This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in the
Aurignacian of southwest Germany
Bruce L. Hardy a,*, Michael Bolus b, Nicholas J. Conard b
b
a
Department of Anthropology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, Universität Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070, Tübingen, Germany
Received 23 October 2006; accepted 1 October 2007
Abstract
The early Upper Paleolithic of Europe is associated with the appearance of blade/bladelet technology (e.g., Aurignacian). These industries
include a wider range of formal tool types than seen in the Middle Paleolithic. Greater diversity in tool types is often interpreted as specialized
tools created for specific tasks. This, in turn, is said to reflect dramatic behavioral shifts between Neandertals and modern humans. In order to test
previous interpretations, it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of early Upper Paleolithic stone-tool function. Toward this end, analyses
of microscopic residue and use-wear were undertaken on 109 stone tools from three Aurignacian sites in southwest Germany (Hohle Fels, Geißenklösterle, and Vogelherd). These cave sites evidenced remarkable residue preservation, with approximately 82% of the sample showing some
form of functional evidence. Residues observed included hair, feathers, bone/antler, wood, plant tissue, phytoliths, starch grains, and resin. The
results suggest that tool typology is not strongly linked to the processing of specific materials. For example, endscrapers from the sample show
evidence of processing wood, charred wood, plants, starchy plants, birds, bone/antler, and animals (hair). Hairs are found on tools typologically
classified as blades, flakes, borers, pointed blades, and combination tools (nosed endscraper-borer, burin-laterally-retouched blade). In the early
Upper Paleolithic of southwest Germany, a wide range of tool types appears to have been used to process a diverse array of materials. These
results suggest that the interpretation of behavioral patterns from stone tools must consider more than tool typology.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Modern humans; Residue analysis; Stone tool typology; Upper Paleolithic; Use-wear analysis
Introduction
The recent literature in paleoanthropology is replete with
discussions and arguments concerning the appearance of
‘‘modern’’ human behavior. Ultimately, these arguments attempt to address the demise of the Neandertals and the role
Homo sapiens had in that demise. Through time, the list of
traits that has been used to define ‘‘modern’’ has changed.
For example, logistically organized hunting, blade technology,
and long-distance transport of raw materials were once
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ740 427 5886; fax: þ740 427 5815.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.L. Hardy), Michael.Bolus@
uni-tuebingen.de (M. Bolus), [email protected] (N.J. Conard).
0047-2484/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.10.003
considered to be hallmarks of modern human behavior (Zilh~ao,
2007). A growing consensus now places the appearance of
these behaviors in the Middle Paleolithic (Révillion and Tuffreau, 1994; Marean and Kim, 1998; Bar-Yosef and Kuhn,
1999; Bar-Yosef, 2004; Burke, 2004). Similarly, shaped bone
tools, shell ornaments, and abstract markings and symbolic
traces are now dated to the Middle Stone Age of Africa rather
than the Upper Paleolithic of Europe (Henshilwood et al., 2001,
2002, 2004; d’Errico et al., 2005). Recently, the definition of
‘‘modern’’ has shifted to an emphasis on the symbolic nature
of ‘‘modern’’ behavior (e.g., Wadley, 2001; Henshilwood and
Marean, 2003; Zilh~ao, 2007), with Conard (2006: 296) stating:
‘‘The key component of fully modern cultural behavior is
communication within a symbolically organized world and
the ability to manipulate symbols in diverse social contexts.’’
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
While the search for behavioral modernity continues, Neandertals and early modern humans were not necessarily behaviorally or biologically homogeneous (Delporte, 1998;
McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Bon, 2002; Clark, 2002; Hardy,
2004; Conard, 2005, 2006). Furthermore, our understanding of
basic Paleolithic behaviors such as subsistence and tool use is
incomplete at best. Our ability to effectively understand the
differences in behavior between Neandertals and modern humans is dependent on our ability to accurately reconstruct
these basic behaviors. As such, the debate over the appearance
of ‘‘modern’’ behaviors can benefit from more ‘‘nuts and bolts
approaches to defining modernity’’ (Conard, 2006: 298). Since
stone tools are typically the most abundant cultural artifacts at
Paleolithic sites, and since their precise uses and functions are
still relatively poorly understood, they offer an excellent medium for investigating ‘‘nuts and bolts’’ behaviors.
Due partially to their ubiquity, stone artifacts are often used
as identifiers of cultural groups (Conard, 2006). This is particularly true of the Aurignacian, a stone-tool industry that appeared
in Europe ca. 40,000 years ago and that is seen by many researchers as marking a ‘‘revolution’’ in human behavior. One
of the most commonly identified features of this ‘‘revolution’’
is the greater degree of standardization and artifact-type diversity (also called richness) of stone-tool assemblages (Mellars,
1989a, 1989b, 1996; Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Thackeray,
1992; Klein, 1995, 1999; Knight et al., 1995; Ambrose, 1998;
Milo, 1998; Deacon, 2001). The amount of richness in stonetool assemblages is typically measured by the number of different tool types that are recognizable (Grayson and Cole, 1998;
Bar-Yosef, 2002). Commonly, the number of different tool types
is based on the types enumerated by Bordes (1961) for the
Middle Paleoltihic and de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot
(1953) for the Upper Paleolithic. The use of two distinct typological systems for the two time periods has the effect of reifying
a behavioral distinction between the two time periods (Marks
et al., 2001; Riel-Salvatore and Clark, 2001; Riel-Salvatore
and Barton, 2004).
We are certainly not the first to point out that artifact types,
as defined by archaeologists, may not match real categories
from the past. Artifact variability has been attributed to,
among other things, intensity of artifact use (Barton, 1990),
differential reduction sequences (e.g., Dibble, 1984, 1987,
1988, 1995), the shape of tool blanks (Kuhn, 1991, 1992),
evolving mental capacities (McPherron, 2000), platform and
flake size (Shott et al., 1999), differences in artifact function
(e.g., Shea, 1989, 1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990), and the
subjectivity of archaeological classification systems (Bisson,
2000). Despite the repeated demonstration that typological
categories can be explained by a variety of variables, and
that the greater degree of artifact richness and standardization
for the Upper Paleolithic has been questioned (Grayson and
Cole, 1998; Marks et al., 2001), increased artifact diversity
in the Upper Paleolithic is still commonly cited as evidence
of behavioral change and modernity (e.g., Mellars, 2005).
While there is clearly a change in technology and typology between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, the degree to which
this change has been used to infer behavioral differences
649
may be unwarranted. In many ways, this use of typology to
form behavioral inferences demonstrates Paleolithic archaeologists’ heavy reliance on stone-tool typology.
While seen as a necessary methodological tool crucial to
sorting the most ubiquitous and durable recovered artifacts
from archaeological sites (indeed, not infrequently the only
ones), most practitioners in the field also recognize that
classification carries with it the danger of built-in assumptions, channeling interpretations into predictable directions,
and thus creating theoretical problems even in the act of
creating order (Tomášková, 2005:79).
Typologies consist of categories that have been defined by
archaeologists to impose order and allow comparisons between
different artifact assemblages. These categories or types reflect
an essentialist view of the archaeological record; the categories
we have created as modern archaeologists do not necessarily reflect meaningful categories in the Paleolithic. Although stonetool typology is a necessary and useful methodological tool,
it provides insufficient insight in reconstructing past behavior.
