CVIII / 2017 PEER-REVIEWED OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL FOUNDED 1854 INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CZECH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, PRAGUE, V. V. I.

Transkript

1 CVIII / 2017 PEER-REVIEWED OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL FOUNDED 1854 INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CZECH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, PRAGUE, V. V. I.

2 Editor Michal ERNÉE, Editorial Board Miroslav BÁRTA, Martin BARTELHEIM, François BERTEMES, Miroslav DOBEŠ, Eduard DROBERJAR, Václav FURMÁNEK, Martin JEŽEK, Petr KOČÁR, Martin KUNA, Michal LUTOVSKÝ, Karel NOVÁČEK, Rudolf PROCHÁZKA, Lubor SMEJTEK, Petr ŠKRDLA, Jaroslav TEJRAL, Martin TOMÁŠEK, Peter TREBSCHE Technical Editor Ivana HERGLOVÁ, Type-setting, Layout Agama poly-grafický ateliér, s. r. o., Na Výši 424/4, Praha 5, Czech Republic, Cover design Michal ERNÉE Print TISKÁRNA PROTISK, s.r.o., Czech Republic Open Access since 2015 available for free on: The journal Památky archeologické is indexed and abstracted in Arts and Humanities Citation Index (Web of Science ) by Thomson Scientific. The journal Památky archeologické is also indexed or abstracted in SCOPUS (SJR 2016: 0,156), ERIH, EBSCO and Ulrich s Periodicals Directory. Vydává Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, Praha, v. v. i. Published by the Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, V. V. I. Registrováno pod ev. č. MK E 4240 Redakce Office: Letenská 4, CZ Praha 1, tel.: , pamatky@arup.cas.cz Rozšiřuje, informace o předplatném podává a objednávky přijímá: DUPRESS, Podolská 110, CZ Praha 4, Czech Republic, tel.: , dupress@seznam.cz Orders from abroad: SUWECO CZ s. r. o., Klečákova 347, CZ Praha 9, Czech Republic, tel.: , suweco@suweco.cz KUBON & SAGNER, Buchexport/Import, D Munich, Germany, fax: , tel.: , order@kubon-sagner.de RUDOLF HABELT GmbH, Am Buchenhang 1, D Bonn, Germany, fax: / , tel.: / , info@habelt.de Toto číslo vyšlo v prosinci 2017 v nákladu 600 výtisků Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, V. V. I.; Prague 2017 ISSN

3 Obsah Contents Inhalt Yuri E. Demidenko Petr Škrdla Ladislav Nejman Aurignacian in Moravia. New geochronological, lithic and settlement data Aurignacian na Moravě. Nové poznatky o geochronologii, kamenné industrii a osídlení Jindřich Hlas Stanislav Stuchlík Lukáš Šín Únětické pohřebiště v Opavě-Vávrovicích Aunjetitzer Gräberfeld in Opava-Vávrovice Ondřej Chvojka Miloslav Chytráček Milan Metlička Jan Michálek Jantar střední až pozdní doby bronzové v Čechách Bernstein der mittleren bis späten Bronzezeit in Böhmen Miloslav Chytráček Martin Golec Ondřej Chvojka Milan Metlička Jan Michálek Miroslava Novotná Drahomíra Frolíková Jantar starší doby železné a průběh jantarové stezky ve střední Evropě Bernstein der älteren Eisenzeit und der Verlauf der Bernsteinstraße in Mitteleuropa Kateřina Břečková Středověké sklo z Opavy II. Nálezy skla z archeologických výzkumů na ulici Masařská 6, Pekařská Kolářská a Mnišská Mezi Trhy Medieval glass from Opava II. Glass finds from archaeological excavations at Masařská St 6, Pekařská Kolářská and Mnišská Mezi Trhy Recenze Reviews Rezensionen Milan Lička, Osídlení ze starší etapy vývoje kultury s vypíchanou keramikou ve Mšeně. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 43 (rec. Pavel Burgert) Michal Ernée, Prag-Miškovice. Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu Grabbau, Bestattungssitten und Inventaren einer frühbronzezeitlichen Nekropole. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Band 72 (rec. Jaroslav Peška) Rupert Gebhard Rüdiger Krause, Bernstorf. Archäologisch-naturwissenschaftliche Analysen der Gold- und Bernsteinfunde vom Bernstorfer Berg bei Kranzberg, Oberbayern. Bernstorf-Forschungen 1 (rec. Michal Ernée) Martin Hohlbein, Die Messer in Süd- und Westdeutschland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung VII, Band 6 (rec. Luboš Jiráň) Ute Luise Dietz Albrecht Jockenhövel /Hrsg./, 50 Jahre Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XX, Band 14 (rec. Ondřej Chvojka) Mojca Jereb, Die Bronzegefäße in Slowenien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung II, Band 19 (rec. Miloslav Chytráček) Claire Taylor Kostas Vlassopoulos /Eds./, Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World (rec. Denis Hakszer) Susanne Sievers Matthias Leicht Bernward Ziegaus, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Manching-Altenfeld 1996 bis Teil 1: Text und Beilagen. Teil 2: Text. Die Ausgrabungen in Manching, Band 18 (rec. Alžběta Danielisová) Christopher Gosden Sally Crawford Katharina Ulmschneider /eds./, Celtic Art in Europe. Making connections. Essays in honour of Vincent Megaw on his 80 th birthday (rec. Jan Kysela) Venceslas Kruta, L art des Celtes (rec. Jan Bouzek) Hans-Ulrich Voß Nils Müller-Scheeßel /Hrsg./, Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im Reich und im Barbaricum ausgewählte Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung, Kleingerät, Münzen). Teil I II. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Band 22, 1-2 (rec. Vladimír Varsik) Kay Ehling, Konstantin 312 (rec. Boris Stoklas) Sebastian Messal, Glienke. Eine Slawische Burg des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts im östlichen Mecklenburg. Frühmittelalterarchäologie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer, Band 5 (rec. Jan Hasil) Marcus Gerds Michael Wolf, Das Gräberfeld des frühmittelalterlichen Seehandsplatzes von Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg Die Menschen und ihre Lebensumstände Groß Strömkendorf Reric. Frühmittelalterliche Archäologie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer, Band 6,1 a 6,2 (rec. Renáta Přichystalová) Jiří Macháček Petr Dresler Renáta Přichystalová Vladimír Sládek, Břeclav - Pohansko VII. Kostelní pohřebiště na Severovýchodním předhradí. Spisy Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity 455 (rec. Naďa Profantová) PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

4 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

5 Aurignacian in Moravia New geochronological, lithic and settlement data Aurignacian na Moravě Nové poznatky o geochronologii, kamenné industrii a osídlení Yuri E. Demidenko Petr Škrdla Ladislav Nejman Předloženo redakci v prosinci 2016, upravená verze v březnu 2017 Moravia is situated in the heart of Central Europe and in the immediate vicinity of the Danube River valley. This river valley is often mentioned as the main pathway for Aurignacian Homo sapiens migrations throughout Central Europe and the Balkans. Moravia has always been well-known for its rich Aurignacian record, but this record was mainly based on artifacts from surface find spots with very few in situ sites so industrial homogeneity of the assemblages was often questioned and the proposed ideas and hypotheses regarding the Moravian Aurignacian were often treated with scepticism. Until the end of last century there were only four known stratified and dated Aurignacian sites in Moravia: Mladeč caves, Stránská skála open-air site complex, Vedrovice Ia and Milovice I. At the beginning of the XXI century one of us (P. Š.) has found and excavated three more Aurignacian sites in Moravia - Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě, Líšeň VIII / Líšeň - Nad výhonem and Napajedla III / Napajedla - Zámoraví. These discoveries almost doubled the number of in situ, dated sites for the Moravian Aurignacian. Our study of the new sites and their finds, as well as some more considerations of the previously obtained Aurignacian data, allow us to say that the Moravian Aurignacian geochronologically postdates the HE 4 / CI eruption interval dating to the GI-8 GI-5 period with absolute dates ranging from ca ka to ka cal BP. The Aurignacian artifact assemblages are grouped into Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian industry and the newly defined Evolved Aurignacian industry type with Góra Puławska II-type microliths. Also, detailed artifact analyses point out significant variability in site activity areas around Stránská skála and Líšeň chert outcrops for the latter Evolved Aurignacian. At the same time, the new Aurignacian II / Middle Aurignacian Moravian data also open new possibilities for a better understanding of this rather rare transitional industry between Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian and Evolved Aurignacian in Europe. Central Europe, Moravia, in situ new sites, Middle and Evolved Aurignacian, settlement pattern peculiarities Morava, situovaná v srdci střední Evropy a v bezprostřední blízkosti údolí Dunaje, který je předpokládanou hlavní migrační trasou aurignackých Homo sapiens přes střední Evropu a Balkán, byla vždy známá pro své bohaté aurignacké osídlení. Protože aurignacien byl doložen zejména na základě artefaktů z povrchových lokalit, které doplňovalo pouze několik lokalit stratifikovaných, byla homogenita těchto souborů často zpochybňována a předkládané poznatky a hypotézy týkající se moravského aurignacienu byly často přijímány skepticky. Do konce minulého století byly známy pouze čtyři stratifikované a datované lokality aurignacienu: Mladečské jeskyně, komplex lokalit pod širým nebem na Stránské skále, Vedrovice Ia a Milovice I. Na počátku XXI. století jeden z nás (P. Š.) nalezl a prozkoumal tři další aurignacké lokality na Moravě Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě, Líšeň VIII / Líšeň - Nad výhonem a Napajedla III / Napajedla - Zámoraví. Tyto objevy téměř zdvojnásobily počet stratifikovaných a datovaných lokalit moravského aurignacienu. Studium těchto nových lokalit a nálezů z nich, i s přihlédnutím k dříve získaným poznatkům o aurignacienu, nám umožňují moravský aurignacien geochronologicky situovat do intervalu v rozmezí ca ka až ka cal BP, tj. do období grónských interglaciálů GI-8 GI-5, které následovaly HE 4 / CI erupci. Soubory aurignackých artefaktů náleží do aurignacienu II / středního aurignacienu a nově definovaného vyvinutého aurignacienu s mikrolity typu Góra Puławska II. Detailní analýza artefaktů ze Stránské skály a Líšně ukazuje, že ve vyvinutém aurignacienu byly sídelní aktivity v prostoru výchozu suroviny značně variabilní. Současně otevírají nová moravská data pro aurignacien II / střední aurignacien více možností pro lepší poznání této poněkud vzácné přechodné industrie mezi aurignacienem I / časným aurignacienem a vyvinutým aurignacienem v Evropě. Střední Evropa, Morava, nové stratifikované lokality, střední a vyvinutý aurignacien, zvláštnosti sídelní struktury 1. Introduction The Aurignacian technocomplex of the Early UP period has often been considered as a proxy for the first Homo sapiens in Europe while bearing features of the socalled full package of modern human behavior (e.g. Mellars 1989; 2006). The significance of the Aurignacian as possessing truly Upper Paleolithic characteristics has also been based on its material culture and manifestly symbolic objects. Moreover, the Aurignacian has almost always been regarded as representing Homo sapiens transgression into the European Neanderthal homeland resulting in the disappearance of Neanderthals and their complete replacement by Homo sapi- PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

