The Variability of the Keilmesser-Concept: a Case Study from Central Germany

Abstract

The bifacial Keilmesser is the type fossil of the late Middle Paleolithic Keilmessergruppen or Micoquian of central and eastern Europe. The tool is variable in shape but standardized regarding shaping sequences and morphological components. In this study we examine whether these components, a base and back opposite a sharp edge, are related only to bifacial tools or if they form a functional tool concept that was applied as well to simple edge retouched and to unifacially shaped flake tools. This study is based on a dataset of 29 3D-scanned artifacts from central Germany, for which the geographic origin, paleoenvironment, and chronological context are known in order to reduce variability introduced by these factors. With new luminescence dates, we can provide a chronological time frame for the collected and excavated artifacts to between 55 and 40 ka. We analyze variability caused by function, blank type, shaping, intensity of retouch, and typology, using 3D geometric morphometrics, Thickness Mapping, edge angle analysis, and multivariate principal component analysis based on conventional technological attributes and indices. We show that the unifacially shaped scrapers with a Keilmesser-like morphology can be classified as a unifacial variant of the bifacial Keilmesser. We interpret simple scrapers with a Keilmesser-like morphology as a special, simplistic variant of Keilmesser where the blank already fulfills the functional requirements of prehensile and active parts. With some caution related to sample size, an additional sample of Micoquian handaxes appears to be a related, but more symmetric tool concept in our data set.

On Making of Micoquian Bifacial Backed Tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland

“…As an exemplary case study, we compared 19 tools from Pietraszyn 49a to 16 central German bifacial backed knives, dating like Pietraszyn 49a to early MIS 3 (Weiss et al 2018;Wiśniewski et al 2019). The tools come from the assemblages of Pouch/Saxony-Anhalt (3), Goitzsche/Saxony-Anhalt (2), and Löbnitz/Saxony (11).…”

“…The bifacial backed tools from Pietraszyn 49a with no pronounced sharp distal posterior part were excluded from this part of the analysis, as only similar tool morphologies and landmark configurations could be compared. The 2D outlines for the central German bifacial backed knives were extracted from the 3D landmark dataset presented in Weiss et al (2018).…”

“…For landmarking, we used the open-source program ImageJ 1 (Schneider et al 2012) with the PointPicker plugin. According to the 3D analysis of bifacial backed knives presented in Weiss et al (2018), four homologous landmarks were collected: (1) at the tip, at the intersections between (2) the cutting edge and the base, (3) the base and the back, and (4) the back and the distal posterior part (Fig. 4).…”

Back to the Gravettian

“…The 'Keilmesser-concept', observed on bifacial and unifacially shaped tools (Weiss et al, 2018), is the most prominent tool type of the Central European Micoquian (Bosinski, 1968. Furthermore, its presence in late Middle Paleolithic assemblages defi nes the eponymous 'Keilmessergruppen' (Mania, 1990;Veil et al, 1994).…”

“…The position of the Wichmannsdorf flakes between the "Clactonoid" and the "Acheuloid" technocomplexes: measured with the Linear Discriminant Function of the flakes found in Wallendorf and Markkleeberg.They might have originated in the Early Post-Elsterian fl uvial activities in the older stages of the Saalian sensu lato -a glacial cycle which lasted over Central Europe for no less than 300 ka between 440 and 130 ka ago(Lauer & Weiss 2018). From the viewpoint of the indicator erratic counts of the coarse gravel fraction (diameter 20 … 60 mm) leading with the TGZ method to a Theoretisches Geschiebezentrum with coordinates 15.29° W / 58.32° N (comparable to the uppermost Lower Saxonian Drenthe samples), these meltwater sands belong to the "Upper" (Latest?)…”