In order to understand the role stone tools played in the changes
associated with the Middle-Upper Paleoltihic transition, it is
first necessary to understand stone tool function.
Aurignacian tool function: previous research
Previous analyses of early Upper Paleolithic stone-tool
function are limited and often focus on analyzing specific
tool types, such as burins. Hays and Lucas (2000) examined
burins and scrapers from Aurignacian levels at Le Flageolet
I, France, dating to approximately 27 ka. Based on microwear
and technological analyses, they concluded that many of these
artifacts, which are commonly classified typologically as tools,
were exhausted cores rather than tools per se. Tomášková
(2000, 2005) analyzed Pavlovian/Gravettian artifacts from
the sites of Pavlov and Willendorf II, which date between
approximately 26 and 30 ka. Artifacts from these sites do
not exhibit a clear form-function relationship, leading Tomášková (2005: 106) to conclude that these results contribute
‘‘to a debate that re-examines the traditional concept of stone
tools as discrete, functionally specific forms, finished according to an accepted, culturally predetermined pattern, and used
accordingly.’’
Given the scarcity of functional analyses of Aurignacian
stone tools, it is apparent that their use is not well understood.
In an effort to begin to remedy that situation, we undertook
residue and use-wear analyses of Aurignacian artifacts from
three sites in southwestern Germany: Hohle Fels, Vogelherd,
and Geißenklösterle.
German sites
The Aurignacian in the Swabian Jura
With a number of rich cave sites, the Swabian Jura in southwestern Germany represents the most important region for the
Aurignacian in Germany, and it is also a key region for the
Author's personal copy
650
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
discussion of the Aurignacian on a European scale. The major
sites are situated in the Ach and Lone Valleys, some of them
having long stratigraphies and often containing several Aurignacian layers, namely Bocksteinhöhle, Bockstein-Törle, Hohlenstein-Stadel, Hohlenstein-Bärenhöhle, and Vogelherd in the
Lone Valley, and Brillenhöhle, Sirgenstein, Geißenklösterle,
and Hohle Fels in the Ach Valley (Fig. 1).
Detailed discussions of the context of the finds, the chronostratigraphy, organic and lithic technology, cultural affiliations, and interpretations of figurative art and musical
instruments from the Swabian Aurignacian cannot be given
here but can easily be found in many recent publications
(Richter et al., 2000; Bolus, 2003, 2004; Conard, 2003; Conard and Bolus, 2003, 2006; Conard et al., 2003a,b, 2004a,b,
2006; Teyssandier, 2003; Teyssandier and Liolios, 2003; Münzel and Conard, 2004; Conard, 2005; Niven, 2006; Teyssandier et al., 2006). The results from Vogelherd, Geißenklösterle,
and Hohle Fels play a prominent role in establishing the Swabian caves and the Upper Danube region as a whole as an area
of central importance for the study of the Aurignacian.
Vogelherd
Vogelherd, excavated by Gustav Riek in 1931, is the most
important Aurignacian site in the Lone Valley (Riek, 1934).
The excavator subdivided the Aurignacian deposits into two
layers (IV and V), but even with re-excavations in the old
backdirt and the large number of finds gathered there (Conard
and Malina, 2006), it will be very difficult if not impossible to
decide whether this subdivision is valid. According to Riek,
human fossils had been found at the base of the Aurignacian
layer V and thus were thought to be among the oldest fossils
of anatomically modern humans in Europe. Direct radiocarbon
dates, however, proved them to be only 5000 years old (Conard et al., 2004a), thus demonstrating that serious excavation
errors obviously occurred during the fieldwork in 1931.
Some radiocarbon dates from anthropogenically modified
Fig. 1. Map of southwestern Germany with the principal Aurignacian sites.
Ach Valley: (1) Sirgenstein, (2) Hohle Fels, (3) Geißenklösterle, and (4) Brillenhöhle; Lone Valley: (5) Bockstein (Bockstein-Höhle and Bockstein-Törle),
(6) Hohlenstein (Stadel and Bärenhöhle), and (7) Vogelherd.
bones reach as far back as ca. 36,000 BP, while most of the
dates range between ca. 32,000 and 33,000 BP (Conard and
Bolus, 2003, 2006).
Endscrapers and burins are frequent, but among these tool
types, carinated endscrapers are uncommon, and nosed endscrapers are a bit more frequent, while carinated and busked
burins are extremely rare. Spitzklingen (pointed blades) are
abundant and one of the characteristics of the Vogelherd Aurignacian. The organic industry is rich and diverse with, among
others, large numbers of split-based points. Personal ornaments were nearly absent from Riek’s excavations, but the
backdirt yielded several typical Aurignacian ornaments such
as double-perforated ivory beads that had formerly only been
known from the Aurignacian of the Ach Valley sites. The
famous ivory figurines were the first examples of Aurignacian
art that had been found in the Swabian Jura (see Hahn, 1986).
Geißenklösterle
Important fieldwork was carried out in Geißenklösterle
cave in the Ach Valley by Joachim Hahn and others between
1973 and 1991 and continued between 2000 and 2002 by
Nicholas Conard and colleagues. These excavations uncovered
a long stratigraphy comprising layers from the Middle Paleolithic to the Mesolithic and later Holocene complexes. While
the Middle Paleolithic yielded only a few tools, generally
bearing cryoretouches, the Aurignacian and Gravettian layers
were especially rich in finds.
The Aurignacian can be subdivided into a lower and an upper Aurignacian complex (Hahn, 1988), which both represent
an early Swabian Aurignacian (Conard and Bolus, 2003). The
cluster of radiocarbon dates for the lower Aurignacian of
Archaeological Horizon (AH) III ranges between ca. 33,000
and 37,000 BP (Conard and Bolus, 2006), while TL dates
give an age estimate of ca. 40,000 BP (Richter et al., 2000).
With these dates, AH III of Geißenklösterle at present represents the oldest Swabian Aurignacian. The upper Aurignacian
of AH II has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 32,000e35,000 BP
and TL dated to ca. 37,000 BP.
Both Aurignacian horizons are characterized by a unipolar
blade technology (Hahn, 1988; Owen, 1988). The tool types in
both horizons are also very similar, though they differ considerably with regard to their frequency, as is, for instance, the
case with carinated and nosed endscrapers. Personal ornaments are represented by perforated teeth and ivory pendants,
and by double-perforated ivory beads, which date among the
oldest ornaments in Europe. Among the diverse organic tools,
split-based points are limited to AH II. Also limited to the upper Aurignacian complex are musical instruments, represented
by two bone flutes and one ivory flute (Conard et al., 2004a,b),
and, finally, art objects represented by four ivory figurines and
a painted piece of limestone.
Hohle Fels
The excavations at Hohle Fels have a long history dating back
to Oscar Fraas and Theodor Hartmann’s work in 1870e1871.
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
They excavated areas of the large cave hall, unfortunately
without documentation. It was not until 1958e1960 that
Gustav Riek, together with Gertrud Matschak, an amateur archaeologist from Schelklingen, found undisturbed Paleolithic
sediments within the tunnellike passage leading to the cave
hall. In the northern nichelike annex of the passage, Joachim
Hahn excavated from 1977 to 1979 and then more or less
continuously from 1988 until his death in 1996. Since then,
continuous excavations have been directed by Nicholas
Conard.