6 ens (anatomically modern humans - AMHs). At the same time, other Early UP technocomplexes have been identified in some parts of the European continent. They are either directly associated with Neanderthals (Châtelperronian in Western Europe), or thought to be associated with Neanderthals without direct proof (Uluzzian in Western Europe, Szeletian in Central Europe, Kostenki-Streletskian / Eastern Szeletian in Eastern Europe). Different degrees of acculturation have been proposed to account for the specific similarities and differences between the Aurignacian AMHs and local Neanderthals at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic interface (e.g. Mellars 1989; 1996; Hublin 2000; Valoch 2000). On the other hand, Central Europe (Bohunician sites in Moravia and Eastern Slovakia; Korolevo II site, layer II in Ukrainian Transcarpathian region) and western part of Eastern Europe (Kulychivka site in Western Ukraine) do witness the presence of the third technocomplex for the Transitional / Early UP time period that is now called Initial UP / Early Emiran, where the latter term was proposed by one of us (Yu.D.) during Leipzig MPI 2013 I Upper Paleolithic workshop (e.g. Gladilin Demidenko 1989; Usik 1989; Demidenko Usik 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; Tostevin 2000; 2012; Demidenko 2013a; Svoboda Bar-Yosef, O. /eds./ 2003; Škrdla 2003; Škrdla Nikolajev 2014; Kuhn Zwyns 2014). The Central European Initial UP with its distribution into western Eastern Europe do certainly comes into Europe from the East Mediterranean Levant (see Marks /ed./ 1983). It is very likely to have been produced initially by Arabian AMHs (see Demidenko 2013b; Rose Marks 2014) bringing with them into Europe many modern human behavior features including, for example, the recently discovered pierced Tertiary mollusc shells (at the Bohunician site Líšeň / Podolí I), some with residues of ochre, originally used as necklaces (unpublished results of excavations). Recognition of the various Initial UP technocomplexes in Central Europe has led some authors to propose that the Bohunician played a role in acculturation (stimulus diffusion) leading to the development of the local Szeletian technocomplex (Tostevin 2000; 2012; Nigst 2012). Having identified three distinct technocomplexes in the transitional / Initial UP / Early UP time period in Central Europe, it is necessary to refine our understanding of their geochronological and industrial positions. This will make it possible to assess the role of each technocomplex for that time period. Over the last 12 years, fourteen new in situ Initial UP / Early UP sites have been discovered by refining a survey method (GPS Assisted Survey combined with GIS analysis) (Škrdla Nejman Rychtaříková 2016). Excavations have already begun at some of these sites in Moravia (Škrdla 2017). Adding to the new Moravian data some other related information from other Central European regions and especially concerning Aurignacian sites, a modified mosaic geochronological and industrial picture can now be proposed. Newly discovered and excavated Aurignacian sites in Southern Moravia will significantly help in understanding aspects of the early UP record. Also, detailed analyses of Aurignacian lithic assemblage data will allow us to trace site settlement patterns and land use variability, in turn leading to a better understanding of the Aurignacian culture on a pan-european and pan-western Eurasian scale. 2. Moravia: a geographical setting Moravia (Fig. 1) is situated in the catchment of the Morava River in-between the western Carpathians and the Bohemian Massif, and is also at the intersection of two main pan-european connecting migration routes: a north-south route connecting the Mediterranean region and the Balkan Peninsula with the north European lowlands along the Danube, Morava, and Oder Rivers, and an east-west route along the Danube River (e.g. Svoboda Ložek Vlček 1996; Lisá et al. 2013). During the maximum extension of both ice sheets Alpine and Fennoscandinavian the Moravian landscape was a periglacial zone allowing people movement along its rivers from south to north and vice versa. The river valleys and mountain ridges played a significant role in directing Initial UP / Early UP human group migrations into Central Europe and the regions within. In addition, the Danube River valley acted as a corridor for people movements into the Swabian Jura ( Danube Corridor hypothesis) for Aurignacian humans (Conard Bolus 2003), with the Moravian region a pivotal area for these hypothesized movements. Thus Moravia presents as a potential zone of contact during the expected time of contact of the AMHs and the local Neanderthals (e.g. Zilhao 2006; Tostevin 2007; Škrdla Rychtaříková 2012). Likewise for the Aurignacian, Moravia also plays a central role being located between Swabian Jura (Geißenklösterle cave, AH III; Hohle Fels cave, AH Vb) in southern Germany, Wachau Gate (Willendorf II openair site, AH 3) in Lower Austria and Banat (Româneşti- Dumbrăviţa I open-air site, GH 3) in south-western Romania. This has given rise to Moravia being labeled as transitory bridge for the three regions known for their in situ and dated Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian and Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian sites in Central Europe. 3. Bohunician and Szeletian Geochronology A wide range of dating techniques including 14 C, TL, and OSL methods have been employed for dating the Bohunician (Richter Tostevin Škrdla 2008; Richter et al. 2009, with ref.; Nejman et al. 2011, with ref.). While the 14 C results (calibrated ages respectively) from key sites (Bohunice, Stránská skála, Ořechov and Líšeň) show a relatively wide time range spanning GIS- 12 to GIS-9 for the Bohunician occupation of Moravia (Škrdla 2017, with ref.), the TL dating of the Bohunice 2002 artifacts is often considered as the most authoritative age estimate and has produced a weighted mean average of 48.2 ± 1.9 kya (Richter Tostevin Škrdla 2008). When summarizing OSL dating attempts available for Bohunice and Stránská skála, the dates show higher scattering than expected so more geochronological work is needed to clarify the relationships between geological layers and the cultural material they contain. Until very recent times the available 14 C dates for the so-called Early Szeletian in Moravia (sites Vedrovice V, 6 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

7 Towns State borders Aurignacian site DEM Moravia Fig. 1. Map of Moravia with location of sites mentioned in text. 1 Vedrovice Ia; 2, 3 Stránská skála II and III; 4, 5 Líšeň - Čtvrtě and Nad výhonem; 6 Milovice I; 7 Mladeč Caves; 8 Napajedla Zámoraví. Editor drawing based on authors materials. Obr. 1. Mapa Moravy s vyznačením lokalit zmíněných v textu. 1 Vedrovice Ia; 2, 3 Stránská skála II a III; 4, 5 Líšeň - Čtvrtě a Nad výhonem; 6 Milovice I; 7 Mladečské jeskyně; 8 Napajedla Zámoraví. Kresba redakce, podklady autoři. Moravský Krumlov IV, Želešice III) were in the range of ca. 43,000 42,000 cal BP associated with GIS-11 and GIS-10 (e.g. Valoch 1993; Davies Nerudová 2009; Kaminská Kozłowski Škrdla 2011). Now, however, some more older 14 C dates for Vedrovice V (Haesaerts et al. 2013) and Želešice III (Škrdla 2017) do shift the older limit for the Moravian Early Szeletian to ca. 46,000 cal BP and GIS-12, enveloping the time period in between ca. 46 and 42,000 cal BP, GIS-12 GIS-10. These new older dates are important in the Szeletian geochronological comparison to the Bohunician 14 C dates being ca. 46,000 40,000 cal BP and GIS-12 GIS-9 (Škrdla 2013; 2017). Based on the new (older) 14 C dates for the Moravian Early Szeletian, it does not appear to be younger than the Bohunician, but similar in age to other Initial UP / Early UP technocomplexes in Central Europe (Škrdla 2017, Fig. 5). 4. Early Aurignacian & Proto-Aurignacian Geochronology The geochronology of the Aurignacian culture is complex and several phases have been proposed (e.g. Bar- Yosef Zilhao /eds./ 2006; Demidenko 2003; 2004; ). It is vital to establish the ages of the earliest Aurignacian sites in Central Europe so they can be compared geochronologically to the Bohunician and Szeletian Initial and Early UP technocomplexes. Two Central European Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian site clusters with distinctive reliably dated artifact assemblages Geißenklösterle, AH III in Swabian Jura and Willendorf II, AH 3 at Wachau Gate have already been mentioned. Willendorf has a useful set of analyzed data with an age for its archaeological horizon 3 of ca. 43,500 cal BP (beginning of GIS-11) obtained on charcoal samples (Nigst et al. 2014). Also, the lithic assemblage recovered from horizon 3 undoubtedly demonstrates techno-typological characteristics of Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian (Nigst 2012). Archaeological horizon III at Geißenklösterle has a slightly younger oldest 14 C date age determinations on animal bones (including cut-marked bones), producing a time range ca to ca. 40 ka cal BP (GIS-11 GIS-9) (Higham et al. 2012; Nigst et al. 2014). The Geißenklösterle, AH III lithic and organic artifacts fit well with the industrial criteria for the Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian industry (Conard Bolus 2006). The only relevant but TL dated Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian site in Central Europe is Româneşti- Dumbrăviţa I, GH 3 (Romania). A recent excavation PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

