong to the the last glacial, and on the other hand, an extension of Acheulian. The term was thus not only increasingly used the definition to older assemblages. for chronologically younger assemblages, but also underwent a spatial shift from Western Europe to Central Spatial shifts in affiliation and Eastern Europe. The sources used show five significant shifts of meaning: The spatial shift of the affiliation of assemblages to the Micoquian is closely related to the question of whether 1. Discovery phase (1908–1932) the eponymous site La Micoque should be added or not. 2. Würmian phase (1951–1969) In the descriptions before 1990, a reference (explicit or 3. Chronological expansion phase (1977–1989) not) to the eponymous site La Micoque was repeatedly 4. New naming and Würmian phase (1990–1993) made, either through the similarity of the assemblages or 5. Chronological expansion but Würmian manifestation through the use of the term Micoquian. From the 1990s phase (2014 to today) onwards, La Micoque was increasingly detached. This Moustérien Micoquien au sense large Middle Paleolithic (MIS 10 to 3) European Middle Paleolithic is nearly synonymous with the Mousterian Final Acheulean Late Middle Paleolithic (MIS 5-3) Early MP (MIS 10-6) Levallois Quina Laminar Laminar Discoidal 38 Page 28 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Western Eastern Northern France Paris basin Central Europe Central Europe preferential Final Mousterian Central Discoidal MTA Levallois with bifaces European end 5a/Flake, blade & points, somet. bifaces Micoquien (Bosinski 1967) 5a/Levallois & blades 5b/no sites 5c/LV flakes points, prism. blades, opp. flakes Micoquien 5d/LV flakes, points & prism. blades (Gouédo 1999) Micoquien (as defined MIS 5e - Levallois & by Breuil Discoidal products 1932 and Bordes 1954) MIS 6 - Levallois products & some Bifaces Initial Mousterian Micro- (bifaces & "Blatt- Proto- MIS 7 - Large Levallois flake schaber" Levallois Micoquian flakes and points indust. and discoidal "Jung- Proto- Microlithic Microlithic acheuléen" Levallois, flake flake (Bifaces/ backed industries industries Levallois) flakes Locht et al. (2016) Kozlowski (2016) Blaser & Chaussé (2016) Fig. 17 Cladogram of Micoquian positioning in Western and Central Europe (2016), according to Locht et al. (2016), Kozłowski (2016), and Blaser and Chaussé (2016) took place with the reference to the spatial distance of Assigning new names the sites, the undated layer N/6 in La Micoque, as well as the now recognized differences in the assemblages. Looking back to the 1990s, the differences between the epon- One the one hand, despite the spatial distance, Bosinski ymous site and the Central European assemblages were (1967, 1970) explicitly interpreted the micoquoid assem- emphasized more intensively. Veil et al. (1994, p. 40) summa- blages he analyzed in Central Europe with reference to la rize the reasons for replacing the term Micoquian with a more Micoque. On the other hand, despite the name connec- appropriate one and point out that the lithic of the eponymic tion (Micoquo-Pradnikien), Chmielewski (1969)drewat- layer (La Micoque N/6) is not considered to be typical for the tention to the differences between the Central European whole of what is now considered to be part of this group in assemblages and the eponymous site. The distribution of Central and Eastern Europe. The mentioned difficulties with the Micoquian strongly depends on whether the epony- the eponymous site, as well as the fact that other northern mous site is part of the respective definition (see Figs. 2, French complexes were also called Micoquian, led to the 6, 8,and 14). search for a new term. Veil et al. (1994,pp.40–41), as well Levallois Laminar Discoidal Bifaces Micoquian (KMG) Typical Mousterian with recurrant Levallois Taubachian Taubachian Mousterian Different types of Micoquian (KMG) SE Charentian Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 29 of 39 38 as Jöris (1993), proposed the term “Keilmessergruppen,” in- troduced by Mania, as a substitute for the Micoquian (accord- 2016 ing to Bosinski, Günther, Toepfer, or Valoch). Jöris (1993,p. 45) writes in the same spirit that on the basis of the premises made against the term “Micoquien,” there is a tendency to abandon all the termini for Micoquian associated with the research history and to introduce a more neutral term, that of the Keilmessergruppen, as a substitute. Throughout the re- search history, a huge variety of terms as generic units have been proposed to replace the term Micoquian. We would like to contend ourselves here with a (certainly incomplete) list (Table 1). When we consider controversies about the eponymous site (La Micoque), we recognize a juxtaposition of terms that ei- ther have a regional reference (e.g., Prądnik River in Poland) 1997 or refer to a specific assemblage component (Keilmesser, asymmetrical knives, backed bifaces). The name controver- sies are depicted in Fig. 19. The generic units described are seen either as a subset or an intersection of the umbrella term 1988 Micoquian. Shifting the focus of bifacial elements At the beginning of the Micoquian research, the focus was on the preference of bifaces, which looked similar to pieces from la Micoque but different from comparable pieces from, e.g., Le Moustier. The importance of pieces that were mentioned from the 1940s onwards as Keilmesser, Faustkeilschaber, etc. 1976 (asymmetrical backed knives) in determining whether they belonged to a generic unit increased successively. Along with this added value, which bifacial pieces are now decisive, the spatial and temporal shift also came about. Thus, the meaning of the term Micoquian in more recent studies differs massively from what was regarded as Micoquian in the first half of the twentieth century. Linking the Mousterian with the Micoquian The attempt to systematically link the research approaches of the term Mousterian and Micoquian has been repeated in re- search. While at the beginning the industry of La Micoque was regarded as part of the Acheulian (Obermaier 1908a)or as transitional industry (Schmidt 1911, 1912a), the idea also arose that the Micoquian should be placed in the Middle Paleolithic. This raised the question of the simultaneity of 1920 Mousterian and Micoquian. The term Middle Paleolithic (Mittelpaläolithikum) was already introduced 10 years earlier (Blankenhorn 1905) and taken as a synonym for the Chronology Mousterian (see also Sollas 1911). The decisive difference, Pre-Eemian Eemian (Riss- Post-Eemian (Riss and earlier Würm interglacial (Würm -> however, was that Hauser placed the Micoquian between the -> MIS 9-6) -> MIS 5e) MIS 6d-3) Mousterian and the Aurignacian, and Wiegers saw it as the Fig. 18 Diagram of the Micoquian’s chronological positioning in the Lower Mousterian. Perhaps Breuil (1932b) was the first to course of the research history Research history 38 Page 30 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Table 1 Variety of terms of Term Translation Literature generic units to replace the term Micoquian Cykle przemysłowe - mikocki i Industrial cycles of the Micoquian and Krukowski prądnicki Pradnikian (1939–1948) Bocksteinkultur Bockstein culture Wetzel (1954) Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Upper Lower Paleolithic with Müller-Beck (1956, Faustkeilschabern handaxe–scrapers 1957) Charentien of Micoque tradition Charentien of Micoque tradition Valoch (1968) Micoquo-Prodnikien, Prondnikien Micoquo-Pradnikian, Pradnikian Chmielewski (1969, 1970) Group of backed bifaces Group of backed bifaces Schild and Wendorf (1977) Keilmessergruppen Keilmesser groups Mania (1990) Charentien à influence micoquienne Charentian of Micoquian influence Farizy (1995) Moustérien mit Micoque-Option Mousterian with Micoquian Option Richter (1997) Prondnikian, backed biface Prondnikian, backed biface assemblages Burdukiewicz (2000) assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Urbanowski (2003) Keilmessergruppe Keilmessergruppe Conard (2011) (Micoquian/Pradnikian) (Micoquian/Pradnikian) juxtapose the Micoquian (Acheulian VI–VII, now limited to the lithics from Kůlna that the common typology established layer N/6) and the Mousterian (see Fig. 3). by Bordes (1961b) was only insufficiently suitable to describe Two newer approaches are briefly examined in more detail the assemblage variability. This was particularly visible in here. We want to call the first approach an extension of typol- relation to bifacial pieces (Keilmesser) or special scrapers ogy. Valoch (1968, 1988) recognized during the analysis of (Groszaki). Quintessentially, he described the assemblage Fig. 19 Name controversies in regard to the terms Micoque, Similarity in name: Prądnik and lithic assemblage Pradnik component Tool Micoque Micoquo-Pradnikian Pradnikian Cykle przemysłowe: mikocki i prądnicki Charentien à influence micoquienne Pradnik knives assemblage Charentien of Micoque tradition Micoquian/Micoquien Pradnikhorizont Bocksteinkultur Oberes Altpaläolithikum mit Faustkeilschabern Backed biface assemblages Asymmetrical knives assemblages Keilmessergruppen Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 31 of 39 38 added by him to the Micoquian as a Charentian with Micoque Let us first turn to the eponymous site (La Micoque). The tradition, pointing out the special significance of scrapers and upper strata in La Micoque remain undated despite several special bifacial pieces, which did not occur in the Bordesian attempts (Rosendahl 1999, 2004, 2006, 2011). However, an facies (Bordes 1953a, 1984 defined the Charentian as Quina age of about 300 to 250 ka is assumed (Rosendahl 2006), or Ferrassie industry with a predominance of side scrapers, but meaning that these assemblages would fall out of Richter’s relatively few handaxes and blades). In this case, both the time frame. As Rosendahl (2004, 2006, 2011) discovered, bifacial assemblage component (Micoque tradition) and the the assemblages of the upper layers (layer 6 to 8) are domi- unifacial assemblage component (Charentian) were nated by the reduction of “ingot-shaped cores” (according to emphasized. Luttropp and Bosinski 1971). The Levallois and Discoidal The second approach extends the consideration of unifacial concept is present but very rare. However, there is no evidence and bifacial assemblage components by a settlement dynamic for Quina reduction. This would fit into the older M.M.O. element and was described by Richter (1997, 2002, 2006, 2014, according to Richter’smodel. 