The stratigraphic sequence from Hohle Fels, situated only
2.5 km away from Geißenklösterle in the Ach Valley, is very
similar to the one from that cave. As in Geißenklösterle, Middle Paleolithic layers with low find density are overlain by an
archaeologically nearly sterile layer, followed by a long Upper
Paleolithic sequence with a subdivided Aurignacian and
Gravettian and Magdalenian deposits. There are a large number of radiocarbon dates (Conard and Bolus, 2006), which establish a consistent chronological frame for the Aurignacian
subunits ranging between ca. 36,000 BP for AH V and ca.
29,000 BP for AH IId, which, together with AH IIe, represents
the transitional stratum between Aurignacian and Gravettian.
As at Geißenklösterle, most of the stone-tool types appear
throughout the sequence, but again there are considerable
differences in frequency, especially as far as Spitzklingen
(pointed blades), endscrapers, and burins are concerned
(Conard and Bolus, 2006). Organic tools are numerous and
diverse, as are personal ornaments. Figurative art is represented by two unique ivory figurines from AH IV, a miniature
Löwenmensch (lion man), one waterfowl, and a head fragment
of another ivory figurine from the transitional deposits
mentioned previously (Conard, 2003).
Methods
A sample of 109 stone tools representing 39 different tool
types were examined microscopically for the presence of
use-related wear patterns or residues from the three early Upper
Paleolithic sites in southwestern Germany (Geißenklösterle,
n ¼ 37; Vogelherd, n ¼ 34; Hohle Fels, n ¼ 39; see Table 1).
All artifacts were examined with an Olympus BH microscope under bright-field incident light at magnifications ranging from 100 to 500 diameters. All wear patterns and
residues were photographed using a Nikon Coolpix 995 digital camera, and their location on the surface was recorded on
a line drawing of the artifact. Identifications of residues were
made by comparison with published materials and a comparative collection of experimental stone-tool replicas (Brunner
and Coman, 1974; Catling and Grayson, 1982; Beyries,
1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Hoadley, 1990; Fullagar,
1991; Teerink, 1991; Hather, 1993; Hardy, 1994; Brom,
1986; Kardulias and Yerkes, 1996; Williamson, 1996; Hardy
and Garufi, 1998; Pearsall, 2000; Haslam, 2004; Dove et al.,
2005; Fullagar et al., 2006). Residue recognition was the primary goal of the analysis; therefore, no special procedures
were conducted to clean the tools for the sake of rendering
use-wear patterns more visible. While this procedure may
651
Table 1
Summary of tool types by site (GK: Geißenklösterle, VH: Vogelherd, HF:
Hohle Fels)
Tool type
Blade
Blade fragment
Blade fragment with retouch
Blade with facial retouch
Bladelets
Borer
Double burin
Burin
Burin/other (combination tools)
Carinated scraper
Carinated burin
Carinated endscraper
Core
Crested blade
Endscraper
Endscraper with lateral retouch
Endscraper/burin
Endscraper/sidescraper
Flake
Flake retouched on all edges
Flake with Aurignacian retouch
Laterally retouched flake
Hook (zinken)
Nosed endscraper
Nosed endscraper/borer
Nosed endscraper/pointed blade
Pointed blade (spitzklinge)
Pointed blade with truncation
Pointed blade with endscraper
Pointed flake
Pointed fragment
Retouched flake
Sidescraper
Splintered piece
Transverse burin
Truncated blade
Truncated blade with lateral retouch
Truncated flake-burin
Total
GK
VH
HF
All sites
0
1
2
1
8
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
1
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
11
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
1
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
5
6
1
9
1
1
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
9
2
2
1
16
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
12
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
37
34
39
109
limit the use-wear information obtained, it serves to maximize the residues observed (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Hardy
et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004). Potentially identifiable residues include plant (plant tissue, plant fibers, starchy residue, epidermal cell tissue, wood, raphides, phytoliths, resin) and animal
tissues (muscle tissue, collagen, fat, bone/antler, blood, hair,
and feathers) (Hardy et al., 2001; Lombard, 2004; Wadley
et al., 2004). Distribution of residues and use-wear on the artifact surface were used to help demonstrate use-relatedness
and to identify use-action (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Hardy
et al., 2001; Lombard, 2004).
Use-wear patterns recorded included edge damage (microflake scars, edge rounding), striations, and polishes. These
were used to help identify use-action (Odell and OdellVereecken, 1980; Mansur-Franchomme, 1986). Due to the
potential overlap of polishes produced by different materials,
use-wear polishes were categorized as either ‘‘soft’’ or
Author's personal copy
652
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
‘‘hard/high silica’’ (e.g., Newcomer et al., 1986, 1988; Moss,
1987; Bamforth, 1988; Hurcombe, 1988; Bamforth et al.,
1990; Grace, 1990; Fullagar, 1991; Shea, 1992). Soft polish
often results from processing animal tissue such as skin and
meat. Hard/high-silica polish is produced when processing
soft plants with high silica content, such as reeds and grasses,
and wood, bone/antler, and tilling soil. The amount of time
a tool was used, silica content of the processed material, and
presence of water are all factors that can influence polish formation (Fullagar, 1991; Hardy, 2004). A combination of residue and use-wear analysis can provide complementary and
corroborative information, potentially producing more accurate results than either technique used alone (Hardy, 1998;
Hardy and Kay, 1998; Hardy et al., 2001; Rots and Williamson, 2004).
Handling artifacts
This study included freshly excavated artifacts, artifacts recovered from water screening, and artifacts curated from earlier excavations. Freshly excavated artifacts came from
opportunistic sampling of ongoing excavations at the site of
Hohle Fels. These artifacts were removed from the ground
and placed in plastic bags until the time of analysis, and
they are referred to as ‘‘freshly excavated’’ in the analysis.
In some cases, adhering sediments obscured the majority of
an artifact’s surface, making microscopic observation of the
surface extremely difficult. In cases such as these, the artifact
was immersed in a container of still water (referred to as
‘‘still-water immersion,’’ or SWI). Much of the adhering sediment would release from the artifact surface. No scrubbing or
brushing was performed. The artifact was then allowed to airdry prior to analysis. The site of Vogelherd was largely excavated previously, with numerous artifacts being dumped in a
talus slope of backfill sediment. These sediments are being
water-screened, with all artifacts being labeled and placed in
plastic bags. Artifacts in the sample from Vogelherd are
referred to as ‘‘water-screened’’ and were treated by spraying
with water. Excavations are complete at Geißenklösterle. All
samples from this site consisted of artifacts that had been
lightly washed and placed in plastic bags or drawers prior to
analysis (referred to as ‘‘washed/labeled/curated,’’ or WLC).
Generally, washing and handling of artifacts destined for residue analysis is kept to a minimum in order to avoid modern
contamination and to avoid loss of residues through cleaning
procedures (e.g., Loy, 1993; Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy,
2004). However, recent studies suggest that residues can survive cleaning procedures (e.g., Fullagar et al., 2006), and these
differentially handled specimens offered a chance to observe
the effects of several curation and cleaning strategies.