8 Fig. 2. Calibrated radiocarbon ages of main IUP & EUP techno-comlexes in Moravia. Dates were calibrated using CalPal 2014 software (Weninger Jöris 2008) on IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013) curve. Obr. 2. Kalibrovaná radiokarbonová stáří hlavních IUP & EUP technokomplexů na Moravě. Data byla kalibrována s využitím programu CalPal 2014 (Weninger Jöris 2008) na křivce IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013) ( ) has unearthed Proto-Aurignacian lithics in horizon 3. The average absolute age is 40,6 ± 1500 ka cal BP (Schmidt et al. 2013, 3750) and it correlates geochronologically with GIS-10 and GIS-9 (Nigst et al. 2014). At the same time, the claimed combination of Proto- and Early Aurignacian traits (Schmidt et al. 2013, 3751) for Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I lithic assemblages originating from and excavations, even calling for a new industry label Aurignacian 0.5 (Sitlivy et al. 2012, ), however this should be rejected in favor of Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian attribution. The mixed techno-typological features of lithic artefacts at Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I appeared because a series of differing lithic artifact types were incorrectly classified as carinated blade / bladelet cores (Sitlivy et al. 2012, Figs. 8 9). True carinated cores should have only bladelet removal negatives in a similar vein to Aurignacian blades (Sitlivy et al. 2012, Figs. 22: 2, 4; 23: 2, 4; 26: 1; 27: 1, 3 6; 36: 4, 6) possessing only scalar retouch and not stepped retouch. Likewise, carinated / busked burins (Sitlivy et al. 2012, Figs. 25: 1 3; 26: 3), are carinated multifaceted burins with more than 3 burin spall removal negatives on one burin edge. Such pieces with three (or less) negative burin spall removal scars are classified as dihedral burins. As a result of the incorrect classification, the Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I assemblage appeared to combine techno-typological features of Proto-, Early and Evolved Aurignacian, however it is simply regular Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian. In addition to Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, another central European Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian site, located in the neighboring Balkans, is Kozarnika Cave, layer VII. This site is located in northwestern Bulgaria in the Danube River valley (Tsanova 2006). It has been dated slightly older than Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I to between 39,310 ± 100 uncal BP (Gifa-99662) and 36,200 ± 510 uncal BP (Gifa-99706) (Guadelli et al. 2005), or ca. 43,400 41,300 cal BP (Hublin 2015). All in all, now the securely dated both Aurignacian 0 / Proto-Aurignacian (Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I, GH 3 and Kozarnika Cave, layer VII) and Aurignacian I / Early Aurignacian (Willendorf II, AH 3 and Geißenklösterle, AH III) sites in Central Europe and the Balkans do demonstrate a geochronological co-existence with only the later Bohunician and Szeletian dates (GIS-11 GIS-9). Geochronologically speaking, it is unlikely that the Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian acculturation / trans-cultural diffusion / stimulus diffusion influenced the Central European Late Micoquian Neanderthals in their industrial transformation into Early Szeletian. For the Bohunician / Initial UP such process has already been suggested (Tostevin 2000). The Bohunician, Szeletian and Protoand Early Aurignacian sites are all chronologically similar as they date to the time span ca ka cal BP (GI-12 - GI-9). This predates the very cold conditions of North Atlantic Heinrich Event 4, coinciding with the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) eruption (Fig. 2). Finally, it is also worth noting that after a long but still continuing dating program, Geißenklösterle and Hohle Fels caves appear to chronologically correspond to Aurignacian 0 and Aurignacian I (Conard Bolus 2008; Conard 2009; Riehl et al. 2013; G. Bataille personal communication October 2016). If this is correct (there is no consensus yet on the Hohle Fels dates), Early Aurignacian might be almost as old as the earliest dates for the Bohunician and Szeletian. Additionally looking at Figure 2 and the Early Aurignacian Willendorf II, AH 3 dates and their comparisons to the Bohunician and Szeletian dates, their geochronological co-existence is apparent, but the dating is still inadequate so more dating is still required. 5. Moravian Aurignacian chronological & industrial record prior to the 21 st century It has already been noted many years ago that Moravia has yielded the highest concentration of Aurignacian sites east of France meaning a hundred locations with 8 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

9 Aurignacian lithic artifacts, but the problem was that most assemblages are from surface collections that are potentially mixed and lack of stratigraphic and spatial data constitute serious limitations for Moravian Aurignacian research (Oliva 1993a, 37). This situation did not change much for over 20 years that followed. Stratified and dated Aurignacian sites in Moravia were known at only four locations: Mladeč cave, Stránská skála, Vedrovice Ia and Milovice I. The sites can be succinctly summarized as follows Mladeč cave was unsystematically excavated during several field campaigns at the end of 19 th /beginning of 20 th century by J. Szombathy and then by some amateur researchers (Svoboda 2006; Oliva 2006). In addition to the well known skeletal remains of Homo sapiens, other items recovered include bone points with a wide base that were later called Mladeč points, awls, perforated teeth of various animals, different partially worked and/or ornamented bones, and about 20 lithic artifacts. The association between the human remains and archaeological artifacts are unclear. The cultural attribution of the recovered artifacts was never clear, although Aurignacian affiliation was usually suggested (e.g. Oliva 1987). The Mladeč bone points are quite similar (but not the same) to D. Peyrony s Aurignacien II pointe losangique aplatie (Peyrony 1933, Fig. 11, 2) and the only typologically diagnostic lithic pieces are a thick nosed endscraper-core and a carinated burin suggesting a Middle and/or Evolved Aurignacian affiliation. This is consistent with M. Oliva s characterisation The only culturally significant lithic artifact is the Aurignacian nose-shaped scraper found in the entrance area (Oliva 2006, 55). The Mladeč human bone material from Szombathy s excavation currently deposited at the Vienna Naturhistorisches Museum was redated (Wild et al. 2005). The uncalibrated dates produced calibrated age estimates between ka cal BP (see Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1) and do not contradict the suggested non- Proto- or Early Aurignacian. As the finds were recovered deeply in the cave close to foot of cone infilling the Dome of Death from the surface, J. Svoboda (2006a, with ref.) proposed burial cave hypothesis predicting that cave was entered through in Paleolithic opened chimney and used as a burial site only. K. Valoch and M. Oliva (Oliva 2006, with ref.) present a contrasting hypothesis, arguing that the chimney was inaccessible during Aurignacian times and people entered the cave through a natural entrance from the valley and used as a residential or ritual place Stránská skála open-air site complex (Stránská skála IIa, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIIf), was systematically excavated by J. Svoboda in the 1980s (Svoboda 1987; 1991; Svoboda Bar-Yosef /eds./ 2003). The resultant uncalibrated dates on charcoal samples for Aurignacian layers were also later calibrated (Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1). They again demonstrate a non-proto- or Early Aurignacian age in a range of ka cal BP. From techno-typological point of view, the Stránská skála Aurignacian lithic assemblages are very similar with the presence of serial bladelet carinated cores and carinated endscraper-cores, but no carinated burin-cores and microliths. The absence of the microliths can be explained by the fact that no dry screening or wet sieving was performed during the 1980s excavations. Although the Stránská skála Aurignacian assemblages were attributed to the Middle Aurignacian in the 1980s early 2000s (by J. Svoboda), they should now be seen as Late / Evolved Aurignacian based on the presence of numerous surface Late / Epi- Aurignacian assemblages, while Napajedla should be seen as Middle Aurignacian Vedrovice Ia and Milovice I open-air sites were excavated by M. Oliva in the 1980s. Detailed artifact descriptions or final reports have not been published as yet. Vedrovice Ia situation is the most complicated. The only existing article on the site (Oliva 1993b) does not provide any useful information about the lithic artifacts. Some of the artifacts have been refitted though by Z. Nerudová. Two OSL dates and an ESR date on a horse tooth from the cultural layer have all yielded ages consistent with an Aurignacian antiquity (Nejman et al. 2011). Milovice I site has more published data (Oliva 1989; 1993b; 2009) and it was also 14 C dated using charcoal samples: sector L, lower Aurignacian horizon GrN-22108: 32,030 ± 370 BP; sector L, upper Aurignacian horizon GrN ,780 ± 230 BP; sector D, upper Aurignacian horizon GrN ,200 ± 950 BP (Oliva 2009, 22 24). Calibrated values cluster at ca ka and ka cal BP (Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1). Although not even the number of discovered artifacts has been published, we have some basic information about some of the artifacts, we know that no artifacts made from organic materials were found and we also know that some faunal material has been recovered from the Aurignacian cultural layer. The assemblage is said to be characterized by the following features. Both blades and prismatic cores with parallel scars are very rare, however, bladelet-like retouch can be found on carinated and nosed scrapers representing the fundamental part of retouched types. Other implements do not occur as often: flat end-scrapers, burins (usually simple variants), retouched blades, notches and denticulates. Finely worked small side-scrapers and abruptly retouched flakes are very interesting (Oliva 1989, 268). The tool descriptions also include some published illustrations. Vedrovice Ia needs more publications for understanding its finds and Mladeč cave is still an unknown regarding industrial attribution of its artifacts. 6. New in situ Aurignacian sites in Moravia Initial UP and Early UP site surveys over the last 10 years (Škrdla Nejman Rychtaříková 2016), have discovered 3 more Aurignacian sites (that were subsequently excavated), almost doubling the number of known stratified sites. Two new sites are within the PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