2016, 2018) as Mousterian with Micoque Option. His approach Another site considered here is the Bockstein. The faunal is based on the observation that in a conventional typological analysis by Krönneck (2012) assumes a probable deposition of classification, the problem arises that assemblages can be called the Micoquian assemblage (IIIa, IIIb) in the MIS 5a (or a warmer both Micoquian and Mousterian, depending on whether the phase of MIS 5). This would fit into the older M.M.O. according affiliation is derived from bifacial tools (Micoquian) or unifacial to Richter’s model, but not in the model of the KMG proposed tools (Micoquian). Thus, Micoquian and Mousterian are inter- by Jöris (2003), where the Bockstein site is placed into the MIS woven aspects of the same technological repertoire, but not 3. The unifacial reduction of the site, however, is not so easy to different cultural units that can be clearly distinguished in time grasp. Çep (2014, 2019) and Çep and Krönneck (2015)de- and space (Richter 2016, p. 118). The settlement dynamic mo- scribed it as a Quina concept in the broader sense, which carries mentum of this approach is based on the assumption that when a certain Levallois reduction. This raises the question of whether a site or area is repopulated, other objects are deposited than if it the reduction concepts for blank production have been sufficient- had been settled there for a longer period of time. On the one ly well described and separated from each other so far (Frick hand, a repopulation assemblage (Initialinventar) is character- 2016, pp. 215–218; Frick and Herkert 2014). ized by high raw material diversity, indifferent tool spectrum, and a low number of Micoquian tools. On the other hand, such Possibilities and ideas for overcoming the term a long duration assemblage (Konsekutivinventar) is character- Micoquian ized by a lower raw material diversity, a differentiated tool spectrum, and a high number of Micoquian tools. A question According to our understanding of the matter, the approach that keeps coming up is exactly what status bifacial tools con- described below could help to overcome these inconsis- stitute in this cycle. For Richter (2016,pp.118–119), bifacial tencies. However, we must stress that this hypothetical con- tools, at the beginning of land use cycles, tend to reflect their struct is still far from mature and applicable. As described initial status, but at the end of the cycle, they tend to be more above, the term Micoquian was used in a variety of different strongly reduced. The difficultyhereinthisapproachfor us lies ways to form generic units. If we look at the latest uses of the in the fact that the M.M.O. model tries to unite all Central term, there is no uniformity here either. If the aforementioned European sites in one model and to compare this model with M.M.O. is equated with the Keilmessergruppen, Richter a selected section of sites (MTA) in Western Europe (see (1997, 2002, 2014, 2016, 2018) assumes a very short chro- Richter 2014). nology (exclusively MIS 3), while Jöris (2003) proposed a longer chronology (MIS 5 to 3) and Kozłowski (2014, 2016) Structuring by means of the unifacial assemblage applies an extended chronology (MIS 7 to 3). These massive component differences in the application of the term make it difficult to compare the respective approaches. Within the assemblages referred to as Micoquian/KMG/ Let us now move on to the approach proposed here for the M.M.O., etc., the unifacial assemblage component was some- classification of assemblages. As we have seen, over the decades, times used to structure them. Thus, Richter differentiated his the bifacial assemblage component was first chosen intensively M.M.O. into an older one (with Quina and other non- in order to assign the assemblages to a generic unit. Over time, Levallois concepts) and a younger one (with Levallois con- the unifacial component has also been used. With a similar in- cept). This unambiguous temporal differentiation of the as- tensity, the further method apparatus was expanded within semblages must be accompanied by some remarks that have Paleolithic research (faunal remains, sedimentology, radiometric been compiled in the literature. We selected some examples of dating, settlement dynamic, etc.). We would therefore like to assemblages which can no longer be sorted into the M.M.O. make use of this expansion of knowledge and the apparatus of model so clearly. methods to develop a classification system for the Middle 38 Page 32 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Paleolithic. As lithologist, it is our intention to expand and spec- background, but it turned out that the unifacial assemblages ify the methodological apparatus of lithic technology. With this were hardly distinguishable from classical Mousterian assem- in mind, it must be examined: blages. With the increase of technological analyses from the 1980s onwards, assemblages were not only examined for their & Whether there are transitions between the concepts of specific (static) lithic components, but the dynamic momen- unifacial reduction, as well as bifacial and trifacial produc- tum of assemblages was also reflected. Some authors who tion already described became aware of this problem of the different levels of obser- & Whether only inadequately described concepts need to be vation avoided these difficulties by either proposing a name specified for a defined generic unit or attempting to dispense with these generic units in order to take into account the assemblage When the assemblage components are described and a components in their respective position in space and time. chronological framework exists, the assemblages are com- It is very significant when three chronologically separated pared to one another. Similarly, Locht et al. (2016), Hérisson and technologically different units (Bordesian Micoquian, et al. (2016), or Soriano (2000) also tried to describe assem- pre-Eem; Yonne Micoquian, MIS 5; and Charentién à influ- blages according to the reduction concepts and to fix them ence micoquienne, MIS 3) within a region are labeled with the chronologically. same term, as Blaser and Chaussé (2016) could show for the In other words, it is the attempt (as unbiased as possible) to Parisian basin. In addition, it appears that these three units get a clear understanding of the situation on the basis of tech- have little correspondence with the assemblage of the epony- nological and radiometric data (and by consulting further da- mous site La Micoque. ta). If we determine the types of assemblages chronologically After this extensive (but certainly not complete) discussion piece by piece, it should be possible to recognize the respec- of the use of the term Micoquian, the question remains as to tive patterns. It goes without saying that we are always whether the term should continue to be used or whether it is confronted with the dynamics of settlement: not in terms of time to classify the Middle Paleolithic using new approaches. population shifts but in terms of different types of camp sites, However, the simple assignment of a new name to a defined which can have very different assemblages, depending on unit may not always be the most elegant way. The assignment what is needed at the particular site before deposition (in terms of a new name should be strictly linked to the definitions of a of import, export, deposition, reduction, modification, or technocomplex. Recalling the aforementioned definition recycling). Here, generic units are irrelevant, because it must ((Lithic) assemblages that share the same economic strategy, first be clarified (in relation to the lithic assemblage compo- in similar environments with a similar technology and a similar nent) to what extent the unifacial, bifacial, and trifacial reduc- trajectory) and supplement it with a narrow chronological tion systems analyzed in detail relate to one another. framework, we should be able to form generic units that can be visibly separated from other units and perhaps even hint at certain settlement patterns. Conclusion As, for example, showed by the work in southwest France, it is