Results
Overall, residues observed include hair, feathers, bone/antler, plant tissue, plant fibers, starch grains, wood, phytoliths,
pollen, and resin. Of the 109 artifacts examined, 64 (58.7%)
had identifiable residues on their surfaces.
Hair and feathers
Hair fragments are typically identified based on characteristics of the cutical and medulla and have been found on stone
tools from archaeological contexts ranging from the Archaic
of North America, ca. 2000e5000 years old (Loy, 1993; Sobolik, 1996), to the Middle Stone Age of South Africa (Sibudu
Cave; Lombard, 2004, 2005) and the Middle Paleolithic of Europe (Starosele; Conard and Bolus, 2002; Hardy 2004; Hardy
et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004). Hair fragments occur on 18 of 109
artifacts (16.5%) and are roughly equally distributed across
sites. Hairs were identified by the presence of a medulla or by
cuticular scale patterns. It is possible to identify hair to the species level based on diagnostic patterns of the medulla and
scales; however, the correct identification of a small number
of hairs to species is extremely difficult (Brunner and Coman,
1974; Teerink, 1991). Scale patterns, for example, differ depending on the type of hair being examined (shield hairs, guard
hairs) and location on the hair itself (near the tip, near the root,
etc.). Thus, although it was possible to observe different scale
patterns (including narrow diamond petal, broad petal, mosaic,
broad petal diamond, irregular wave, and narrow diamond) and
various medulla patterns (ladder, intermediate, and interrupted), it is difficult to accurately identify species without knowing precisely from which hair type or position on the hair the
fragments derive. Figure 2 illustrates a pointed blade from
Geißenklösterle (GK 1007) with hair fragments and soft polish
suggesting use in scraping hide. The pattern of the hairs from
this tool (unicellular, irregular ladder medulla with a smooth,
broad-petal-diamond scale pattern) is consistent with characteristics near the root of guard hair 2 among some mustelids (Teerink, 1991). Two mustelid species are found in small numbers
among the fauna at Geißenklösterle: polecat (Mustela putorius)
and marten (Martes sp.) with a number of identified specimens
(NISP) of one each (Münzel and Conard, 2004).
One of the difficulties of microscopic residue analysis is establishing that the residues observed are related to use. In this
case, the frequency and number of hairs, their distribution on
a tool’s surface, and their co-occurrence with use-wear patterns
suggests that they are related to use. Hair fragments were more
common at these sites than at other Paleolithic sites examined
for residues (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004; Lombard, 2004,
2005), with artifacts often exhibiting multiple hair fragments
on their surfaces. Because animal residues often appear to preserve less well than plant residues (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy,
2004; Lombard, 2004; Wadley et al., 2004), their high incidence
on these tools warrants further taphonomic investigation.
Fragments of downy barbules are potentially identifiable to
the family, genus, and sometimes species level (Chandler,
1916; Brom, 1986; Dove and Peurach, 2002; Rogers et al.,
2002; Dove et al., 2005) and have been identified on prehistoric stone tools in varied contexts (Loy and Wood, 1989;
Loy, 1993; Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004) Two feather fragments were found in this sample, identifiable by the presence
of nodes and internodes, as well as projecting barbs associated
with the nodes. For example, a burin-laterally-retouched blade
from Hohle Fels (HF 2505; Fig. 3) exhibits a downy barbule
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
653
Fig. 2. Geißenklösterle 1007 (square 67): (A) hair trapped in matrix on tool surface; (B) hair with medulla visible; (C) soft polish; (D) hair with scales visible.
fragment with an asymmetric prong at the node. This artifact
exhibits both hair and feather fragments in association with
polish indicative of cutting a soft material. The patterning of
the hair and feather fragments relative to the use-wear suggests
that they are related to use. For both artifacts with feather fragments, insufficient diagnostic detail is present for more specific identification.
Bone/antler
Bone deposits have typically been described as difficult to
identify due to their amorphous, greasy appearance, which
lacks structure (Jahren et al., 1997; Lombard, 2004). Archaeological bone structure may be altered by a variety of diagenetic processes, including chemical, physical, and biological
factors (Guarino et al., 2006). Finally, bone histology is typically viewed through thin sections cut transversely across
the bone and stained with a variety of procedures to make
structures more visible. Working bone with stone tools is
likely to involve oblique cuts that do not follow typical histological sections. Furthermore, since observations of residues
are typically made in situ (on the artifact surface) in order to
determine the patterning of residue distribution, staining procedures are impractical. Despite these potential difficulties,
Author's personal copy
654
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
Fig. 3. Hohle Fels 2505 (square 78): (A and B) soft polish; (C) feather barbule with node; (D) hair with medulla.
it is possible to recognize bone tissue as an opaque, white, usually amorphous tissue. In some cases, structurally circular or
ovate voids are present, which may represent Haversian or
Volksman’s canals (White, 1991). Antler is histologically
very similar to bone (Dobrowolska, 2002) and no attempt
was made to distinguish between the two.
Ten artifacts have possible bone/antler residues on their surfaces. The pattern of distribution varies, but the residues tend to
fall along or near one edge of the tool (Fig. 4). In two cases,
hairs are also found on artifacts with bone/antler residue.
Bone/antler residues may occur on artifacts for two reasons:
(1) use of the artifact to modify bone/antler, or (2) use of
bone/antler as a percussor in the manufacture of the artifact.
Distinguishing between these two sources is not always
possible, although further information derived from use-wear
and distribution patterns can be useful. Table 2 lists the artifacts
with bone/antler residue, the other functional evidence they exhibit, and the most likely interpretation for the presence of the
bone/antler residue. The combination of evidence suggests that
four artifacts show definite signs of bone/antler processing,
three most likely result from use of bone/antler as a hammer,
and three may come from either a hammer or processing source.
Plant tissue, plant fibers, phytoliths, pollen, resins
Plant tissues of various kinds are often recognizable by
their birefringence, presence of recognizable cellular structure, which is often lacking in animal tissue, or their
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
655
Fig. 4. Hohle Fels 1404 (square 98): (A) bone/antler residue with hard/high-silica polish; (B) further magnification of A; (C) bone/antler residue with hard/highsilica polish.
association with other plant materials (starch grains, raphides,
phytoliths, etc.) (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Lombard, 2004;
Wadley et al., 2004). Plant fibers are long, thin cells that
may occur singly or in bundles and are often characterized
by an open space or lumen in their interior (Catling and Grayson, 1982). Plant fibers may occur in various parts of plants
and are often sclerenchyma tissue (Catling and Grayson,
1982; Fahn, 1982).
Generalized plant tissue (recognizable plant tissue that cannot be further classified to cell type) occurs on 15 artifacts.
Lack of diagnostic criteria prevents a detailed understanding
of the significance of these residues beyond general plantprocessing. A further eight artifacts have plant fibers on their
surfaces. These, too, lack diagnostic criteria and therefore can
only be interpreted as representing generalized plantprocessing.
Analysis of pollen grains and phytoliths is well established in
archaeology (for a summary, see Pearsall, 2000). A single
spherical pollen grain was observed on one artifact. It is not associated with any other plant residues and is therefore not informative as to artifact function. Two phytolithsdone rhomboid
and one rectangulardwere found adhering to tool surfaces.