10 Brno basin on the cadastral territory of Líšeň: Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě site (Škrdla et al. 2010) and Líšeň VIII / Líšeň - Nad výhonem (Škrdla et al. 2011) and the third site in the Napajedla Gate area (Eastern Moravia), Napajedla III / Napajedla-Zámoraví (Škrdla 2007; Škrdla et al. 2010) (Fig. 1). In contrast to the earlier excavations (see Svoboda 2006b, 263), the three new sites were excavated using up to date methodology including wetsieving and recording of provenience of all excavated artifacts. This has produced microlithic artifacts (bladelets and microblades) and a fossil pierced shell at one of the sites. In addition, the sites yielded charcoal and animal bone samples for 14 C dating. Initially, the three mentioned sites and their data were published only in local Moravian journals in Czech language which makes it difficult to use for foreign colleagues. Information about these new Aurignacian sites in Moravia will be provided in the present article, as well as some additional information about the previously known sites and their role in the Central European Aurignacian Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě site The site is situated on an extensive elevation (the summit is 331 m) 2 km north-east of Stránská skála cliff. This location allows control of surrounding landscape and easy visibility of Stránská skála with its rich primary chert outcrop. Líšeň - Čtvrtě represents a wellknown and very rich Paleolithic surface artifact cluster with Bohunician (majority of finds), Aurignacian, and possibly Magdalenian / Epigravettian lithic artifacts (e.g. Valoch 1962; Svoboda 1987; Škrdla 2000). Over the last several years P. Matějec has collected a series of fossil horse teeth fragments and artifacts covered by calcium carbonate on the periphery of the surface site cluster (Škrdla Matějec 2009). A series of test pits were dug during fall and winter of 2008 and artifacts were recovered from intact sediments (Škrdla Matějec 2009, Fig. 7). Main excavation was conducted over two weeks in August 2009 (Photo 1) uncovering an area of 18.5 m 2 (Škrdla et al. 2010). The excavated area was located in the immediate southern vicinity of test pits LC01 and LC02 (Škrdla Matějec 2009). More details of this excavation are provided below. Photo 1. Líšeň - Čtvrtě excavation. A view to the south (with Pavlov Hills on the horizon). Photo P. Škrdla. Foto 1. Líšeň - Čtvrtě. Výzkum Pohled k jihu (s Pavlovskými vrchy na horizontu). Foto P. Škrdla. The stratigraphic profile consisted of four main lithological units (Škrdla et al. 2010, Figs. 2 & 4): underlying the topsoil was a layer of loess, followed by a more clayey soil sediment which represented the artifactbearing horizon, and underlying loess. Spatial analysis shows a homogeneous distribution of finds over the excavated area. The artifact-bearing horizon is 40 cm thick and homogeneous i.e. no further stratigraphic subdivision. Analysis of conjoined frost-shattered artifacts indicated only very limited posdepositional movement. In addition to the small lithic assemblage, some other finds were recovered from the cultural horizon during regular excavation process and wet-sieving (3 mm mesh). 14 C dates & ochre pieces. During wet-sieving we recovered seven small lumps of ochre (limonite) and some charcoal pieces dated at Poznan lab 31,300 ± 800 uncal BP (Poz-33038) calibrated to 35,310 ± 770 cal BP (a chronological interval in 37,837 34,478 cal BP) (Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1). Recovered charcoal pieces (a destroyed fireplace / hearth) were spatially very close to a pierced mollusc shell (see below). Pierced fossil shell. The single mollusc shell belongs to marine gastropod species Pirenella picta ssp. (identified by Šárka Hladilová). It is a Tertiary fossil, most probably of Sarmatian age (about mya). The most probable source area is the Sarmatian sediments, a sedimentary member of the Vienna basin in Austria and southern Moravia. Their proximate outcrops can be found for example near Kyjov or Hodonín in southern Moravia (ca km straight line distance from the Líšeň I site). The shell is incomplete. Upper part of the spira and a part of the body whorl are missing. The upper part of the spira is broken off and the body whorl is probably also mechanically damaged. The hole is evidently of anthropogenic origin (modification for suspension?). The shell surface is intensively weathered indicating that the fossil comes most probably from a surface outcrop. This specimen is the only one of its type at the Líšeň I site, making it the first such Aurignacian find in Czech Republic. Fauna, ungulate bone remains. The fauna material (analyzed by Miriam Nývltová Fišáková) was significantly damaged (fretted by soil acids) and only fragments were recovered. Only two bone fragments were taxonomically identified a horse (Equus germanicus) phalang and a possible horse rib. In addition, 8 bone fragments of a large-sized mammal, 1 bone fragment of a medium-sized mammal, 3 bone fragments of a smallsized mammal (fox-sized), and 37 unidentifiable bone fragments were documented. One third of bones show traces of fire. The 2009 excavated fauna material is supplemented by several fragments of horse molars collected on the surface in the vicinity of the excavation (Škrdla Matějec 2009). Malacofauna. Occasional malacofauna fragments were identified by Jiří Kovanda in the wet-sieved fraction. Fourteen fragments belonged to gastropod Helicopsis striata (Müll.), which was characteristic for all areas, but more frequently for warmer periods. Only one small 10 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

11 shell fragment represents a different species, but its taxonomic status is ambiguous because the fragment is undiagnostic. It could be Arianta arbustorum (L.) or Fruticicola fruticum (Müll.). The former possibility is more probable and it could be the subspecies A. a. alpicola (Fér.), which is typical for loessic zoocenoses. Lithic assemblage. No bone artifacts have been found. In fact, bone artifacts have never been found at any surface Aurignacian site in Moravia. The lithic collection consists of 63 excavated lithic pieces recorded in three coordinates supplemented by 98 mainly small-sized items found in the wet-sieved fraction and recorded in 50 x 50 cm blocks horizontally and 4 cm vertically (ca. 10 liters of sediment). Raw material identification was possible for the 63 artifacts recorded in three coordinates. Wet-sieved artifacts were often smaller than 1.5 cm so raw material identification was not possible due to their small size. The dominant raw material (87 %) was Stránská skálatype chert procured from nearby outcrops on the slopes, the top of Stránská skála cliff and from the Líšeň area. Imported raw material was used rarely. Two artifacts were made from erratic flint, two from Drahany-type quartzite, one from Cretaceous spongolite chert, one from Moravian Jurassic chert, and the raw material type of 4 burnt artifacts was not possible to determine. The lithic assemblage numbering 151 pieces (11 conjoined pieces are not included here) has been subdivided into the following categories: Unworked pieces of raw material 2 / 1.4 % / 3.3 % Core-like-pieces 14 / 9.3 % / 23.0 % Core maintenance products (CMP) 5 / 3.3 % / 8.2 % Debitage 34 / 22.5 % / 55.7 % Tools 5 / 3.3 % / 8.2 % Manuport 1 / 0.7 % / 1.6 % Debris 90 / 59.5 % / - Core Reduction Data. The presence of raw material pieces and different types of core-like pieces on chert nodules (2 pre-cores, 8 cores and 4 core fragments) indicates an intensive on-site core reduction processes. The cores were often exhausted or abandoned after they broke following knapping accidents due to poorer quality of raw material (inhomogeneities, cracks). The 8 morphologically identifiable cores are subdivided into 2 flake / blade cores (Fig. 3: 16 17), one blade / bladelet core (Fig. 3: 12) and 5 blade cores (Fig. 3: 11, 13, 18 19, 21). All cores including flake and bladelet cores have had blades removed at some point so that was the dominant product. The same can be said for single-platform unidirectional core reduction. On the one hand, formally, there are only 4 cores with a single-platform and unidirectional order of removal negatives. But, on the other hand, there is no true bidirectional core and all double-platform cores experienced a double singleplatform reduction. The 2 flake / blade cores are double-platform orthogonal indicating that the direction of flaking changed on the same flaking surface. A blade double-platform core is bidirectional-alternate (Fig. 3: 13) with two flaking surfaces. At the end of the first stage, the distal terminations of the negatives were rejuvenated by a removal preparing a second striking platform from which the next reduction stage took place. Thus, there are two independent blade production stages on the same core using single-platform reduction on two different surfaces. The last doubleplatform core is formally a bidirectional one (Fig. 3: 18) but a thorough look at the order of blade removals on its flaking surface indicates usage of the more narrow striking platform for parallel reduction and only then the wider striking platform was used for further unidirectional flaking from the same flaking surface. All in all, the basic core data demonstrate a systematic blade single-platform core reduction for the Líšeň I Aurignacian assemblage. The core sizes range from large to medium (4.2 to 8.8 cm long with a mean of 5.4 cm). This suggests that large-sized blades were produced at the site. Core platform rejuvenation processes were performed by one or two small flake removals and faceting technique was not documented on cores or detached debitage pieces. Five cores are completely exhausted with no further reduction possible. Three cores still possess potential for some reduction. The former non-volumetric cores indicate intensive reduction to core exhaustion when flaking surfaces became rather flat. Core Maintenance Products (CMP). These 5 pieces are all crested and they include the following items: 1 technologically unidentifiable fragmented core trimming element, one complete crested blade, one secondary crested blade (distal segment), 1 complete crested bladelet and one re-crested microblade (Fig. 3: 3). The technological variability of crested bladey pieces shows many aspects of the on-site blade and bladelet core reductions. At the same time, other CMP sub-categories are missing in the assemblage. The already noted blade core striking platform rejuvenation processes by small flake removals might partially explain the absence of core tablets. But the absence of specific lateral / fronto-lateral nosed / carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes (see Le Brun-Ricalens 2005; Nigst 2012) indicates the absence of nosed / carinated endscraper-core reduction. Thus, the incompleteness of CMP confirms mainly blade core reduction processes at the site that continued with bladelet reductions, signs of rejuvenation on their striking platforms, while on-site nosed / carinated endscraper-core reduction does not seem to have occurred at all. Debitage. The 34 debitage pieces were subdivided into the following basic sub-categories: flakes 23 / 67.7 % blades 8 / 23.6 % bladelets (w = >= 7 mm < 12 mm) 2 / 5.8 % microblades (w < 7 mm) 1 / 2.9 % The large number of flakes compared to blades (3x more) seems to contradict the presence of a large number of blade cores compared to flake cores. That s why a closer look at the morphological and metrical characteristics was required. Twenty-three flakes can be further characterised as follows: primary flakes (>= 75 % of cortex) 8 / 34.8 % PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