necessary to build up and refine a regional chronological In considering the research history of such a complex and framework with which interassemblage comparisons are increas- controversial term, it is difficult to draw an appropriate con- ingly made possible (Jaubert 2011, 2014). However, in this con- clusion that adequately takes into account the different opin- text, it is important to include assemblages that are “out of the ions. First and foremost, the aim of this article is to show the ordinary” in the considerations. On the one hand, we think of complicated and intricate ways of researching the concept of decontextualized assemblages, which can be added to models by Micoquian. It was demonstrated that a shift in the meaning of new patterns of observation; on the other hand, we think of the term was made several times (see Fig. 18). This concerned technologically unusual assemblages, which, for the time being, its position within the chronology, its spatial extent, and the cannot quite be integrated into the already existing picture. decisive assemblage components. The shift in meaning is as- The essential definitions of generic units are derived from sociated with different levels of reflexivity or the question of the consideration of the lithic assemblage component; therefore, which methodological apparatus should be used to analyze the it is important to include other disciplines in the reflections. The underlying lithic artifacts. approach of Delagnes and Rendu (2011), for example, com- The shifts in meaning are therefore closely related to the bines the data on lithic production systems and fauna and was change in the way lithic assemblages are analyzed. In the early thus able to show correlations that could previously only be phase, the index fossil (in this case the Micoquian biface) was conjectured, such as the differences in subsistence strategies the point of reference for the assignment to a generic unit. The between Laminar/Levallois systems, Discoidal-Denticulate, typological considerations since the 1950s took into account a MTA, and Quina reduction systems. Due to the enormous amount of data to be processed, these large-scale reflections larger number of pieces, pushing the biface somewhat into the Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 33 of 39 38 have only been possible since a short time, but they open up References numerous possibilities for us to combine the partial results of Adam KD (1969) Zur Großgliederung der Altsteinzeit Europas. Paleolithic disciplines in order to look at the finds anew and, if Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde aus dem Staatlichen Museum necessary, make changes in the generic units. From our lithic für Naturkunde in Stuttgart 207:1–16 point of view, however, it is not only necessary to merge the Andree J (1930) Über die deutschen Benennungen eiszeitlicher data, but also to intensively reflect on the lithic reduction sys- Kulturstufen. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 6:8–11 Andree J (1939) Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland und seine tems already recognized and their variations in order to use Kulturen. Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart them as a lithic basis for regional and supraregional compari- Baales M (2013) Das Eiszeitalter – Klima, Geologie und Umwelt. In: sons. Sometimes, it turns out that the intensive technological Baales M, Pollmann H-O, Stapel B (eds) Westfalen in der Alt- und examination can uncover further, previously unknown reduc- Mittelsteinzeit. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Münster, pp tion systems (e.g., Boëda 1991b, 2013; Bourguignon 1996; 21–35 Bailloud G, Daniel M, Daniel R, Sacchi C (1973) Les gisements Çep 2014; Delagnes 1993, 2000; Frick and Herkert 2014; préhistoriques du bois de Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). II. Luttropp and Bosinski 1971;Slimak 2004), which can be in- Gisement I, atelier de taille campignien. GalliaPrHist 16:105–129. corporated into the corpus as a basis for further considerations https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.1973.1439 and comparisons. Based on these reflections, we come to the Balout L (1967) Terminologie préhistorique et Quaternaire. Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Quaternaire 4:103–111. conclusion that the previous terms that were used as names for https://doi.org/10.3406/quate.1967.1053 generic units can only be seen as umbrella terms or coarse units Bárta J (1990) Mittelpaläolithische Funde im Gebiet der Slowakei. until the underlying assemblages are sufficiently understood to Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 31:122–134 map settlement, movement, and subsistence patterns. Basse de Ménorval E (1966) Ancienne circonscription de Paris. GalliaPrHist 9:437–446 Baudet J-L (1970) Contributions à l’Étude du Paléolithique ancien Acknowledgments This contribution arose from our desire to understand d’Europe septentrionale. In: Gripp K, Schütrumpf R, when the term Micoquian was used, how it was used, and for what purpose. Schwabedissen H (eds) Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. Teil 1 If there are inconsistencies, they are due to me not accurately understanding Archäologische Beiträge. Festschrift Alfred Rust. Fundamenta - certain facts. I would like to dedicate this contribution to Hansjürgen Müller- Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol A2. Böhlau, Köln, pp 34–51 Beck, who encouraged me to reflect intensively on Paleolithic phenomena. My thanks go to Dominique Rose for her excellent linguistic review of the Baudouin M (1913) Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen de la Vendée. manuscript and the discussions with many colleagues, greatly enriching the Chelléen, Acheuléen et Moustérien. In: Baudouin M (ed) Huitième content. I would also like to thank the reviewers and editors of the journal who Congrès préhistorique de France. Session d’Angoulême 1912. ensured that the manuscript was transformed into an article worth publishing. Congrès préhistorique de France, Paris, pp 1–76 The web page for downloading the map layers with sea levels (see Fig. 2, 8, 14), Bayer J (1920) Das Alter von La Micoque. PZ 11–12:204–208 which was used in GoogleEarth as base map (www.temporalmapping.org) can Bégouën H (1915a) Hauser et la Science Allmande. L’Anthropologie 26: no longer be accessed (last access in 2016). The cladogrammes also represent 293 my interpretation of the respective facts and are not to be seen as absolute Bégouën H (1915b) Suite de l’affaire Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:480– chronological fixations. Benet-Tygel S (1944) The Paleolithic period in Poland. Am Anthropol 46:292–316. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.3.02a00020 Funding information Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Birkner F (1918a) Die Kultur von La Micoque. WPZ 5:1–13 German Research Foundation) (grant number DFG FR 4015/1-1). Birkner F (1918b) Hauser Micoquien. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 49:7–12 Compliance with ethical standards Blanchard J (1948) La préhistoire en France. La Terre et la vie 1948:67– Research does not involve human participants and/or animals. Blanchard J (1963) Bifaces Micoquiens (La Micoque et Bellême). BSPF 60:48–56. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1963.3880 Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of Blankenhorn DM (1905) Über die Steinzeit und die Feuersteinartefakte in interest. Syrien-Palästina. ZfE 37:447–471 Blaser F, Chaussé C (2016) Saint-Illiers-la-Ville and the Micoquian of Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Weichselian sequences of the Paris Basin. Quat Int 411:163–178. Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.035 tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Boecking H (1971) Paläolithische Quarzitfundstellen im Trier- you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- Luxemburger Land. Quartär 22:125–141. https://doi.org/10.7485/ vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were QU22_08 made. The images or other third party material in this article are included Boëda É (1991a) Approche de la variabilité des systèmes de production in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a lithique des industries du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen: credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's chronique d’une variabilité attendue. Techn Cult:37–79 Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by Boëda É (1991b) La conception trifaciale d’un nouveau mode de taille statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain paléolithique. In: Bonifay E, Vandermeersch B (eds) Les premiers permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this européens. Actes du Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes. licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 38 Page 34 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Commission de Pré-et Protohistoire, vol 114. Comité des Travaux und Gegenwart Quart Sci J 14:124–140. https://doi.org/10.3285/ Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, pp 251–263 eg.14.1.14 Boëda É (2013) Techno-logique & Technologie. Une Paléo-histoire des Bosinski G (1967) Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen objets lithiques tranchants. Préhistoire au Présent. Institut Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta - Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol Universitaire de France. Université Paris Ouest Naterre La A4. Böhlau, Köln Défence. @https://rcheo-editions.com,Paris Bosinski G (1969) Eine Variante der Micoque-Technik am Fundplatz Boëda É, Mazière G (1989) Eventail des possibilités d’existence de cer- Buhlen, Kreis Waldeck. Jahresschrift mitteldeutscher tains faciès du Paléolithique ancien et moyen dans le Pays d’Othe Vorgeschichte 53:59–74 (Aube). In: Boucher A (ed) Pré et protohistoire de l’Aube: exposi- Bosinski G (1970) Bemerkungen zu der Grabung D. Peyronys in La tion présentée au Musée de Nogent-sur-Seine juin - octobre 1989. Micoque. In: Gripp K, Schütrumpf R, Schwabedissen H (eds) Édition du Association Régionale pour la Protection et l’Etude du Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. Teil 1 Archäologische Beiträge. Patrimoine Préhistorique, Vertus, pp 69–73 Festschrift Alfred Rust. Fundamenta - Monographien zur Bohmers A (1944) Die Mauerner Höhlen und ihre Bedeutung für die Urgeschichte, vol A2, 1st. edn. Böhlau, Köln, pp 52–56 Einteilung der Altsteinzeit. In: Jankuhn H (ed) Jahrestagungen. Bosinski G (1981) Découvertes récentes de Paléolithique inférieur et Bericht über die Kieler Tagung 1939. Forschungs- und moyen en Allemagne du nord-ouest. Notae Praehistoricae 1:100– Lehrgemeinschaft “Das Ahnenerbe”. Karl Wachholtz, 102 Neumünster, pp 65–73 Bosinski G (1982) The Transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in north- Bohmers A (1951) Die Höhlen von Mauern. Teil I. Kulturgeschichte der western Germany. In: Ronen A (ed) The Transition from Lower to altsteinzeitlichen Besiedlung. Palaeohistoria 1:3–107 Middle Palaeolithic and the Origins of Modern Man. International Böhner U (2000) Die Schicht E3 der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Funde aus symposium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations in dem Abri I am Schulerloch Späte Micoquien-Inventare und ihre the Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod. University of Haifa 6-14 Stellung zum Moustérien. Doctoral thesis, Friedrich-Alexander- October 1980. British archaeological reports international series Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 165–175 Böhner U (2008) Sesselfelsgrotte IV. Die Schicht E3 der Sesselfelsgrotte Bosinski G (1985) Der Neandertaler und seine Zeit. Kunst und Altertum, und die Funde aus dem Abri I am Schulerloch. Späte Micoquien- vol 118. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. Inventare und ihre Stellung zum Moustérien. Sesselfelsgrotte, vol 4. Bosinski G (2000–2001) El Paleolítico Medio en Europa Central. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart Zephyrus 53:79–142 Bonč-Osmolovskij G (1929) Le Paléolithique de Crimée. Bulletin de la Bosinski G (2008) Urgeschichte am Rhein. Tübinger Monographien zur Commission pour l’étude du Quaternaire 1:27–48 Urgeschichte. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen Bordes FH (1953a) Essai de Classification des industries « moustériennes Bosinski G, Kulick J (1973) Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz Buhlen, ». BSPF 50:457–466. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1953.5156 Kreis Waldeck. Vorbericht über die Grabungen 1966–69. Germania Bordes FH (1953b) Le dernier interglaciaire et la place du Micoquien et 51:1–41 du Tayacien. L’Anthropologie 57:172–177 Bosinski G et al. (1995) Palaeolithic sites in the Rheinland. In: Schirmer Bordes FH (1954) Les limons quaternaires du Basin de la Seine. W (ed) Quaternary field trips in Central Europe, vol 2. Verlag Dr. Stratigraphie et archéologie paléolithique. Mémoire des archives Friedrich Pfeil, München, pp 831–999 de l’Institut de Paléontologie, vol 26. Masson, Paris Boule M (1915a) M. Hauser et Les Eyzies. L’Anthropologie 26:176–182 Bordes FH (1961a) Mousterian Cultures in France: Artifacts from recent Boule M (1915b) Une Marque de Sympathie pour Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:295 excavation dispel some popular misconceptions about Neanderthal man. Science 134:803–810. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134. Boule M (1916a) Hauser, docteur de la « Kultur ». L’Anthropologie 27: 3482.803 497–498 Bordes FH (1961b) Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Boule M (1916b) Hauser, ex-membre du T.C.F. L’Anthropologie 27:497 Publications de l’Institut de préhistoire de l’Université de Boule M (1916c) Nouvelles d’Allemagne et d’Hauser. L’Anthropologie Bordeaux., vol 1. Delmas, Bordeaux 27:303–304 Bordes FH (1966) Acheulean cultures in southwest France. In: Sen D, Bourguignon L (1992) Analyse du processus opératoire des coups de Gosh AK (eds) Studies in prehistory. Robert Bruce Foote memorial tranchet latéraux dans l'industrie moustérienne de l'abri du Musée volume. K. L. Mokhopadhyay, Calcutta, pp 49–57 (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne). Paléo 4:69–89. https://doi.org/ Bordes FH (1968) Le Paléolithique dans le monde. Collection l’Univers 10.3406/pal.1992.1195 des connaissances. Éditions Hachette, Paris Bourguignon L (1996) La Conception de Débitage Quina. Quaternaria Bordes FH (1971) Observations sur l’Acheuléen des grottes en Nova 6:149–166 Dordogne. Munibe 23:5–23 Brenet M, Folgado M (2003) Le débitage discoïde du gisement des Forets Bordes FH (1977) Time and space limits of the Mousterian. In: Wright R à Saint-Martin-de-Gurçon (Dordogne). In: Peresani M (ed) Discoid (ed) Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complex- lithic technology: advances and implications, British archaeological ity, Prehistory and material culture series, vol 12. Humanities Press, reports international series, vol 1120. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp New Jersey, pp 37–39 153–178 Bordes FH (1981) Vingt—cinq ans après: le complexe moustérien Breuil H (1926) Palaeolithic industries from the beginning of the Rissian revisité. BSPF 78:77–87. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1981.5336 to the beginning of the Wurmian glaciation. Man 26:176–179. Bordes FH (1984) Leçons sur le Paléolithique. Le Paléolithique en https://doi.org/10.2307/2787959 Europe vol 2. Cahiers du Quaternaire, vol 7. Éditions du CNRS, Breuil H (1930) Premières impressions de voyage sur la préhistoire Sud- Paris Africaine. L’Anthropologie 40:209–223 Bordes FH, Bourgon M (1951) Le complexe Moustérien: moustériens, Breuil H (1932a) Le Paléolithique ancien en Europe Occidentale et sa levalloisien et tayacien. L’Anthropologie 55:1–23 Chronologie. BSPF 29:570–578. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1932. Bordes FH, Müller-Beck H (1956) Zur Chronologie der Lößsedimente in Nordfrankreich und Süddeutschland. Germania 34:199–208. https:// Breuil H (1932b) Les industries à éclat du Paléolithique ancien: I. Le doi.org/10.11588/ger.1956.43812 Clactonien. Préhistoire 1:125–190 Bosinski G (1963) Eine mittelpaläolithische Formengruppe und das Breuil H (1938) The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Nature 141:304–306. Problem ihrer geochronologischen Einordnung. E&G Eiszeitalter https://doi.org/10.1038/141304a0 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 35 of 39 38 Brézillon MN (1971) La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée: Chauvet G, Rivière E (1896) La Micoque. Rev Sci 33:284–285 matériaux pour un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue Chauvet G, Rivière E (1898) Station quaternaire de La Micoque française. Gallia Préhistoire Supplément, vol 4. Éditions du (Dordogne). In: Masson G, Masson C (eds) Compte Rendu de la CNRS, Paris 26e Session, Saint-Étienne 1897, vol 2. Association Française pour Burdo RPC (1951) L’état présent des fouilles à la grotte moustérienne de l’Avancement des Sciences, Saint-Germain, pp 697–708 la Cotte de Saint-Brelade à Jersey. BSPF 48:322–324. https://doi. Chmielewski W (1969) Ensembles micoquo-prondnikiens en Europe org/10.3406/bspf.1951.2902 centrale. Geogr Pol 17:371–386 Burdo RPC (1956) Résultats des fouilles récentes (1951–1956) à la grotte Chmielewski W (1970) The Micoquian-Proudnik group of assemblages de la Cotte de Saint-Brelade à Jersey. BSPF 53:374–380. https://doi. in Central Europe. In: Filip J (ed) Actes du VIIe Congrès org/10.3406/bspf.1956.3352 International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Burdo RPC (1960) La Cotte-de-Saint-Brelade, Jersey, British Channel Prague, 21–27 Août 1966, vol 1. Institut d’Archéologie de Islands: excavation of a pre-Mousterian horizon, 1950–1958. l’Académie Tchécoslovaque des Science à Prague, Prague, pp Société Jersiaise, Jersey 311–312 Burdukiewicz JM (2000) The backed biface assemblages of East Central Chmielewski W (1972) The continuity and discontinuity of the evolution Europe. In: Ronen A, Weinstein-Euron M (eds) Toward modern of archaeological cultures in central and eastern Europe between the humans: the Yabrudian and the Micoquian 400–50 k-years ago. 55th and 25th millenaries B.C. In: Bordes F (ed) The origin of Homo Proceedings of a Congress held at the University of Haïfa sapiens, Proceedings of the Paris symposium, 2–5 September, vol November 3–9, 1996. British archaeological reports international 1969. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural series 850. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 155–165 Organization, Paris, pp 173–179 Cahen D, Haesaerts P (1984) Peuples Chasseurs de la Belgique Chmielewski W (1975) The Upper Pleistocene archeological site préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel. Institut Royal des Sciences Zwierzyniec I in Cracow. Swiatowit 34:7–59 Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles Clark JD (1966) Acheulian occupation sites in the Middle East and Cahen D, Michel J (1986) Le site paléolithique moyen ancien de Mesvin Africa: a study in cultural variability. Am Anthropol 68:202–229. IV (Hainaut Belgique). In: Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a001010 Chronostratigraphie et faciès culturels du paléolithique inférieur et Clark JD, Cole GH, Isaac GL, Kleindienst MR (1966) Precision and moyen dans l’Europe du nord-ouest: actes du Colloque international definition in African archaeology. S Afr Archaeol Bull 21:114– organisé à l’Université des sciences et techniques de Lille dans le 121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3888427 cadre du 22e Congrès préhistorique de France (Lille-Mons, 2–7 Clarke DL (1968) Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London septembre 1984). Supplément au Bulletin de l’Association Cliquet D, Monnier JL (1993) Signification et évolution du Paléolithique française pour l’étude du quaternaire, vol 26. Association française moyen récent armoricain. BSPF 90:275–282. https://doi.org/10. pour l’étude du quaternaire, Paris, pp. 89–102 3406/bspf.1993.9594 Cahen D, Haesaerts P, Szabo BJ, Van Neer W, Wanet P (1984) An Early Collins D (1969) Culture traditions and environment of early man. Middle Palaeolithic site at Mesvin IV (Mons, Belgium). Its signifi- Pleistocene cultural evolution with special reference to the stone cance for stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bull Inst R Sci Nat Belg 55: technology of northwestern Europe before the Last Glaciation. 1–20 Curr Anthropol 10:267–316 Callow P, Cornford JM (1986) La Cotte de St. Brelade, 1961–1978: Combier J (1965) Circumscription de Lyon. GalliaPrHist:103–127 excavations by C.B.M. McBurney. Geo Books, Norwich Combier J, Thévenot J-P (1976) Livret-Guide de l’Éxcursion A8. Bassin Campy M, Chaline J, Vuillemey M (1989) La Baume de Gigny (Jura). du Rhône. Paléolithique et Néolithique. IXe Congrès de Union in- Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire vol 27. Éditions du CNRS, Paris ternational des Sciences Préhistorique et Protohistoriques. Union Capitan L (1896a) La station acheuléenne de La Micoque (Dordogne). international des Sciences Préhistorique et Protohistoriques, Nice Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 7:529–532. https:// Conard NJ (2011) The demise of the Neanderthal cultural niche and the doi.org/10.3406/bmsap.1896.5664 beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in southwestern Germany. In: Capitan L (1896b) La station acheuléenne de la Micoque (Dordogne). Conard NJ, Richter J (eds) Neanderthal lifeways, subsistence and Revue mensuelle de l’École d’Anthropologie de Paris 16:406–416 technology: one hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study. Çep B (2014) Das mittelpaläolithische Silexinventar des Bocksteins im Proceedings of the international congress to commemorate “150 Lonetal (Schwäbische Alb). Vielfalt der Formen oder Fortbestand years of Neanderthal discoveries, 1856–2006”,organized by einer technologischen Idee? In: Beier H-J, Einicke R, Biermann E Silvana Condemi, Wighart von Koenigswald, Thomas Litt and (eds) "Material-Werkzeug: Werkzeug-Material" & "Klinge, Messer, Friedemann Schrenk, held at Bonn, 2006, Volume II. Vertebrate Schwert & Co - Neues aus der Schneidenwelt" Aktuelles aus der Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series. Springer, Dortrecht, Neolithforschung. Beiträge der Tagungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft pp. 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0415-2_19 Werkzeuge und Waffen Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz) 2011 & Conard NJ, Fischer B (2000) Are there recognizable cultural entities in Herxheim bei Landau in der Pfalz 2012 sowie Aktuelles. Beiträge zu the German Middle Palaeolithic? In: Ronen A, Weinstein-Evron M Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, vol 75. Beier & Beran, (eds) Toward modern humans: The Yabrudian and the Micoquian Langenweissbach, pp 79–92 400–50 k-years ago. Proceedings of a Congress held at the Çep B (2019) Das Mittelpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb. In: University of Haïfa November 3–9, 1996, British archaeological Baales M, Pasda C (eds) „All der holden Hügel ist keiner mir fremd reports international series, vol 850. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 7–21 ...“ Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Claus-Joachim Kind. Cro-Magnon H (1915) La guerre et M Hauser. L’Anthropologie 26:169– Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 327. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 99–107 Daniel R (1965) Les stations moustériennes des environs de Saint-Julien- Çep B, Krönneck P (2015) Landscape and cave use in the Middle de-la-Liègue (Eure). BSPF 61:22–30. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf. Paleolithic of Bockstein: new results from the lithic and fauna anal- ysis. In: Conard NJ, Delagnes A (eds) Settlement dynamics of the 1965.4009 Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Tübingen publications in Daniel M, Daniel R, Degros J, Vinot A (1973) Les gisements prehistory, vol IV. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp 227–251 préhistoriques du Bois de Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). I Le site Chauvet G (1896) Station quaternaire de La Micoque. Bulletin de la paléolithique du Terrier. GalliaPrHist 16:63–103. https://doi.org/10. Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente 16:92–98 3406/galip.1973.1438 38 Page 36 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Delagnes A (1993) Un mode de production inédit au Paléolithique moyen Verpillière I (Saône-et-Loire, France). PLoS ONE 12:1–44. https:// dans l’industrie du niveau 6e du Pucheuil (Seine-Maritime). Paléo 5: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188990 111–120 Gábori M (1976) Les civilisations du Paleolithique moyen entre les Alpes Delagnes A (2000) Blade production during the Middle Paleolithic in et l’Oural. Esquisse historique. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest northwestern Europe. In: Dong W (ed) Proceedings of the 1999 Garrod DAE (1962) The Middle Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Beijing International Symposium on Paleoanthropology. In problem of Mount Carmel man. J R Anthropol Inst G B Irel 92:232– Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the discovery of the first skull-cap of the Peking Man. Supplement to Acra Anthropologica Garrod DAE, Bate DMA, McCown TD, Keith A (1937) The Stone Age Sinica 19. Institute of Vertebrate Paleonology and of Mount Carmel. Joint expedition of the British School of Paleoanthropology, Beijing, pp 181–188 Archaeology in Jerusalem and the American School of Prehistoric Delagnes A, Rendu W (2011) Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology Research (1929–1934) vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford and subsistence strategies in western France. JAS 38:1771–1783. Giot PR (1962–1963) Problemes de Geologie Quaternaire en Bretagne. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.04.007 Quartär 14:1–14 Delagnes A, Jaubert J, Meignen L (2007) Les technocomplexes du Golomshtok EA (1938) The Old Stone Age in European Russia. TAPS Paléolithique moyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre 29:190–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/1005529 diachronique et géographique. In: Vandermeersch B, Maureille B Gouedo JM (1988) Etude préliminaire de la technologie de l’industrie de (eds) Les néandertaliens: biologie et cultures, Documents Champlost: exemples de la chaîne opératoire Levallois et des préhistoriques vol, vol 23. Comité des Travaux Historiques et racloirs à retouche biface. Revue archéologique de Picardie 1:149– Scientifiques, Paris, pp 213–229 Deloze V, Depaepe P, Gouédo J-M, Krier V, Locht J-L (1994) Le Gouédo J-M (1999) Le technocomplexe micoquien en Europe de l’ouest Paleolithique dans le Nord du Senonais (Yonne): Contexte et centrale: exemples de trois gisements du sud-est du basin parisien, Geomorphologique, Industries Lithiques et Chronostratigraphie. Vinneuf et Champlost (Yonne), Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne). Documents d’archeologie Française, vol 47. Maison des Sciences Doctoral thesis, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille 1 de l’Homme, Paris Gouédo J-M, Alix P, Beaune SAd, Krier V, Locht J-L (1994) Études Depaepe P (2002) Le Paléolithique moyen de la vallée de la Vanne archéologiques: Vinneuf/Les Hauts Massous (plateau du (Yonne). Matières premières, indistries lithiques et occupations Sénonais). In: Deloze V, Depaepe P, Gouédo J-M, Krier V, Locht humanines. Doctoral thesis, Université des Science et J-L (eds) Le Paléolithique moyen dans le nord du Sénonais (Yonne). Technologies de Lille, Université de Lille I Maison des sciences de l’Homme, Paris, pp. 83–118. Depaepe P (2014) European Middle Paleolithic: geography and culture. Grahmann R (1940) Andree, Julius. Der eiszeitliche Mensch in In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer, New Deutschland und seine Kulturen. Geogr Z 46:188–189 York, pp 2645–2670 Grahmann R (1952) Urgeschichte der Menschheit. Einführung in die Desbrosse R, Tavoso A (1970) Un gisement moustérien à Blanzy (Saône Abstammungs- und Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit, 1st edn. W. et Loire). Quartär 21:21–45. https://doi.org/10.7485/QU21_02 Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart Desbrosse R, Texier P-J (1973a) La station moustérienne de Bissy-sur- Grahmann R, Müller-Beck H (1967) Urgeschichte der Menschheit, 3rd Fley (S.