These are associated with other plant tissue, but further identification was not possible due to a lack of diagnostic anatomy.
Possible starch grains
The identification of starch grains through recognition of
a characteristic extinction cross under cross-polarized light
has become a common practice in investigating archaeological
tool function (e.g., Loy et al., 1992; Kealhoffer et al., 1999;
Fullagar et al., 2006; Zarillo and Kooyman, 2006; Barton
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
656
Processing
typical of archaeological charcoal, ranging from gray to black
and from dull to glossy (Hather, 1993). In one case, sufficient
diagnostic anatomy was preserved to identify bordered pits
found in elongated cells typical of softwoods (gymnosperm).
The distribution across the tool’s surface suggests whittling
of charred wood.
Hammer
Processing
Functional correlation with tool types
Table 2
Summary of bone-residue evidence and interpretation (H/HS ¼ hard/highsilica material)
Artifact #/
Square #
GK 0/Sq. 46
Evidence
Multiple fragments, striae,
H/HS polish, hair
GK 594/Sq. 89
Isolated fragment, H/HS polish
GK 630/Sq. 58
Multiple fragments, striae,
H/HS polish
HF 1220/Sq. 98 Multiple fragments, striae,
H/HS polish, hair
HF 1384/Sq. 98 Striae, polish, fragments
confined to retouched area
HF 1404/Sq. 98 Multiple fragments, H/HS polish
HF 2701/Sq. 98 Isolated fragment, H/HS polish
VH 10/Sq. 73/64 Multiple fragments, striae,
H/HS polish
VH 41/Sq. 71/62 Isolated fragments on
retouched edge
VH 52/Sq. 48/66 Isolated fragments on
retouched edge
Interpretation
Processing
Hammer or processing
Processing
Hammer or processing
Hammer or processing
Hammer
Hammer
and Fullagar, 2006; Fullagar, 2006). A recent review by Haslam (2004) suggested that artifact surfaces may aid in the preservation of starchy residues. The same author, however,
recently cautioned that starch grains examined in situ may
be confused with fungal spores known as conidia, which
may also exhibit an extinction cross under cross-polarized
light and resemble starch grains in size and shape (Haslam,
2006). Conidia spores have thus far been identified in tropical,
but not temperate, environments.
Starch grains were identified on only three artifacts in the
sample. In all cases, they were found in association with other
plant tissue, but occurred near and not within plant cells.
Given Haslam’s recent cautions and the fact that these putative
starch grains fall near the lower limits of microscope resolution (<5 mm), we feel it best to not positively identify these
residues as starch grains. Even if they are starch, their occurrence on such a small number of artifacts suggests that processing of starchy plants with stone tools is at best a minor
activity at these sites.
Wood
The identification of wood residues depends on the presence of diagnostic anatomical characteristics, such as longitudinal cells (vessel elements or tracheids) or pitting (Hoadley,
1990; Hardy and Garufi, 1998). Eight artifacts exhibit plant
cellular structure indicative of the longitudinal cells of
wood. Of these, two have bordered pits characteristic of gymnosperms, or softwood. Figure 5 shows an unmodified flake
with wood fibers wrapped around the edge of the tool, suggesting a whittling use-action.
Charred plant
In several cases, identifiable plant tissue exhibited indications of charring. Charred tissue included colors and textures
In order to investigate if any of the tool types were correlated with specific functions (i.e., represented specialized
tools), the 39 tool types present were collapsed into six larger
typological categories. These included blades, retouched
blades, burins, endscrapers, flakes, and pointed blades. If any
of these tool categories represented specialized tools, we
would expect them to have been used on a single use-material,
or at least on a narrow range of use-materials. Table 3 summarizes the results for these categories by use-material (for individual artifact details, see Table 4). All six categories show
evidence of use on both plants and animals or birds. The number of different use-materials per category ranges from two to
four specific use-materials. While this sample may not be representative of these typological categories across the Aurignacian, they present a picture of varied rather than specialized
tool use at Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels, and Vogelherd.
Discussion
The title of this paper refers to a Gary Larson cartoon that
reads ‘‘So what’s this? I asked for a hammer! A hammer! This
is a crescent wrench!...Well, maybe it’s a hammer.Damn
these stone tools’’ (Larson, 1986: 172). This cartoon illustrates a fundamental issue in Paleolithic archaeologydthe
problem of understanding stone-tool function. Paleolithic archaeologists have often implicitly assumed that stone-tool
types (which were created by archaeologists in the first place)
correspond to unique tools with specialized uses. This is especially true in the Upper Paleolithic, where an increase in number of tool types is often seen as a reflection of increasingly
specialized tool use. As mentioned above, however, these
claims are made despite the fact that little direct functional
analysis has been performed on early Upper Paleolithic
artifacts.
For the Aurignacian of southern Germany, as represented
by the samples from Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels, and Vogelherd, a simple equation of tool type or tool category with
a particular function is overly simplistic. All of the tool categories examined in this sample show use on multiple usematerials, including both plant and nonplant (animal or
bird). Unmodified flakes show the widest range of uses, including processing of animal, plant, wood, and starchy plant.
Burins show use on animal, bone, and plant, although these
results may be misleading. While these use-materials were
all found on artifacts with burins, they were not always found
on the burin edge itself. Burins are typically thought of as engraving tools (numerous researchers have questioned this
functional correlation; e.g., Barton et al., 1996; Hays and
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
657
Fig. 5. Vogelherd 16 (square 48/66): (A) Wood fibers wrapped around edge; (B and C) long rectangular wood cells.
Lucas, 2000; Tomášková, 2005), but in this sample, many of
the burin edges show no signs of use. Figure 3, for example,
shows a laterally retouched blade used for processing both animal and bird tissue, but the burin edge was not used. Figure 4
Table 3
Summary of use-material by typological category
Type
Animal Bird Bone Plant Wood Starch Soft Hard Unknown
Blades
Retouched
blades
Burin
Endscrapers
Flakes
Pointed blades
U
U
d
d
d
d
U
U
U
d
d
d
U
U
d
d
U
U
U
d
U
U
d
U
d
d
U
d
d
d
U
U
U
U
d
d
U
d
d
d
U
d
d
d
d
d
U
U
d
U
U
U
U
U
similarly illustrates a carinated burin where the retouched
edge was used to scrape or plane bone/antler, but the burin
edge itself shows no signs of use. Hays and Lucas (2000)
and Tomášková (2005), among others, have suggested that burins may often represent cores rather than tools and this idea
is supported here.