12 cm PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

13 partially-cortical flakes 9 / 39.1 % non-cortical flakes 6 / 26.1 % Seven of 8 primary flakes are complete. Six complete primary flakes are cm long (2.73 cm average) and only 1 primary flake is much longer (6.1 cm). The presence of numerous primary flakes does indicate some core-like piece decortification processes taking place at the site. There are 9 flakes with partial cortex, eight of which are complete and one is a distal fragment. Three of 8 complete pieces (ca. 2.0 cm long) were refitted in between and demonstrate formation of a core striking platform. Four of the remaining 5 complete partiallycortical and large-sized flakes ( cm long with an average of 4.12 cm) possess a unidirectional scar pattern reflecting some decortification and initial parallel core reduction processes. The last complete partiallycortical flake is only 2.0 cm long with a unidirectionalcrossed scar pattern demonstrating side re-shaping of the upper part of a core surface. Of the 6 non-cortical flakes (all complete), five items are under 3 cm long with a unidirectional scar pattern. Three have small plain butts with edge abrasion suggesting their role as abrasion & thinning small pieces for preparation of core striking platform edges in serial UP parallel reduction. The only larger non-cortical flake (3.7 cm long) has a heavily hinged distal end which means that this piece was an unsuccessfully removed blade. Therefore, the non-cortical flakes are results of purposeful flake reduction. They either had a supplementary technological role in blade core reduction, or they were struck accidentally. In summary, the technological role of flakes in the core reduction process was mainly limited to decortification, core striking platform preparation and core flaking surface re-shaping with a small number of parallel core reduction strikes. Of the 8 blades, three are partially-cortical (only on the distal segment) and 5 non-cortical items (1 complete, three proximal segments, 1 medial segment). The only complete non-cortical piece is 7.4 cm long, 3.3 cm wide and 1.2 cm thick with a unidirectional-crossed scar pattern. Production of large blades at the site is also suggested by the presence of other non-cortical blades with a unidirectional scar pattern, although they are broken (width range 1.8 to 2.5 cm (2.02 cm average) and thickness range 0.5 to 1.2 cm (0.73 cm average). Absence of any primary blades and the numerical prevalence of non-cortical blades over partially-cortical blades, as well as the core data, all demonstrate that blades were the main purpose of on-site core reduction. There are only eight blades in the debitage sample and eight cores with blade scars. This numerical contradiction is consistent with blade production at the site and their export away from the site. Three lamelles (2 bladelets and a single microblade) are the only debitage pieces (no retouched microliths are present) connected to bladelet core reduction sensu lato at the site. The presence of only a single blade / bladelet core and the absence of any nosed / carinated endscraper-cores in the assemblage are consistent with such a small number of lamelles. Moreover, the 2 fragmented bladelets (one of them is a non-cortical conjoined piece from proximal and medial segments and another is a partially-cortical proximal segment) are wide (1.1 cm) and have an irregular shape so they can be regarded as unsuccessfully removed blades rather than purposeful bladelets. A single microblade (Fig. 3: 2) is a non-cortical medial segment that may be a link to true bladelet core reduction at the site. Tools. Five secondary modified debitage pieces (formally, tools) are represented by 3 non-carinated endscrapers, a splintered tool and a retouched piece. Three endscrapers with their working fronts made on distal ends of large-sized blade fragments ( cm wide) differ one from another in the following ways: The first endscraper (Fig. 3: 8) is simple (0.7 cm thick front) with a convergent sequence of elongated chip removal negatives. The second endscraper (Fig. 3: 9) is related to so-called thick endscrapers that are often found in small numbers in many UP assemblages. They are common in Central and East European Szeletian and Kostenki-Streletskaya assemblages in various bifacial bi-convex point tradition production contexts (Škrdla et al. 2014). It is important that these simple endscrapers produced on thick blanks (sic!) with thick working fronts are not confused with actual Aurignacian nosed / carinated endscrapers-cores (e.g. Zaliznyak Belenko Ozerov 2013, p. 83, Figs ). One peculiar feature of the above-mentioned thick endscraper is its manufacture on a bidirectional blade. This feature is relevant to the topic of the possibility of Bohunician mixing (see below). The third endscraper (Fig. 3: 10) is an ogival endscraper bearing scalar retouch removal negatives in a convergent sequence. Thus, although the 3 endscrapers are not nosed / carinated, at least one of them is an ogival Aurignacian type. The splintered tool is a typical example with two opposing extremities / poles at the proximal (near the butt) and distal end of a large-sized partially-cortical blade (> 5.6 cm long, 3.1 cm wide, 1.0 cm thick) with pronounced bifacial scaling. The retouched piece is a small fragmented (proximal segment) flake under 3 cm long with partial marginal dorsal lateral retouch. The described tool-kit is very small, but it does contain 3 non-carinated endscrapers and a splintered tool (not a bipolar core), which indicates some variable tool use at the site. Debris. The most common artifact type in the assemblage (90 pieces) includes the following sub-categories: chips 65 / 72.2 % uncharacteristic debitage pieces 8 / 8.9 % chunks 8 / 8.9 % heavily burnt pieces 9 / 10.0 % Fig. 3. Líšeň - Čtvrtě. Selected lithic artifacts. Adopted from Škrdla et al Obr. 3. Líšeň - Čtvrtě. Vybrané artefakty. Převzato z Škrdla et al PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

14 Chips are small-sized complete flakes and non-lamellar debitage fragments under 1.5 cm in maximum dimension. Most of the chips are non-cortical (53 items) and only 12 items possess some primary cortex. Uncharacteristic debitage pieces are heavily fragmented debitage specimens over 1.5 cm in size and it is impossible to attribute them to either flakes or blades / bladelets so they are placed into a neutral debitage category. Of the 8 pieces, five are non-cortical and 3 are partiallycortical items. Chunks include 8 small fragmented pieces (under 2.5 cm in maximum dimension). It is difficult to distinguish if they are debitage pieces or just natural chert fragments. Heavily burnt pieces number 9 specimens and due to their preservation state, they cannot be definitely attributed to any artifact category. Finally, a large-sized sandstone pebble fragment (13 x 13 x 10 cm) is considered to be a manuport with a possible hammerstone or grinder function. Possible Bohunician admixture in the Líšeň I Aurignacian assemblage Since 2009 when this site was excavated, there has been a suspicion that Bohunician artifacts are present in this assemblage. One explanation offered for this possible contamination was that it occurred through colluviation from nearby Bohunician sites. Three cores and two debitage pieces were identified as Bohunician, but it is now believed that all of the artefacts are in fact Aurignacian. One core (Fig. 3: 11) was initially thought to be a Levallois, single-platform, unidirectional, rectangular core. However, a more detailed examination has suggested that it is a UP blade singleplatform core in the final stage of exploitation, which is why its flaking surface appears to be non-volumetric. Another core-like piece (Fig. 3: 20) was initially thought to be a possible Levallois pre-core. It was later realized that such pre-cores do not exist in the Bohunician repertoire and this piece is now seen to be a UP pre-core with partially centripetal flaking in preparation for narrow-flaked reduction. The third core (Fig. 3: 18) was thought to be a Bohunician Levallois bidirectional core. The first description of this piece already identified it as a double single-platform reduction core with opposed platforms. In summary, none of the core-like pieces can be definitely associated with a Bohunician intrusion. The same assessment has been made of the 2 debitage pieces. One flake (Fig. 3: 14) is morphologically a complete pseudo-levallois point (5.6 cm long, 4.7 cm wide, 1.6 cm thick), but no such large-sized pseudo-levallois points exist in the Bohunician assemblages although a few small-sized pseudo-levallois points (no more than 3 cm long) have been noted. They are actually unsuccessfully detached Levallois points. The Líšeň I pseudo- Levallois point seems to originate from a special flake core reduction (radial or even discoidal) well-known in Aurignacian assemblages for production of thick flakes used for nosed / carinated endscraper-cores (e.g. Pastoors Peresani /eds./ 2012). The second debitage piece (Fig. 3: 7) is a medial fragment of a bidirectional flake / blade (5.2 cm long, 2.4 cm wide, 2.7 cm thick). This piece is now the only possible candidate with a Bohunician identity, but due to its fragmentary nature and the fact it is only one artifact, it is not possible to postulate a Bohunician admixture. Moreover, the presence of a simple endscraper on a thick bidirectional blade (Fig. 3: 9) does not prove Bohunician admixture such an element can rarely occur in an UP assemblage. In conclusion, following the reassessment of all potential Bohunician-looking lithics from the 2009 excavation, the Líšeň I lithic assemblage should be considered as a homogeneous Aurignacian assemblage. The Líšeň I artifact assemblage and some suggestions about its typology and site tasks This assemblage has a UP character even though there are few clear Aurignacian techno-typological features. The UP character is indicated by the large-sized blade single-platform core reduction and a single ogival endscraper, as well as the absence of any Early UP or Middle UP types. The lack of typical Aurignacian types in this assemblage could possibly be explained by the site function. Some prepared pre-cores and cores have been brought into the site and there was also some on-site preparation of the large-sized blade cores. Some of the manufactured blades were modified by retouch into tools and used at the site while other blade-tools were either discarded at unexcavated parts of the site or taken to other places in the landscape. A workshop for manufacturing primary blades and their subsequent modification into tools is only one task type that was performed at this site; the presence of a hearth with an associated pierced fossil shell and on-site tool use all indicate a place where different human activities were performed. Its location on an elevation with good control of the surrounding landscape and geographic closeness to a major lithic raw material source attests to the importance of this site. The absence of any nosed / carinated endscraper-core production of bladelets and microblades and their transformation by retouch into microliths (these artifacts are typically present in such Aurignacian assemblage) indicates some site specialization in terms of primary and secondary reduction and use Líšeň VIII / Líšeň - Nad výhonem site The site is located on the slope of an elongated crest aproximately 900 m southeast of Líšeň I / Líšeň - Čtvrtě at an altitude of 275 m. First Paleolithic artifacts found on the surface at this locality were reported by M. Oliva (1985) and the site was named Podolí Ia. At the beginning of 21 st century, residential housing in the Podolí village expanded and a new street Nad výhonem with residential dwellings was built. In August 2010 exposed sections situated on the Podolí - Líšeň cadastral boundary were inspected by P. Matějec, who discovered a paleosol sediment (15 20 cm thick) in a loess horizon in a 7 m long wall of the building foundation pit. It was situated cm below the current surface (Photo 2) with topsoil overlying the loess. The site was initially labeled Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Paleolithic artifacts and charcoal were found in the paleosol sediment so the profile was cleaned and subsequently a small-scale salvage excavation (ca. 2.5 m 2 ) was conducted. Aproximately 290 lithic artifacts were recovered (Škrdla et al. 2011). 14 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