-&-L.). La Physiophile 79:8–31 edn. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart Desbrosse R, Texier P-J (1973b) Les silex de Germolles dans la collection Grenier A (1945) Compte rendu d’une note de l’abbé Breuil sur ses Jeannin. La Physiophile 79:64–69 recherches sur le paléolithique sud-africain. Comptes rendus des Desbrosse R, Kozłowski JK, Zuate y Zuber J (1976) Prondniks de la séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 89:51–55. France et d‘Europe centrale. L’Anthropologie 80:431–488 https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1945.77821 Despriée J, Lorain J (1982) Les industries du Paléolithique inférieur et Gross H (1962–1963) Der gegenwärtige Stand der Geochronologie des moyen de la vallée du Loir Vendômois dans leur contexte Spätpleistozäns in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Quartär 14:49–68 géologique. Quaternaire 19:113–122. https://doi.org/10.3406/ Guillaume C (1982) Les gisements du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen de quate.1982.1427 Lorraine. Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’Étude du Esin U, Benedict P (1963) Recent developments in the prehistory of Quaternaire 19:135–146. https://doi.org/10.3406/quate.1982.1431 Anatolia. Curr Anthropol 4:339–346 Günther G (1962) Neue Ausgrabungen in der Balver Höhle. PZ 40:271– Farizy C (1995) Industries Charentiennes à Influences Micoquiennes, 272. https://doi.org/10.1515/prhz.1962.40.1-2.269 l’Exemple de l’Est de la France. Paléo Supplément:173–178. Günther K (1964) Die alsteinzeitlichen Funde der Balver Höhle. Mit https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1995.1393 Beiträgen von Bernhard Bahnschulte und Florian Heller. Feustel R (1983) Die früheste Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte. Alt- Bodenaltertümer Westfalens, vol 8. Aschendorffsche Thüringen 19:7–15 Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münster Fiedler L (1977) Altsteinzeitliche Fundplätze in Hessen. Führer zur Hauser O (1915) Letter of Otto Hauser to Berliner Gesellschaft für hessischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vol 2. Landesamt für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. ZfE 47:443–444 Denkmalpflege Hessen, Wiesbaden Hauser O (1916) Über eine neue Chronologie des mittleren Freericks M (1995) Transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique Paläolithikums im Vézèretal: Speziell mit bezug auf meine supérieur en Allemagne: quelques exemples. Paléo Supplément: Ausgrabungen auf la Micoque. Doctoral thesis, Friedrich- 117–122. https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1995.1388 Alexanders-Universität zu Erlangen Freund G (1963) Die ältere und mittlere Steinzeit in Bayern. Jahresbericht Hauser O (1928) Die große zentraleuropäische Urrasse: La Micoque - der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 4:9–166 Ehringsdorf - Byci skála - Predmost - Kisla Nedzimova. Ein Frick JA (2016) On technological and spatial patterns of lithic objects. Beitrag zur Entstehung der Weißen Rasse. Verlag für Urgeschichte Evidence from the Middle Paleolithic at Grotte de la Verpillière II, und Menschforschung, Weimar Germolles, France. Doctoral thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-14816 Hérisson D et al (2016) The emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic in north-western Europe and its southern fringes. Quat Int 411:233– Frick JA, Herkert K (2014) Lithic technology and logic of technicity. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 23:129–172 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.049 Frick JA, Herkert K, Hoyer CT, Floss H (2017) The performance of Hörmann K (1916) Sitzung der Anthropologischen Sektion der tranchet blows at the Late Middle Paleolithic site of Grotte de la Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 37 of 39 38 Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Kozłowski JK, Kozłowski SK (1977) Epoka kamienia na ziemiach Urgeschichte 47:30–31 Polskich. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa Janot A (1981) Essai de chronologie des industries paléolithiques à Krönneck P (2012) Die pleistozäne Makrofauna des Bocksteins (Lonetal quartzites de la région sud de Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle). BSPF – Schwäbische Alb). Ein neuer Ansatz zur Rekonstruktion der 78:306–316. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1981.5284 Paläoumwelt. Doctoral thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Jaubert J (2011) Les archéo-séquences du Paléolithique moyen du Sud- Krüger H (1964–1965) Zwei Blattspitzen unterschiedlicher Morphologie Ouest de la France: Quel bilan un quart de siècle après François aus dem Paläolithikum Oberhessens. Quartär 15–16:155–166 Bordes? In: Delpech F, Jaubert J (eds) François Bordes et la Krukowski S (1939–1948) Paleolit. In: Krukowski S, Kostrezewski RJ Préhistoire Colloque International François Bordes, Bordeaux, 22– (eds) Prehistoria ziem polskich. Encyklopedia Polska, vol 4. 24 Avril 2009. Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, Kracow, pp 1–117 scientifiques, Bordeaux, pp 235–253 Laville H (1982) On the transition from “Lower” to “Middle” Palaeolithic Jaubert J (2014) Middle Palaeolithic archeo-sequences from southwestern in south-west France. In: Ronen A (ed) The transition from Lower to France: where do we stand a quarter century after François Bordes? Middle Palaeolithic and the origins of modern man. International In: Derevianko AP, Drozdov NI (eds) Topical issues of the Asian symposium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations Paleolithic. Proceedings of the international symposium in in the Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod. University of Haifa Krasnoyarsk, July 6–12, 2012. Institute of Archaeology and 6-14 October 1980. British archaeological reports international se- Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, pp 44–62 ries 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 131–135 Jöris O (1992) Pradniktechnik im Micoquien der Balver Höhle. Leclercq X, Briois F (1982) Une station du Paléolithique inférieur près de Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22:1–12 Pamiers, à Fontvives (Ariège). BSPF 79:305–318. https://doi.org/ Jöris O (1993) Die Pradniktechnik in Buhlen (Oberer Fundplatz). Eine 10.3406/bspf.1982.5339 technologische Studie anhand ausgewählter Beispiele. Magister’s Locht J-L et al (2016) Timescales, space and culture during the Middle thesis, University of Köln Palaeolithic in northwestern France. Quat Int 411:129–148. https:// Jöris O (2003) Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.053 spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen: Der Versuch einer Lumley H (1960) Clactonien et Tayacien dans la région méditerranéenne kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen française. C R Seances Acad Sci 250:1887–1888 Formengruppe in ihrem europäischen Kontext. BerRGK 84:49–153 Lumley H (ed) (1976) Le Civilisations Paléolithiques et Mésolithiques de Joullié H (1963) Bifaces micoquiens et lancéolés de la vallée de l’Aisne la France. La Préhistoire Française, vol 1, 1st. edn. Éditions du aux environs de Vailly-sur-Aisne. Bulletin de la Société CNRS, Paris Archéologique Champenoise 56:10–17 Luttropp A, Bosinski G (1971) Der Altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Kind C-J (1992) Bemerkungen zur Differenzierung des süddeutschen Reutersruh bei Ziegenhain in Hessen. Fundamenta - Mittelpaläolithikums. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22: Monographien zur Urgeschichte, vol A6. Böhlau-Verlag, Köln 151–159 Mania D (1990) Auf den Spuren des Urmenschen: Die Funde aus der Koehler H (2009) Comportements et identité techniques au Paléolithique Steinrinne von Bilzingsleben. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, moyen (Weichsélien ancien) dans le Bassin parisien: une question Berlin d'échelle d'analyse? Doctoral thesis, Université Paris X-Nanterre la Mania D, Toepfer V (1973) Königsaue: Gliederung, Ökologie und Défense mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit. Veröffentlichungen Koenigswald WV, Müller-Beck H (1975) Das Pleistozän der des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle, vol 26. Deutscher Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern). Quartär 26:107–118. Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin https://doi.org/10.7485/QU26_06 McBurney CMB (1950) The geographical study of the Older Palaeolithic Koenigswald Wv, Müller-Beck H, Pressmar E (1974) Die Archäologie stages in Europe. PPS 16:163–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/ und Paläontologie in den Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (Bayern): S0079497X00019009 Grabungen 1937–1967 vol 3. Institut für Urgeschichte McCarthy I (1995) Manufacturing classification: lessons from organiza- Kolosov YG (1986) Akkajskaya Musterskaya Kultura. Naukova Dumka, tional systematics and biological taxonomy. Integr Manuf Syst 6: Kiew 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576069510099365 Kowalski S (1967) Ciekwsze zabytki paleolityczne z najnowszych Mellars PA (1996) The Neanderthal legacy. An archaeological perspec- badan’ archeologicznych (1963–1965) w Jaskini Ciemnej w tive of western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton Ojcowie, pow. Olkusz. Mater Archeol 8:39–44 Menghin O (1926) Zur Terminologie des Paläolithikums. WPZ 13:1–13 Kozłowski L (1924) Die ältere Steinzeit in Polen. Die Eiszeit Zeitschrift Menghin O (1931) Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit. Anton Scholl & Co., für allgemeine Eiszeitforschung 1:112–163 Wien Kozłowski JK (1961) Bemerkungen über den Stand der Molines N, Hinguant S, Monnier J-L (2001) Le Paléolithique moyen à Paläolithforschung in Polen. ArchAustr 30:118–143 outils bifaciaux dans l’Ouest de la France: synthèse des données Kozłowski JK (1972) Comment on Bosinki (1972) Late Middle anciennes et récentes. In: Cliquet D (ed) Les Industries à Outils Palaeolithic groups in north-western Germany and their relations Bifaciaux du Paléolithique Moyen d’Europe Occidentale. Actes de to early Upper Palaeolithic industries. In: Bordes F (ed) The origin la table ronde organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie - France). 14 et of Homo sapiens. Proceedings of the Paris symposium, 2–5 15 octobre 1999. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de September 1969, organized by UNESCO in co-operation with the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA). Unesco, l’Université de Liège, vol 98. Université de Liège, Liège, pp 109– Paris, pp 160–160 Kozłowski JK (1989) La fin du paléolithique moyen en Pologne. Monnier JL (1986) Chronostratigraphie et faciès cultureles du Anthropologie (Brno) 27:133–142 Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Bretagne. Comparaison avec Kozłowski JK (2014) Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: les régions loessiques. In: Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) Mousterian vs Micoquian. Quat Int 326–327:344–363. https://doi. Chronostratigraphie et faciès culturels du paléolithique inférieur et org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.020 moyen dans l’Europe du nord-ouest: actes du Colloque international Kozłowski JK (2016) Taxonomy of the Early Middle Palaeolithic in organisé à l’Université des sciences et techniques de Lille dans le Central Europe. Litikum 4:19–27. https://doi.org/10.23898/ cadre du 22e Congrès préhistorique de France (Lille-Mons, 2–7 litikuma0016 septembre 1984). Supplément au Bulletin de Association française 38 Page 38 of 39 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 pour l’étude du quaternaire, vol 26. Association française pour Pittioni R (1939) Andree Julius. Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland l’étude du quaternaire, Paris, pp 113–127 und seine Kulturen. Anthropos Stud Anthropol Palaeoethnol Monnier J-L (1988) Chronostratigraphie et écologie des industries Palaeontol Quat Geol 34:451–452 paléolithiques de la Bretagne. Revue archéologique de Picardie 1– Prausnitz MW (1969) The sequence of Early to Middle Paleolithic flint 2:75–80. https://doi.org/10.3406/pica.1988.1578 industries along the Galilean littoral. IEJ 19:129–136 Mortillet Gd (1869) Essai d’une classification des cavernes et des stations Richter J (1997) Sesselfelsgrotte III. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der sous abri fondée sur les produits de l’industrie humaine. In: Mortillet Sesselfelsgrotte. Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. Quartär- GD (ed) Matériaux pour L’histoire primitive et naturelle de Bibliothek, vol 7. Saarbrückener Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbrücken L’Homme et l’étude du sol, de la faune et de la flore qui s’y Richter J (2002) Die C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die rattachent, vol 5. Reinwald, Paris, pp. 172–179. Zeitstellung des Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania 80:1–22 Mortillet Gd (1873) Classification des diverses périodes de l’âge de la Richter J (2006) Neanderthals in their landscape. In: Demarsin B, Otte M pierre. In: Mortillet GD (ed) Compte Rendu du Congrès (eds) Neanderthals in Europe. Actes de la conférence internationale, International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique. au Musée gallo-romain de Tongres, 17–19 septembre 2004. Études 6ième Session, Bruxelles, 1872. Weissenbruch, Paris, pp 432–444 et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, vol 117. Mortillet G (1883) Le préhistorique. Antiquité de l’homme vol 8. Université de Liège, Liège, pp 51–66 Bibliothèque des Sciences Contemporaines. Ch. Ferdinand Richter J (2014) L’impact environnemental sur la formation des assem- Reinwald, Paris blages lithiques unifaciaux et bifaciaux « micoquiens » ou « MMO » Mortillet A (1907) Présentation d’une carte topographique de Otto d’Europe centrale. In: Jaubert J, Fourment N, Depaepe P (eds) Hauser. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de France 4:500–501. Paléolithique et Mésolithique. Transitions, ruptures et continuité en https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1907.7835 Préhistoire. Transitions, rupture and continuity in prehistory. Müller-Beck H (1956) Das obere Altpaläolithikum in Süddeutschland. XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France. Bordeaux - Les Eyzies, Ein Versuch zur ältesten Geschichte des Menschen, vol 1. 31 mai-5 juin 2010), vol 2. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp Hamburger Buchdruckerei und Verlagsanstalt Auerdruck, Hamburg 195–205 Müller-Beck H (1957) Paläolithische Kulturen und Pleistozäne Richter J (2016) Leave at the height of the party: a critical review of the Middle Paleolithic in Western Central Europe from its beginnings to Stratigraphie in Süddeutschland. E&G Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart Quart Sci J 8:116–140. https://doi.org/10.3285/eg.08.1.07 its rapid decline. Quat Int 411:107–128 Richter J (2018) Altsteinzeit: Der Weg der frühen Menschen von Afrika Müller-Beck H (1958) Zur Bezeichnung paläolithischer Artefakttypen. bis in die Mitte Europas. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Alt-Thüringen 3:140–200 Riek G (1934) Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal: Die Müller-Beck H (1966) Paleohunters in America: origins and diffusion. Kulturen. Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung Franz F. Heine, Science 152:1191–1210. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.152.3726. 1191 Tübingen Rigaud J-P (1986) Circonscription d’Aquitaine. GalliaPrHist 29:233–258 Narr KJ (1953) Zur Frage altpaläolithischer Kulturkreise. Anthropos 48: 773–794 Rigaud J-P (ed) (1988) La Grotte Vaufrey. paléoenvironnement, chronologie, activités humaines. Mémoire de la Sociéte Obermaier H (1908a) Die Steingeräte des französischen Altpaläolithikums: Eine kritische Studie über ihre Stratigraphie Préhistorique Française, vol 19. Société Préhistorique Française, und Evolution. Mittheilungen der Prähistorischen Commission der Châlons-sur-Marne Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol 1–2. A. Hölder, Ringer Á (1983) Bábonyien. Eine mittelpaläolithische Wien Blattwerkzeugindustrie in Nordostungarn. Doctoral thesis, Eötvös Obermaier H (1908b) M. Hauser et la Micoque. RÉA 10:85–88. https:// Loránd University doi.org/10.3406/rea.1908.1532 Ronen A, Weinstein-Evron M (2000) Toward modern humans. The Obermaier H (1912) Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Der Mensch aller Zeiten. Yabrudian and Micoquian. 400–50 k-years ago. Proceedings of a Congress held at the University of Haifa, November 3–9, 1996. Natur und Kultur der Völker der Erde, vol 1. Allgemeine British archaeological reports international series, vol 850. Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin Archaeopress, Oxford Obermaier H (1924) Acheuléen. In: Ebert M (ed) Erster Band. Aal - Rosendahl G (1999) La Micoque und das Micoquien in den Beschneidung, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, vol 1. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, pp 8–10 altsteinzeitlichen Sammlungen des Reiss-Museums Mannheim. Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter Neue Folge 6:315–351 Penck AFK, Brückner E (1909) Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. Tauchnitz, Leipzig Rosendahl G (2004) Die oberen Schichten von La Micoque (Dordogne, Frankreich). Doctoral thesis, Universität zu Köln Peyrony D (1908) A propos des fouilles de La Micoque et des travaux récents parus sur ce gisement. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie de Rosendahl G (2006) Les Couches Supérieures de la Micoque Paris 11:380–382 (Dordogne). Paléo:161–192 Peyrony D (1921) Le Moustérien - Ses faciès. In: Calmétie A (ed) Rosendahl G (2011) Technological analysis of the bifacial tools from La Compte Rendu de la 44ème Session de la Association Française Micoque and its implications. In: Conard NJ, Richter J (eds) Neanderthal lifeways. Subsistence and technology. One hundred pour l’Avancement des Sciences, Strasbourg 1920. Masson, Paris, fifty years of Neanderthal study, Vertebrate paleobiology and paleo- pp 496–497 Peyrony D (1930) Le Gisement préhistorique de la Micoque et ses nou- anthropological series. Springer, New York, pp 133–138 Sacchi C, Chantret F, Klimek É, Vandermeersch B, Vinot A (1978) Les velles industries. In: Perrier G (ed) Compte Rendu de la 53e Session. Accociation Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences. Le Havre Gisements Préhistoriques du Bois de Verrières-Le-Buisson 1929. Accociation Française pour l’avancement des Sciences, Paris, (Essonne). III. Le Site Paléolithique du Terrier. GalliaPrHist 21: 47–89. https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.1978.1583 pp 487–488 Peyrony D (1933) La Micoque et ses diverses industries. In: XVe Congrès Schild R, Wendorf F (1977) The prehistory of Dakhla Oasis and Adjacent Desert. Ossolineum, Wroclaw International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique. Ve session de l’Institut international d’anthropologie: Paris, 20–27 Schmidt RR (1911) Die Grundlagen für die Diliuvialchronologie und septembre 1931. E. Nourry, Paris, pp 1–6 Paläethnologie Westeuropas. ZfE 43:945–974 Peyrony D (1938) La Micoque. Les Fouilles récentes.—Leur significa- Schmidt RR (1912a) Archäologischer Teil. Die Diluvialen Kulturen tion. BSPF 35:257–283. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1938.12316 Deutschlands. In: Schmidt RR (ed) Die diluviale Vorzeit Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:38 Page 39 of 39 38 Deutschlands. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Nägele Valoch K (1968) Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern und Dr. Sproesser, Stuttgart, pp 1–156 Europe. CurrAnthr 9:351–390 Schmidt RR (ed) (1912b) Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands. Valoch K (1988) Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961–1976. Anthropos - Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Nägele und Dr. Studien zur Anthropologie, Paläoethnologie, Paläanthropologie und Sproesser, Stuttgart Quartärgeologie, vol 24. Moravské Muzeum, Brno Schönweiß W (1962–1963) Paläolithische Funde vom Hahnenberg im Veil S et al (1994) Ein mittelpaläolithischer Fundplatz aus der Weichsel- schwäbisch-bayrischen Ries. Quartär 14:95–104 Kaltzeit bei Lichtenberg, Lkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Germania 72:1–66 Schwabedissen H (1973) E. Archaeological research: 1. Palaeolithic and Verneau R (1915) Un mot au sujet des collections Hauser. Mesolithic periods. Eiszeit Gegenw 23–24:340–359. https://doi.org/ L’Anthropologie 26:597–599 10.23689/fidgeo-1565 Vignard E (1945) Levalloisien et Moustérien d’Europe et d’Afrique. Leur Slimak L (2004) Les dernières expressions du Moustérien entre Loire et place dans le quaternaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de Rhône. Doctoral thesis, Université de Provence France 42:155–168. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1945.2007 Sollas WJ (1911) Ancient hunters and their modern representatives, 1st. Weinert H (1939) Andree, Julius: Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland edn. MacMillian and Co., London und seine Kulturen. Zeitschrift fü Morphologie und Anthropologie Soriano S (2000) Outillage bifacial et outillage sur éclat au Paléolithique 38:344–345 ancien et moyen: coexistence et interaction. Doctoral thesis, Paris X Weißmüller W (1995) Sesselfelsgrotte II. Die Silexartefakte der Unteren Nanterre-La Defense Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Soriano S (2001) Statut fonctionnel de l’outillage bifacial dans les indus- Moustérien. Quartär-Bibliothek, vol 6. Saarbrückener Druckerei tries du Paléolithique moyen: Propositions méthodologiques. In: und Verlag, Saarbrücken Cliquet D (ed) Les industries à outils bifaciuaux du Paléolithique Werth E (1916a) Das Micoquien-Hauser in Deutschland. ZfE 48:89–92 moyen d’Europe occidentale. Actes de la table-ronde internationale Werth E (1916b) Hausers Micoquien. Korrespondenz-Blatt der organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie - France) - 14 et 15 octobre Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und 1999. Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Urgeschichte 47:71–72 Liège, vol 98. Liège, pp 77–83 Werth E (1919) Die Kultur von La Micoque. Korrespondenz-Blatt der Street M, Baales M, Jöris O (1999) Beiträge zur Chronologie Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und archäologischer Fundstellen des letzten Glazials im nördlichen Urgeschichte 50:10–12 Rheinland. Terrestrische Quartärgeologie 1999:426–465 Wetzel R (1935) Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal, Markung Tixier J, Inizan M-L, Roche H (1980) Terminologie et Technologie vol 1. Rammingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben Neue Folge 8:16–20 Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, vol 47. Cercle de Recherche et Wetzel R (1944) Die Faustkeilfunde der Grabung Bocksteinschmiede. In: d’Études de Prehistoriques, Valbonne Jankuhn H (ed) Jahrestagungen. Bericht über die Kieler Tagung Tuffreau A (1979) Les débuts du Paléolithique moyen dans la France 1939. Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft „Das Ahnenerbe“. Karl septentrionale. BSPF:140–142. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1979. Wachholtz, Neumünster, pp 81–92 Tuffreau A (1982) The transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic in northern Wetzel R (1954) Quartärforschung im Lonetal. E&G Eiszeitalter und France. In: Ronen A (ed) The transition from Lower to Middle Gegenwart Quart Sci J 4–5:106–141. https://doi.org/10.3285/eg. Palaeolithic and the origins of modern man. International sympo- 04-5.1.10 sium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations in the Wetzel R, Bosinski G (1969) Die Bocksteinschmiede in Lonetal Mount Carmel caves by D.A.E. Garrod: University of Haifa 6–14 (Markung Rammingen, Kreis Ulm) vol Teil II: Tafeln. October 1980. British archaeological reports international series Veröffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege 151. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 137–150 Stuttgart Reihe A Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vol 15, 1st edn. Müller Tuffreau A (1988) Les habitats du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen dans & Graff, Stuttgart le Nord de la France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Somme). Revue Wetzel R, Völzing O, Gieseler W, Keller K (1941) Die Lontalforschung. archéologique de Picardie 1–2:91–104. https://doi.org/10.3406/ Plan und Zwischenbericht. Jahresband der Wissenschaftlichen pica.1988.1580 Akademie Tübingen des NSD-Dozentenbundes 2:79–130 Tuffreau A, Sommé J (eds) (1988) Le Gisement Paléolithique moyen de Wiegers F (1920) Diluvialprähistorie als geologische Wissenschaft. Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Volume I. Stratigraphie, Abbandlungen der Preosischen Geologischen Landesanstalt. Neue Environnement, Études Archéologiques (1ère partie). Mémoire de Folge, vol 84, Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt edn. la Société Préhistorique Française, vol 21, 1st. edn. Éditions du Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, Berlin Éditions du CNRS, Paris Wiegers F (1928) Allgemeine Diluvialprähistorie. Diluviale Ulrix-Closset M (1969–1970) Biface micoquien provenant de la sablière Vorgeschichte des Menschen, vol 1. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stouvenakers à Omal (Province de Liège). Bulletin des Chercheurs Stuttgart de la Wallonie 21:307–311 Wiegers F, Schuchhardt C, Hilzheimer M (1913) Eine Studienreise zu den Ulrix-Closset M (1975) Le Paléolithique moyen dans le Bassin mosan en paläolithischen Fundstellen der Dordogne. ZfE 45:126–160 Belgique. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de Zamiatnin SN (1929) Station Moustérienne Ilskaya province de Kouban l’Université de Liège. Publications exceptionnelles, vol 3. Éditions (Caucase du Nord). Rev Anthropol 7:282–295 Universa, Wetteren Zotz LF (1939) Die Altsteinzeit in Niederschlesien. Verlag Kurt Urbanowski M (2003) Pradnik knives as an element of Micoqian techno- Kabitzsch, Leipzig stylistic specifics. Doctoral thesis, Warswa University Zotz LF (1941) Die Altsteinzeitkunde auf der Jahrestagung 1939 der Uthmeier T (2004) Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern: Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft “Das Ahnenerbe”. Quartär 12: Eine regionale Studie zum Übergang vom Mittel-zum 179–180 Jungpaläolithikum. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag Zotz LF (1951) Altsteinzeitkunde Mitteleuropas. Ferdinand Enke, Valoch K (1955) Beitrag zur Frage der Blattspitzen im Paläolithikum Stuttgart Mährens. Germania 33:10–12. https://doi.org/10.11588/ger.1955. Valoch K (1967) Le Paléolithique moyen en Tchécoslovaquie. Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- L’Anthropologie 71:135–144 tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Archaeological and Anthropological SciencesSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 18, 2020

There are no references for this article.