The overall picture of tool use that emerges for this sample
demonstrates a wide range of resources being exploited by
a wide range of tool types. Animal residues, including bone,
hair, and feathers, along with their associated use-wear, suggest
a wide range of animal-processing activities. A range of different plant types were also exploited, including soft plants, wood,
and starchy material. All of these materials were worked by different tool types. The one aspect of tool use that is conspicuously absent is evidence for hafting. Of the 109 artifacts
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
658
Table 4
Summary of use-material by tool type (H/HS ¼ hard/high-silica material)
Tool type
Blade
Blade fragment
Blade fragment with retouch
Blade with facial retouch
Bladelets
Borer
Double burin
Burin
Burin/other (combination tools)
Carinated scraper
Carinated burin
Carinated endscraper
Core
Crested blade
Endscraper
Endscraper with lateral retouch
Endscraper/burin
Endscraper/sidescraper
Flake
Flake retouched on all edges
Flake with Aurignacian retouch
Laterally retouched flake
Hook (zinken)
Nosed endscraper
Nosed endscraper/borer
Nosed endscraper/pointed blade
Pointed blade (spitzklinge)
Pointed blade with truncation
Pointed blade with endscraper
Pointed flake
Pointed fragment
Retouched flake
Sidescraper
Splintered piece
Transverse burin
Truncated blade
Truncated blade with lateral retouch
Truncated flake-burin
Number
Animal
Bird
Bone
Charred
plant
H/HS
H/HS
plant
Hide
Plant
Wood
Soft
Starchy
plant
Unknown
3
5
6
1
9
1
1
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
9
2
2
1
16
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
12
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
7
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
examined, only six show possible evidence of hafting. Hafting
traces include striae confined to the proximal third of an artifact,
resin, and patterned plant material. Given the otherwise excellent preservation of functional evidence, these results suggest
that the majority of artifacts examined were hand-held, or
that hafting was performed in such a way that no traces were
left behind.
Preservation issues
The cave sites in the Ach Valley are characterized by excellent preservation, including high collagen content in bone
(Conard and Bolus, 2003). The residue preservation follows
a similar pattern, and both plant and animal residues are
well preserved. Animal residues (particularly hair and
feathers) are often thought to be underrepresented due to differential preservation (Hardy et al., 2001; Hardy, 2004).
Whereas previous studies have shown only isolated hair or
feather fragments on a tool surface, the artifacts in the current
sample typically showed a dozen or more hair or feather fragments on an individual tool’s surface. Furthermore, residues
were found on all different categories of handling, including
those that had been washed, labeled, and curated. This provides further support to the idea that some residues may survive some cleaning procedures (Fullagar et al., 2006). Thus,
these results suggest that once a residue adheres to a tool surface, it is fairly robust and will not be easily removed. Despite
these results, we would still recommend erring on the side of
caution and minimal handling of artifacts potentially destined
for residue analysis.
Unfortunately, the precise mechanisms of adherence of residues to tool surfaces or of residue preservation in general remain poorly understood. Further investigation of sites with
good residue preservation, such as the Ach Valley sites, including issues such as raw-material makeup, sedimentology,
pH, depositional environment, etc., are clearly warranted. Future analysis of material from the ongoing excavation at Hohle
Fels will attempt to address these issues of residue taphonomy.
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
Conclusions
The demonstration that residues can be detected and identified despite a range of cleaning procedures suggests that the
type of analysis presented here may not be limited to freshly
excavated artifacts. In spite of this finding, however, the authors urge archaeologists to handle artifacts as minimally as
possible, as any handling can potentially remove valuable
functional information.
As mentioned previously, artifact diversity in the Upper Paleolithic is often cited as a trait that can be used to identify
modern human behavior (see Henshilwood and Marean,
2003). While there is little dispute over the increased artifact
diversity in the Upper Paleolithic, the burin example above illustrates that our understanding of the meaning of artifact diversity is limited. The burin has long been classified as an
important feature of Upper Paleolithic assemblages, yet it is
clear that, at least in many cases, burin edges were not used.
Discussions of changes in stone-tool industries between the
Middle and Upper Paleolithic continue to focus largely on technological attributes of stone-tool production such as frequency
of formal tool types, core preparation techniques, and location
of retouch. While these certainly represent behavioral choices
in terms of stone-tool manufacture, they are only one aspect
of the life of a stone tool (Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004).
Given the limited nature of the archaeological record and the
ubiquity of stone tools at Paleolithic sites, it is vital that we
treat stone tools as more than just technological productions.
Determining whether a stone tool is a hammer or a crescent
wrench (or both, or something completely different) adds a necessary dimension to our understanding of stone tools and their
importance in the lives of early modern humans.
The literature discussing the origins of modern humans and
modern human behavior continues to grow. The definition of
modern behavior is contentious at best and includes everything
from burial of the dead and personal adornment to effective
large-mammal exploitation and blade technology (Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). In this debate, however, we may
be putting the cart before the horse in terms of our ability to
reconstruct past behavior. It is difficult to use changes in stone
tools, for example, as evidence of behavioral ‘‘modernity’’
when we do not have a complete understanding of what these
changes mean. Understanding how changes in stone-tool technology relate to other behaviors (e.g., tool use, resource exploitation) is imperative if we are to move beyond the idea
of a simple ‘‘litmus test’’ or trait list for modern behavior.
Acknowledgments
We thank Kenyon College’s Labalme Fund for support of
this research. Comments from two anonymous reviewers
helped strengthen the manuscript.
References
Ambrose, S.H., 1998. Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production
in East Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 377e392.
659
Ambrose, S.H., Lorenz, K.G., 1990. Social and ecological models for the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of
Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, pp. 3e33.
Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Paleolithic:
Functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In: Mellars, P.
(Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 389e418.
Bamforth, D., 1988. Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The institute results in context. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 11e23.
Bamforth, D., Burns, G., Woodman, C., 1990. Ambiguous use traces and blind
test results: New data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 17, 413e430.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
31, 363e393.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2004. Eat what is there: Hunting and gathering in the world of
Neanderthals and their neighbours. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 14, 333e342.
Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S., 1999. The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution. Am. Anthropol. 101, 322e338.
Barton, C.M., 1990. Beyond style and function: A view from the Middle
Paleolithic. Am. Antiq. 92, 57e72.
Barton, C.M., Olszewski, D.I., Coinman, N.R., 1996. Beyond the graver:
Reconsidering burin function. J. Field. Archaeol. 23, 111e125.
Barton, H., Fullagar, R., 2006. Microscopy. In: Torrence, R., Barton, H.
(Eds.), Ancient Starch Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp.
47e52.
Beyries, S., 1988. Industries Lithiques: Traçeologie et Technologie. British Archaeological Reports International Series, London.
Bisson, M., 2000. Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the typology of François Bordes must be replaced. J. Archaeol.
Meth. Theory 8, 1e48.
Bolus, M., 2003. The cultural context of the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura.
In: Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and
of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 153e163.
Bolus, M., 2004. Der Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum in Europa. Eine Bestandsaufnahme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mitteleuropas. Germania 82, 1e54.
Bon, F., 2002. L’Aurignacien entre Mer et Océan : Réflexion sur l’Unité des
Phases Anciennes de l’Aurignacien dan le Sud de la France. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.
Bordes, F., 1961. Typlogie du Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen. Editions du
CNRS, Paris.
Brom, T., 1986. Microscopic identification of feathers and feather fragments of
palearctic birds. Bijdr. Dierkd. 56, 181e204.
Brunner, H., Coman, B.J., 1974. The Identification of Mammalian Hair. Inkata
Press, Melbourne.
Burke, A., 2004. The ecology of Neanderthals: Preface. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol.
14, 155e161.
Catling, D., Grayson, J., 1982. Identification of Vegetable Fibres. Chapman
and Hall, New York.
Chandler, A.C., 1916. A study of feathers, with reference to their taxonomic
significance. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 13, 243e446.
Clark, G.A., 2002. Neanderthal archaeology: Implications for our origins. Am.
Anthropol. 104, 50e67.