15 Podolí V (Škrdla 2017) and it is a promising area for future finds of in situ Aurignacian sites. 14 C dates & ochre pieces. Wet-sieving of the paleosol sediments produced a small lump of ochre. The excavated charcoal lens provided a good charcoal sample that was dated at Poznan lab producing an age estimate of 32,500 ± 400 uncal BP (Poz-37346) or 36,570 ± 550 cal BP (Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1). Also, the ochre lump was spatially very close to the charcoal lens. Lithic assemblage. The 2010 excavation yielded 125 lithic artifacts. Due to the salvage character of this excavation, only a small sample of the cultural bearing sediments was dry screened and wet-sieved which yielded an additional almost 170 lithic pieces, mostly micro-debitage. The lithics were exclusively produced on Stránská skála-type chert. The entire lithic assemblage numbers 293 specimens. Twenty-five items were conjoined into 12 debitage pieces (flakes and blades) so the actual number of artifacts in the assemblage was reduced to 281 items. Photo 2. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Artifact-bearing horizon. Photo P. Škrdla. Foto 2. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Nálezová vrstva. Foto P. Škrdla. Unfortunately, no fauna or malacofauna was found. The boundary between paleosoil and loess is sharp which indicates recent intensive erosion. The artifacts were not homogeneously distributed over the whole paleosoil horizon but were concentrated in a 2.5 m long lens. The loess extended a further 80 cm below the paleosoil to the bottom of the construction pit. No more excavation can be conducted at this site as the area around the 2010 excavation sondage is completely built up. However, new small sites were discovered in the site area in In March 2011, approx. 80 m to the southwest from Líšeň VIII, another building foundation pit (this time on the cadastral territory of Podolí), P. Matějec discovered another isolated hearth in a loess sequence. The profile was cleaned and a charcoal sample was collected, which yielded a result of 33,500 ± 800 uncal BP (Poz-51616) with a calibrated value of 37,690 ± 970 cal BP (Škrdla 2017, Tab. 1). Unidentifiable ungulate teeth fragments and two industrially undiagnostic lithic artifacts (one of them burned) were recovered from the hearth. Additional lithic pieces coated with calcium carbonate, what indicates their origin in calcareous (intact) sediment, were collected from nearby piles of removed sediments. Some of these artifacts show morphological features of Levallois technology and have to be classified as Bohunician (which ought to be stratigraphically deeper as documented at nearby sites Stránská skála IIa and IIIa; see Svoboda Bar-Yosef 2003) rather than in the Aurignacian levels. This new find spot with an in situ hearth was named These 281 pieces are grouped into the following categories: Core-like-pieces 1 / 0.3 % / 0.9 % Core maintenance products (CMP) 11 / 3.9 % / 10.2 % Debitage 88 / 31.3 % / 81.6 % Tools 8 / 2.8 % / 7.3 % Debris 173 / 61.6 % / - Core-like piece. A core fragment with striking platform missing. It is 6.8 cm long, 6.1 cm wide and 5.3 cm thick. It is either a pre-core or an initial core as more than 50 % of its surface is covered by primary cortex. Only three debitage piece removal negatives are present of the core s flaking surface. Core Maintenance Products (CMP). Thirteen pieces that can be divided into two sub-categories: 4 crested items and 9 lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes (7 of these pieces are unretouched and 2 more pieces are marginally retouched tools). The crested pieces include a technologically unidentifiable small fragment, two broken crested blades (proximal and distal segments) and proximal segment of a re-crested blade. There is one re-crested blade present but no crested flakes or lamelles (bladelets and micro - blades). As in the Líšeň I CMP assemblage, the Líšeň VIII CMP items lack any core tablets, so core striking platform rejuvenations probably happened through the removal of small flakes rather than any core tablet-like piece detachments. Some peculiar items are also present in the Líšeň VIII CMP assemblage including lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes technologically associated with on-site multiple lamellar reductions of carinated pieces (see for the pieces initial definition Le Brun-Ricalens 2005; Le Brun-Ricalens Brou Pesesse 2006). These morphologically specific CMP flakes are good technological indicators for shaping or correcting the surface (especially its width and convexity) PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

16 cm Fig. 4. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Selected lithic artifacts. Adopted from Škrdla et al Obr. 4. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Vybrané artefakty. Převzato z Škrdla et al for bladelet production on carinated or nosed endscrapercores and being often associated with previous bladelet / microblade removal negatives, twisted and overpassed features, heavy asymmetric and even dejete axis (e.g. Nigst 2012, 53). It is important to note that not all of these specific flakes show a twisted general profile and dejete off-axis orientation. But the Líšeň VIII carinated items are only characterized by carinated typical endscraper-cores with well convex and wide working fronts / flaking edges, and non-twisted and on-axis lamellar removal negatives ordered in a convergent way that are the common basic technological feature of the carinated technology within the Evolved Aurignacian industry type with Góra Puławska II-type microliths. Accordingly, the Líšeň VIII lateral / frontolateral specific flakes are usually non-twisted and only asymmetrical (Fig. 4: 16 17), and just 3 such items are with a considerable asymmetry axis and one among them is twisted, probably removed from edge of the convergently oriented lamellar flaking surface. That s why it was not also easy to recognize many of the lateral / fronto-lateral specific flakes in the Líšeň VIII assemblage. Two of them (Fig. 4: 16) have lateral cortex location and usually such items have, if any, distal cortex location and it demonstrates a carinated piece flaking surface s length. The lateral cortex, however, allows us to suggest their detachment during initial stages of a carinated end-scraper-core lamellar reduction. All lateral / fronto-lateral specific flakes are less than 3.0 cm long with an average of 2.39 cm reflecting a true carinated endscraper-core thick / high front / flaking surface characteristics. Thus, apart from blade reduction, the presence of the lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes also indicates a lamelle carinated endscraper-core reduction strategy. Blade cores are absent in the assemblage and only the blade debitage exists. For carinated endscrapers, we have both cores and the debitage. The lamelle carinated endscraper-core reduction data will be obtained from 3 carinated endscrapercores and 14 lamelles (bladelets and microblades). Debitage. The 88 debitage pieces can be further divided into the following basic sub-categories: flakes 58 / 65.9 % blades 16 / 18.2 % bladelets 3 / 3.4 % microblades 11 / 12.5 % The predominance of flakes over blades in the debitage sample (3.6 : 1) needs to be understood through a detailed analysis. Fifty-eight flakes are subdivided into the following groups: primary flakes 9 / 15.5 % partially-cortical flakes 35 / 60.3 % non-cortical flakes 14 / 24.2 % Eight primary flakes are all complete and have an average length of 3.01 cm. Five flakes are between 1.7 and 2.3 cm in length while the remaining 3 flakes are 3.7, 4.3 and 6.7 cm long. Thus, there is a range of sizes where small pieces could be products of decortification of carinated endscraper-core blanks, as well as blade and flake cores, while the larger pieces could be products of decortification of blade and flake cores. Features of the 28 complete partially-cortical flakes are also consistent with the two types of core reduction. Flakes under 3.0 cm in length (15 items) are associated with the carinated endscraper-core reduction. One of the cortical flakes with cortex on its left lateral edge (2.0 cm long, 1.5 cm wide, 0.6 cm thick) was even refitted to left edge of one of the carinated endscraper-cores (Fig. 4: 19; Photo 3: right). Technologically, the flake was a débordante / lateral flake for creating a convexity on the front flaking surface of the endscraper-core. The remaining 13 partially-cortical flakes over 3.0 cm long (between 3.1 and 6.8 cm; average 4.56 cm) should be basically connected to decortification and initial reduction of blade and flake cores. Of the 8 complete non-cortical flakes, all but one (4.2 cm long) are small-sized with length ranging cm (2.47 cm average). Technologically, these flakes are very variable. Apart from some possibly regular flakes representing simple core reduction, there is at least one long flake (2.6 cm in length) possessing a plain, abraded and lipped butt with an acute angle that indicates core platform edge abrasion and thinning process during multiple core reduction. Additionally, four of the 8 complete non-cortical flakes possess a unidirectional-crossed / orthogonal scar pattern which is evident on the core re-preparation surface. The butt features indicate soft-hammer as well as hard-hammer techniques. The use of hard hammer technique is also indicated by the presence of 3 longitudinally fragmented flakes ( Siret flakes ). Two of the fragments were conjoined into a complete non-cortical flake. Similar Siret 16 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

