2020
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-019-00967-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

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. Chronologic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
(84 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A more detailed analysis of the pattern and chronology of negative scars allows us to conclude that the described specimen is a fragment of a modified or repaired tool, whose traces are particularly well visible on the relatively flat, ventral face with the burin-like spin off scar. One of the elongate negatives located parallel to the blade is probably a relic of the earlier phase of shaping the tool -a relic of the "dominant blow" (Jöris 1992;2001;Urbanowski 2003;Migal and Urbanowski 2006;Frick et al 2017;Frick 2020). The pattern of negatives on the more convexly formed, dorsal surface, is far less disturbed by subsequent repairs, which are particularly well detectable in the area of the transverse break of the tool.…”
Section: Inv M458 Excavation Unit M63b Layer Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more detailed analysis of the pattern and chronology of negative scars allows us to conclude that the described specimen is a fragment of a modified or repaired tool, whose traces are particularly well visible on the relatively flat, ventral face with the burin-like spin off scar. One of the elongate negatives located parallel to the blade is probably a relic of the earlier phase of shaping the tool -a relic of the "dominant blow" (Jöris 1992;2001;Urbanowski 2003;Migal and Urbanowski 2006;Frick et al 2017;Frick 2020). The pattern of negatives on the more convexly formed, dorsal surface, is far less disturbed by subsequent repairs, which are particularly well detectable in the area of the transverse break of the tool.…”
Section: Inv M458 Excavation Unit M63b Layer Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysis of KMTB assemblages reveals two extremes of matrix selection: on the one hand, at Abri du Musée (Bourguignon 1992;Frick 2020) and only flint blanks (mostly Levallois blanks) are used and, on the other hand, at sites such as Buhlen (Jöris 2001) and Balve (Jöris 1992) plates of flinty slate (Kieselschiefer) are mainly used as matrices.…”
Section: Equifinality and Permutationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numbers of the individual specimens are provided within the text, the .RData file within the Supplementary Information to recreate the article with rMarkdown, as well as in the S1 Table. I incorporated 35 bifacial Keilmesser and 7 unifacially shaped Keilmesser (Table 1) from the sites Lichtenberg, Pouch, Löbnitz and Goitzsche (Fig 1) in my dataset. The sample size for Pouch (6) and Goitzsche (3) is low, but the focus of the present study lies mainly on the Lichtenberg Keilmesser type and not on a comparison of tools from different sites. In the few cases that I do that the results have to be regarded as tentative.…”
Section: Artifactsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bifacial backed knife, and more specifically the Keilmesser-concept, observed on bifacial and unifacially shaped tools [ 1 ], is the most prominent tool type of the central European Micoquian [ 2 – 6 ]. Furthermore, its presence in late Middle Paleolithic (LMP) assemblages defines the eponymous Keilmessergruppen [ 7 , 8 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%