Conard, N.J., 2003. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany
and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426, 830e832.
Conard, N.J., 2005. Aurignacian art in Swabia and the beginnings of figurative
representations in Europe. In: Broglio, A., Dalmeri, G. (Eds.), Pitture
Paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri.
Memorie del Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona e 2A Serie, Sezione
Scienze dell’Uomo 9. Preistoria Alpina, Nr. Speciale. Museo Civico di
Storia Naturale di Verona e Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Verona,
pp. 82e88.
Conard, N.J., 2006. An overview of the patterns of behavioral change in Africa
and Eurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. In: d’Errico, F.,
Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Humans. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.
Author's personal copy
660
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern
humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new
challenges. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 331e371.
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in European prehistory. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition
of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of
Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp.
211e239.
Conard, N.J., Malina, M., 2006. Schmuck und vielleicht auch Musik am
Vogelherd bei Niederstotzingen-Stetten ob Lontal, Kreis-Heidenheim.
Archäol. Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2005, 21e25.
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., Goldberg, P., Münzel, S.C., 2006. The last Neanderthals and first modern humans in the Swabian Jura. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.),
When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Meet. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen,
pp. 305e341.
Conard, N.J., Dippon, G., Goldberg, P., 2003a. Chronostratigraphy and archeological context of the Aurignacian deposits at Geißenklösterle. In:
Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of
the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia,
Lisboa, pp. 165e176.
Conard, N.J., Grootes, P.M., Smith, F.H., 2004a. Unexpectedly recent dates for
human remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198e201.
Conard, N.J., Malina, N., Munzel, S.C., Seeberger, F., 2004b. Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem Aurignacien des Geißenklösterle. Neue Belege für
eine musikalische Tradition im frühen Jungpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb. Archäol. Korrespondenzblatt 34, 447e462.
Conard, N.J., Niven, L.B., Mueller, K., Stuart, A.J., 2003b. The chronostratigraphy of the Upper Paleolithic deposits at Vogelherd. Mitteilungen der
Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 12, 73e86.
Deacon, H., 2001. Modern human emergence: An African archaeological perspective. In: Tobias, P.V., Raath, M.A., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Doyle, G.A.
(Eds.), Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia: Colloquia
in Human Biology and Paleoanthropology. University of Florence Press,
Florence, pp. 217e226.
Delporte, H., 1998. Les AurignaciensdPremiers Hommes Modernes. La Maison des Roches, Paris.
d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., 2005. Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for symbolic
behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 3e24.
de Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1953. Essai d’adaptation des méthodes
statistiques au Paléolithique Supérieur, Premiers résultats. Bull. Soc.
Préhist. Fr. 51, 323e333.
Dibble, H.L., 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic
scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction? J. Field Archaeol.
11, 431e436.
Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. Am. Antiq. 52, 109e117.
Dibble, H.L., 1988. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of
utilization of lithic resources in the French Mousterian. In: Dibble, H.,
Montet-White, A. (Eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia.
University Museum Monograph 54. University Museum Symposium
Series, vol. 1, Philadelphia, pp. 181e197.
Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theory 2,
299e368.
Dobrowolska, A., 2002. Chemical composition of the red deer (Cervus elaphus) antlers, with a particular reference to toxic metal contents. Z. Jagdwiss. 48, 148e155.
Dove, C.J., Peurach, S.C., 2002. Microscopic analysis of feather and hair fragments associated with human mummified remains from Kagamil Island,
Alaska. Ethnographical Series 20, 51e62.
Dove, C.J., Hare, P.G., Heacker, M., 2005. Identification of ancient feather
fragments found in melting alpine ice patches in southern Yukon. Arctic
58, 38e43.
Fahn, A., 1982. Plant Anatomy. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Fullagar, R., 1991. The role of silica in polish formation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 18,
1e24.
Fullagar, R., 2006. Starch on artifacts. In: Torrence, R., Barton, H. (Eds.),
Ancient Starch Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp. 177e204.
Fullagar, R., Field, J., Denham, T., Lentfer, C., 2006. Early and mid Holocene
tool-use and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.)
and other plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 33, 595e614.
Grace, R., 1990. The limitations and applications of use-wear analysis. Aun
14, 9e14.
Grayson, D.K., Cole, S.A., 1998. Stone tool assemblage richness during the
Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25,
927e938.
Guarino, F.M., Angelini, F., Vollono, C., Orefice, C., 2006. Bone preservation
in human remains from the Terme del Sarno at Pompeii using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 513e520.
Hahn, J., 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im
Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria 7. Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.
Hahn, J., 1988. Die Geißenklösterle-Höhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart.
Hardy, B.L., 1994. Investigations of stone tool function through use-wear, residue and DNA analyses at the Middle Paleolithic site of La Quina, France.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.
Hardy, B.L., Garufi, G.T., 1998. Identification of woodworking on stone tools
through residue and use-wear analyses: Experimental results. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 25, 177e184.
Hardy, B.L., 1998. Microscopic residue analysis of stone tools from the Middle Paleolithic site of Starosele, Crimea, Ukraine. In: Monigal, K.,
Chabai, V. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic of the Western Crimea, Vol. 2.
Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, pp.
179e196.
Hardy, B.L., Kay, M., 1998. Stone tool function at Starosele. In: Monigal, K.,
Chabai, V. (Eds.), Combining use-wear and residue analyses. The Middle
Paleolithic of the Western Crimea, Vol. 2. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, pp. 197e209.
Hardy, B.L., Kay, M., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K., 2001. Stone tool function at
the Paleolithic sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: Behavioral
implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 10972e10977.
Hardy, B.L., 2004. Neanderthal behaviour and stone tool function at the Middle Paleolithic site of La Quina, France. Antiquity 78, 547e565.
Haslam, M., 2004. The decomposition of starch grains in soils: Implications
for archaeological residue analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1715e1734.
Haslam, M., 2006. Potential misidentification of in situ archaeological toolresidues: Starch and conidia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 114e121.
Hather, J., 1993. An Archaeobotanical Guide to Root and Tuber Identification,
Vol. I: Europe and South West Asia. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Hays, M., Lucas, G., 2000. A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France. J. Field Archaeol. 27,
455e465.
Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W., 2003. The origin of modern human behavior: Critique of the models and their test implications. Curr. Anthropol. 44,
627e651.
Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Marean, C., Milo, R., Yates, R., 2001. An early
bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South
Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631e678.
Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C.,
Duller, G.A.T., Mercier, N., Sealy, J.C., Valladas, H., Watts, I.,
Wintle, A.G., 2002. Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone
Age engravings from South Africa. Science 295, 1278e1280.
Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Van Niekerk, K., Jacobs, Z.,
2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404.
Hoadley, R., 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools.
Taunton Press, Newtown.
Hurcombe, L., 1988. Some criticisms and suggestions in response to Newcomer, et al. (1986). J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 1e10.
Jahren, A.H., Toth, N., Schick, K., Clark, J.D., Amundson, R.G., 1997. Determining stone tool use: Chemical and morphological analyses of
Author's personal copy
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
residues on experimentally manufactured stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24,
245e250.
Kardulias, N., Yerkes, R., 1996. Microwear and metric analysis of threshing
sledge flints from Greece and Cyprus. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 657e666.