17 Photo 3. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Refitted artifacts. Photo L. Zahradníková. Foto 3. Líšeň - Nad výhonem. Složené artefakty. Foto L. Zahradníková. 0 3 cm longitudinally fragmented flakes (6 pieces) are also present among fragmented partially-cortical flakes with 4 of them conjoined into 2 complete flakes. Thus, there is good evidence for the presence of both soft-hammer and a hard-hammer technique in the Líšeň VIII assemblage. Several technological roles were noted for the flakes at this site. Apart from core decortification, three more roles are evident. These include core platform formation and rejuvenation, core platform edge abrasion and thinning, and core surface re-preparation. One of the refitted chains that is composed of two non-cortical flake fragments (though some cortex is present in an inclusion inside the chert nodule), a proximal segment and 2 conjoined Siret longitudinally fragmented flakes with a missing distal segment on one of the fragments, shows sub-centripetal core reduction. The refitted flakes include a proximal fragment 3.2 cm long, 3.6 cm wide, 0.9 cm thick. Its butt is 1.9 cm wide x 0.6 cm thick. A conjoined flake is 5.7 cm long, 6.0 cm wide, 1.7 cm thick with a butt 5.9 cm wide and 1.3 cm thick. Possibly, the flake core reduction might be connected to production of specific flakes then used as blanks for carinated endscraper-cores, although the absence of such cores in the assemblage suggests their export to other (unexcavated) parts of the site, or away from the site. There is no evidence on the flakes for their detachment from parallel flake cores. Sixteen blades are subdivided as follows: primary blades 1 / 6.2 % partially-cortical blades 4 / 25.0 % non-cortical blades 11 (Fig. 4: 22) / 68.8 % The assemblage s blades are highly fragmented. There are only 2 (12.5 %) complete blades and 14 (87.5 %) fragmented blades 3 proximal, 5 medial and 6 distal segments. Given that there is only one primary blade (complete) and one quarter of blades with some cortex, it is reasonable to imagine blade detachment having a minor role during chert nodule decortification processes. Based on dorsal scar pattern data, all non-cortical and partially-cortical blades are unidirectional. Absence of any other scar pattern types and especially unidirectional-crossed, showing a core flaking surface re-preparation, and bidirectional, an indicator of a core reduction from opposed striking platforms, demonstrates a consistent blade single-platform unidirectional core reduction. Due to the high fragmentation rate, blade dimensions can be reliably captured only through their width measurements. The width data (not including the primary blade as it is not from purposeful blade core reduction) are interesting in their smooth distribution from wider (10 items with width ranging from 1.6 to 2.9 cm with an average width of 2.25 cm) to narrow (5 items ranging in width from 1.2 to 1.5 cm with an average of 1.40 cm) specimens. The average width for the 15 blades is 1.97 cm. These width data allow us to suggest some continuity of blade core reduction from wider to narrow blades. The two refitted distal segments of partially-cortical blades with unidirectional scar patterns, rectangular shape, left off-axis orientation, incurvate medial general profile, blunt distal end, trapezoidal profile at midpoint, non-significant amount of distal cortex, as well as gross width 2.9 and 2.4 cm, again suggest an initial removal of wider blades (Photo 3: center). Two tools on blade blanks (blade proximal fragments with marginal and/or irregular retouch) do corroborate the unretouched blade characteristics. In sum, all these blade morphological and dimensional data do certainly point to purposeful on-site blade core reduction, however the cores were further reduced in other parts of the site, or elsewhere. 14 unretouched lamelles (3 bladelets and 11 micro - blades), as well as a single retouched microlith on a microblade are the debitage associated with on-site bladelet sensu lato core reduction. Only 3 bladelets are present: a single complete item (Fig. 4: 15) and 2 fragments a proximal (Fig. 4: 14) and a distal (Fig. 4: 13) segment. The bladelets are morphologically very variable with just one common feature apart from the unidirectional scar pattern. Their profiles at midpoint are trapezoidal (1) and multifaceted (2). This is the feature that truly indicates the detachment of lamelles during multiple and intensive lamelle core reduction and they are not just occasional pieces from blade and/or blade / bladelet cores. There are 4x less bladelets than microblades and this is noteworthy given that only some of the excavated sediment was dry screened and wetsieved. These circumstances do indicate a preferential reduction for more narrow lamelles, i.e. microblades, in this Aurignacian assemblage. The microblade assemblage is composed of 3 complete unretouched (Fig. 4: 2 3) and 1 complete retouched (Fig. 4: 1) pieces, and 8 fragments: three proximal (Fig. 4: 4, 6 7), three medial (Fig. 4: 5, 8) and 2 distal segments (Fig. 4: 9, 11). All mi- PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

18 croblades possess a unidirectional scar pattern not twisted, or off-axis. Based on the two latter features, their identifiable examples are as follows for 8 general profiles (flat 1, slightly incurvate medial 6, twisted 1) and for 6 axis orientations (on-axis 3, right asymmetrical 2, right off-axis 1). At their midpoints, half of the microblades possess a triangular profile, while the other half has features of systematic microblade reduction 5 trapezoidal and 1 multifaceted profiles. This can probably be explained by differences of detachment between microblades and bladelets from the same cores. The bladelet flaking was the result of rejuvenation of the used flaking surfaces and microblades reflect initial lamelle reduction. Tools. 8 secondary modified debitage pieces (formally, traditional tools) are represented by 3 wide-fronted carinated endscraper-cores, a retouched microlith, two blades with a marginal and/or irregular retouch, two lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes with marginal retouch. Three carinated endscraper-cores with wide fronts / flaking edges are very similar to one another. Two of them are on chunks / chert nodules and the third is on a flake. The latter (Fig. 4: 20) has lamelle removal negatives on the flake s distal end and left lateral edge, forming a continuous wide and convex flaking edge. The endscraper-core s front / flaking edge is 3.4 cm wide and its flaking surface is 2.7 cm long. It is also characterized by a convergent order of no less than 8 bladelet and microblade removal negatives. The longest removal negative is 2.7 cm long. The Aurignacian flintknapper probably abandoned this core because most of the removal negatives are hinged. There is no data for estimating the number of detached lamelles before it was abandoned. Morphologically, the endscraper-core was produced on a partially-cortical flake with a small amount of cortex (< 25 %) on its proximal segment. It has a large, plain butt (1.6 cm wide and 1.2 cm thick) with no abrasion (a flake-blank from a special flake core?). It is 3.1 cm long, 3.2 cm wide and 2.0 cm thick. First piece on a cortical chunk / nodule (Fig. 4: 18) is 4.3 cm long, 3.0 cm wide and 2.3 cm thick. It has one continuous wide and convex front / flaking edge, 3.0 cm wide and 2.4 cm long flaking surface and a convergent order of 7 bladelet and microblade removal negatives. The longest removal negative is 2.4 cm long. Most likely, the reduction stopped as most of its removal negatives are hinged. The second piece on a chunk / nodule has significant amount of cortex (25 75 %) (Fig. 4: 19), is 3.6 cm long, 2.5 cm wide and 2.0 cm thick. As mentioned above, a débordante / lateral flake was refitted to the endscraper-core (Photo 3: right). The piece has one wide and continuous convex front / flaking edge, it is 2.4 cm wide and 2.4 cm long. It has a convergent order of 8 clear bladelet and microblade removal negatives with the longest 2.6 cm long. It is not clear why this core was abandoned. The reduction of this endscraper-core may have been short-lived remembering the refitted lateral flake with some cortex the preparation removal for the flaking surface s convexity. In sum, the above-described carinated endscraper-cores can be described as truly Aurignacian with wide fronts / flaking edges and thick (no less than 2 cm thick) flaking surfaces from which a series of lamelles mostly microblades were detached. This is consistent with the great number of microblades compared to bladelets in the debitage. The morphological and metrical data is consistent with these pieces being cores utilized for lamelle primary reduction. In this work, these pieces are also listed in the tool category so they do not become lost in the core category as sometimes happens in the more traditional approaches to analysis of Aurignacian lithic artifacts. A separate cha ne opératoire article is already planned for the Líšeň VIII assemblage where the carinated endscraper-cores and the related lamelles will be discussed in context of the core reduction strategies identified at the site. The single retouched microlith (Fig. 4: 1) bears a fine marginal abrasion with dorsal concave partial retouch on the medial segment of the right lateral edge. The blank is a complete microblade (1.5 long, 0.4 wide, 0.1 cm thick) with a unidirectional scar pattern, asymmetrical rectangular shape, right asymmetrical axis orientation, slightly incurvate medial general profile, feathering distal end, triangular profile at midpoint, no cortex, and punctiform butt with abrasion. Given the above, this microlith fits the definition of pseudo-dufour / Gora Pulawska II-type microlith well (see below). Two blades with marginal and/or irregular retouch can be described as follows. The first blade is a proximal segment of a blade with marginal retouch (Fig. 4: 21) and partial marginal dorsal bilateral retouch. Morphologically, this piece (4.9 cm long, 1.5 cm wide, 0.6 cm thick) possesses a unidirectional scar pattern, left offaxis orientation, incurvate medial general profile, irregular profile at midpoint, significant amount of lateral cortex, linear butt with abrasion. The second blade is also a proximal segment (4.0 cm long, 2.0 cm wide, 0.7 cm thick) with partial irregular dorsal lateral retouch. It also has a unidirectional scar pattern, incurvate medial general profile, triangular profile at midpoint, no cortex, and a plain butt with abrasion. Two lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscrapercore maintenance flakes with marginal retouch do indicate some debitage blank deficit at the site which is why such specific CMP were employed for the tool use. The first flake (Fig. 4: 16) possesses partial marginal dorsal lateral retouch. The flake-blank is a complete piece (2.3 cm long, 1.5 cm wide, 0.4 cm thick) with a unidirectional scar pattern, irregular shape, left asymmetrical axis orientation, incurvate medial general profile, feathering distal end, trapezoidal profile at midpoint, small amount of lateral cortex, and a plain butt with abrasion. Second flake (Fig. 4: 17) also has partial marginal dorsal lateral retouch but on the proximal segment (1.8 cm long, 1.3 cm wide, 0.3 cm thick). The flake-blank has a unidirectional scar pattern, right asymmetrical axis orientation, incurvate medial general profile, trapezoidal profile at midpoint, no cortex, and a plain butt with abrasion. Morphologically, these flakes with marginal retouch are exactly those CMP mentioned above - non-twisted and non-off-axis pieces with asymmetrical axis detachment from wide-fronted carinated endscraper-cores flaking surfaces were leading to their re-preparation during multiple lamelle reduction processes. 18 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