Kealhoffer, L., Torrence, R., Fullagar, R., 1999. Integrating phytoliths within
use-wear/residue studies of stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 527e546.
Klein, R.G., 1995. Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins. J. World
Prehist. 9, 167e198.
Klein, R., 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins,
second ed. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Knight, C., Powers, C., Watts, I., 1995. The human symbolic revolution: A
Darwinian account. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 5, 75e114.
Kuhn, S.L., 1991. ‘‘Unpacking reduction’’: Lithic raw material economy in the
Mousterian of west-central Italy. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 10, 76e106.
Kuhn, S.L., 1992. Blank form and reduction as determinants of Mousterian
scraper morphology. Am. Antiq. 57, 115e128.
Larson, G., 1986. The Far Side Gallery 2. Andrews McMeel, Kansas City.
Lombard, M., 2004. Distribution patterns of organic residues on Middle Stone
Age points from Sibudu Cave, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. S. Afr.
Archaeol. Bull. 59, 37e44.
Lombard, M., 2005. Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone
Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A multianalytical
approach. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 279e300.
Loy, T.H., Wood, A.R., 1989. Blood residue analysis at Çayönü Tepesi, Turkey. J. Field Archaeol. 16, 451e460.
Loy, T.H., Spriggs, M., Wickler, S., 1992. Direct evidence for human use of
plants 28,000 years ago: starch residues on stone artefacts from the northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66, 898e912.
Loy, T.H., 1993. The artifact as site: An example of the biomolecular analysis
of organic residues on prehistoric tools. World Archaeol. 25, 44e63.
Mansur-Franchomme, M.E., 1986. Microscopie du Matériel Lithique Préhistorique: Traces d’Utilisation, Altération Naturelles, Accidentelles, et Technologiques. CNRS, Paris.
Marean, C., Kim, S.Y., 1998. Mousterian large-mammal remains from Kobeh
Cave: Behavioral implications for Neanderthals and early modern humans.
Curr. Anthropol. 39, S79eS113.
Marks, A.E., Hietala, H.J., Williams, J.K., 2001. Tool standardization in the
Middle and Upper Paleolithic: A closer look. Cambridge Archaeol. J.
11, 17e44.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e
563.
McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of
early homininds. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 655e663.
Mellars, P., 1989a. Major issues in the origins of modern humans. Curr.
Anthropol. 30, 349e385.
Mellars, P., 1989b. Technological changes across the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition: Economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In:
Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and
Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 338e365.
Mellars, P., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective
from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Mellars, P., 2005. The impossible coincidence: A single-species model for the
origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evol. Anthropol. 14, 12e27.
Milo, R., 1998. Evidence for hominid predation at Klasies River Mouth, South
Africa, and its implications for the behavior of early modern humans. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 25, 99e133.
Moss, E.H., 1987. A review of ‘‘Investigating microwear polishes with blind
tests.’’ J. Archaeol. Sci. 14, 473e481.
Münzel, S.C., Conard, N.J., 2004. Change and continuity in subsistence in the
Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Ach Valley of Swabia (south-west
Germany). Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 14, 225e243.
Newcomer, M., Grace, R., Unger-Hamilton, R., 1986. Investigating microwear
polishes with blind tests. J. Archaeol. Sci. 13, 203e217.
Newcomer, M., Grace, R., Unger-Hamilton, R., 1988. Microwear methodology: A reply to Moss, Hurcombe, and Bamforth. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15,
25e33.
661
Niven, L., 2006. The Palaeolithic Occupation of Vogelherd Cave: Implications
for the Subsistence Behavior of Late Neanderthals and Early Modern
Humans. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.
Odell, G., Odell-Vereecken, F., 1980. Verifying the reliability of lithic usewear assessments by ‘‘blind tests’’: The low-power approach. J. Field
Archaeol. 7, 87e120.
Owen, L.R., 1988. Blade and Microblade Technology: Selected Assemblages from the North American Arctic and the Upper Paleolithic of
Southwest Germany. British Archaeological Reports International Series,
Oxford.
Pearsall, D., 2000. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, second ed.
Academic Press, New York.
Révillion, S., Tuffreau, A. (Eds.), 1994. Les Industries Laminaires au Paléolithique Moyen. CNRS, Paris.
Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000. Thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the late Middle and early
Upper Palaeolithic site of Geißenklösterle Cave in southern Germany. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 27, 71e89.
Riek, G., 1934. Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I: Die Kulturen. Akademische Buchhandlung Franz F. Heine, Tübingen.
Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economic
behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. Am. Antiq. 69, 257e
274.
Riel-Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A., 2001. Grave markers: Middle and early Upper
Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contemporary Paleolithic research. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 449e481.
Rogers, J.D., Dove, C.J., Heacker, M., Graves, G., 2002. Identification of
feathers in textiles from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. SE
Archaeol. 21, 245e251.
Rots, V., Williamson, B.S., 2004. Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: The contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. J. Archaeol. Sci.
31, 1287e1299.
Shea, J.J., 1988. Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. J.
Field Archaeol. 15, 441e450.
Shea, J.J., 1989. A functional study of the lithic industries associated with
hominid fossils in the Kebara and Qafzeh caves, Israel. In: Mellars, P.,
Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh, pp. 611e625.
Shea, J.J., 1992. Lithic microwear analysis in archaeology. Evol. Anthropol. 1,
143e150.
Shott, M.J., Bradbury, A., Carr, P.J., Odell, G.H., 1999. Flake size from platform attributes: Experimental and empirical approaches. J. Archaeol. Sci.
27, 877e894.
Sobolik, K.D., 1996. Lithic organic residue analysis: An example from the
Southwest Archaic. J. Field Archaeol. 23, 461e469.
Teerink, B.J., 1991. Hair of West European Mammals: Atlas and Identification
Key. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Teyssandier, N., 2003. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Discussion à
partir des sites de Geissenklösterle, Willendorf II, Krems-Hundssteig et
Bacho Kiro. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris X-Nanterre.
Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the
Swabian Alb: The relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklösterle (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In:
Zilh~ao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of
the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia,
Lisboa, pp. 179e196.
Teyssandier, N., Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. The early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,
Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 241e256.
Thackeray, A., 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the Limpopo River. J.
World Prehist. 6, 385e440.
Tomášková, S., 2000. The Nature of Difference: History and Lithics at Two
Upper Paleolithic Sites in central Europe. British Archaeological Reports
International Series, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Author's personal copy
662
B.L. Hardy et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 648e662
Tomášková, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, technology, and interregional
comparison. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theory 12, 79e115.
Wadley, L., 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 11,
201e221.
Wadley, L., Lombard, M., Williamson, B., 2004. The first residue analysis
blind tests: Results and lessons learnt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1491e
1501.
White, T.D., 1991. Human Osteology. Academic Press, New York.
Williamson, B.S., 1996. Preliminary stone tool residue analysis from Rose
Cottage Cave. S. Afr. J. Field Archaeol. 5, 36e44.
Zarillo, S., Kooyman, B., 2006. Evidence for berry and maize processing on
the Canadian Plains from starch grain analysis. Am. Antiq. 71, 473e499.
Zilh~ao, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of ‘‘behavioral modernity.’’ J. Archaeol. Res. 15,
1e54.