19 This small tool-kit is somewhat atypical. The 3 carinated endscraper-cores are functionally cores for lamelle primary reduction and not tools per se. The presence of one retouched microlith is a slight indication of some microlith production at the site. The identification of 4 debitage items with marginal and/or irregular retouch also points to some on-site tool use and the use of 2 specific CMP flakes (actually, technologically waste flakes!) is also interesting. Debris. The debris constitutes the most numerous artifact category in the assemblage (173 pieces) and has been subdivided into the following sub-categories: chips 117 / 67.6 % uncharacteristic debitage pieces 32 / 18.5 % chunks 24 / 13.9 % Of the 81 chips, only 31 specimens have some primary cortex. Twenty-one non-cortical uncharacteristic debitage pieces also dominate over partially-cortical (11) specimens. Chunks were divided into two groups. Artifacts in first group (7 items) are between 4 and 8 cm long and can be considered as potentially prepared raw materials for primary flaking. Second group (17 items) range between 1 and 4 cm in length, and includes various heavily fragmented debitage pieces broken during unsuccessful knapping and appearing as simple chunks. One charcoal lens was recorded in the excavation but no burnt lithics were identified. A large-sized sandstone pebble fragment (13 x 13 x 10 cm) is probably a manuport and may have been used as a hammerstone or grinder. Líšeň VIII artifact assemblage and some thoughts on its industrial character and site tasks Based on the presented lithic artifact data, this assemblage has clear affinities with the Aurignacian industry due to the presence of 3 wide-fronted carinated endscraper-cores that were reduced by microblade flaking. The single microlith possesses some diagnostic chert features which connects it to one of the endscrapercores (Fig. 4: 20) and permits us to make statements about the primary and secondary on-site production of this piece. Its features that include fine marginal abrasion dorsal retouch, blank shape narrow, short microblade, some asymmetry of its shape and axis orientation, and slightly incurvate medial general profile, allow us to classify this artifact as a pseudo-dufour / Góra Puławska II-type microlith. Given the techno-typological interconnection of the wide-fronted carinated endscraper-cores and the retouched microlith features, as well as the absence of any other specific Aurignacian tool and/or core types (e.g. carinated burins, etc), and the on-site large-sized blade single-platform core reduction, it is possible to industrially connect the Líšeň VIII assemblage with the newly defined Evolved Aurignacian industry type with Góra Puławska II-type microliths in Central and Eastern Europe (Demidenko Škrdla Rios-Garaizar 2016). There are no identifiable Bohunician artifacts in this assemblage. The entire lithic assemblage was excavated from a small area of 2.5 m 2 and three core reduction strategies have been identified. The on-site large-sized blade single-platform core reduction (well demonstrated also by the refitting of two distal segments of partially-cortical wide blades) resulted not only in production of blades and flakes, but also in the preparation of precores and initially flaked cores. These were not recovered during the excavation so it can be assumed that the prepared pre-cores and cores were transported elsewhere. The special flake type of core reduction is evident by the refitting of two large-sized non-cortical flakes that were conjoined in a sub-centripetal order to a core. The site can be characterized as core production workshops where a large part of the core reduction occurred away from the excavated Líšeň VIII site area. The lamelle core reduction on wide-fronted carinated endscraper-cores is represented by all stages of the reduction process including the endscraper-cores themselves, lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes, a series of detached unretouched lamelles, mainly microblades, and the single retouched microblade, demonstrating not only the endscrapercore reduction processes, but also some micro-tool production at the site. The presence of only 14 unretouched and 1 retouched lamelles is noteworthy as primary reduction of at least 3 carinated endscraper-cores had to result in more lamelles than were recovered. Given that only some of the cultural bearing sediments were dry screened and wet sieved, it is likely that some lamelles were lost, although the fact that 4x more microblades than bladelets were recovered argues against this. Also, the recovery of only one retouched microlith allows us to speculate that other microliths were taken somewhere else and maybe that is where the missing unretouched lamelles were used. The 4 retouched pieces (2 blades and 2 special CMP flakes) indicate ad hoc and short-term use of some debitage items. The utilisation of 2 lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes as blanks suggests that suitable blanks may have been in short supply. It is also worth not forgetting the presence of a charcoal lens indicating human activity around a hearth / fireplace for a small occupied area. Thus, the Líšeň VIII site data allows some conclusions about human activity at the site. There was preparation and initial reduction of blade and flake cores with further reduction taking place elsewhere. The large-sized blade and flake core reduction indicates a workshop. The carinated endscraper-core reduction indicates on-site flaking processes with not only lamelle production, but also their transformation by marginal retouch into the Gora Pulawska II-type microliths and some microlith export to other places. The presence of 4 retouched pieces may also indicate some on-site ad hoc tool use. A hearth / fireplace was also present. This data indicates that a multitude of tasks took place, representing a snapshot of an Evolved Aurignacian complex settlement pattern in the Stránská skála and Líšeň primary and secondary chert outcrop area Napajedla III / Napajedla-Zámoraví site This site is ca. 110 km to the east of the Stránská skála & Líšeň area on the cadastral territory of the town of Napajedla (eastern Moravia). The site is located near Na- PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

20 Photo 4. Napajedla - Zámoraví. General view of the site. Photo P. Škrdla. Foto 4. Napajedla - Zámoraví. Celkový pohled na lokalitu. Foto P. Škrdla. pajedla Gate (ca. 700 m wide), a passage connecting upper and lower Morava River valleys, in a colluvial sediment quarry in the field of Zámoraví (Photo 4) on the western slope of Maková elevation, which reaches 338 m at its highest point. Within the quarry, the site is situated at the bottom of a slope between altitudes m (25 40 m above the current Morava River level) where it was probably redeposited in whole blocks by landsliding from upslope (Photo 5). It was excavated between 2004 and 2006 (Škrdla 2007; 2017) during renewed quarrying activities in a former brickyard pit. Three separate excavation blocks A, B and C were uncovered with a total area of ca. 9 m 2. They were excavated in a line 35 m long with a sondage placed every 5 7 m. Although these were only rescue excavations, trowels and knives were used for digging. Dry screening and wet sieving of cultural bearing sediments was performed only in 2006 during the excavation of block B. Approximately 150 liters of sediment were wet sieved and about 300 small-sized lithic pieces and 7 g of burnt bones were recovered. No faunal remains were recovered except for one weathered mammoth tusk that was dated (see below). Photo 5. Napajedla - Zámoraví. Artifact-bearing horizon. Photo P. Škrdla. Foto 5. Napajedla - Zámoraví. Nálezová vrstva. Foto P. Škrdla. 14 C dates. Several samples of organic materials from excavation block B were then dated at Groningen and Oxford 14 C labs (Škrdla 2007; 2017): GrA (charcoal sample) 29, uncal BP or 33,940 ± 150 cal BP; GrA (burnt bone fragments) 30, uncal BP or 34,550 ± 190 cal BP; GrA (mammoth tusk, residual charcoal) 32,330 ± 900 uncal BP or 36,540 ± 1100 cal BP; OxA (burnt bone fragments) 32,230 ± 190 uncal BP or 36,110 ± 210 cal BP; OxA (Picea / Larix charcoal fragment) 32,540 ± 200 uncal BP or 36,470 ± 240 cal BP. The uncalibrated BP dates range between ca. 29,600 30,000 and 32,300 32,700, while the calibrated BP dates range between ca. 33,800 34,100 36,200 36,700. Lithic assemblage. The 3 short field excavations yielded ca. 970 artifacts. Relatively few artifacts were found in trench A. Trenches B (5 m 2, charcoal samples for 14 C dating were obtained here) and C (ca. 2 m 2, northern part of the brickyard, no 14 C dates) yielded most of the lithic pieces recovered at this site. The collection of artifacts from block B consists of 70 items longer than 1.5 cm and 595 micro-debitage pieces. Artifacts from block C include 240 specimens longer than 1.5 cm and 60 chips. Most artifacts are made on imported erratic flint with the nearest outcrops approx. 60 km to the northeast. Other raw materials including radiolarite, silicified sandstone, quartz and unspecified chert / weathering products are present, but only by a few pieces each. The radiolarite and probably silicified 20 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017

21 sandstone outcrops are located in the White Carpathians ca. 45 km easterly from the site. Quartz and cherts were collected in the local river terraces. Some burnt lithics were probably also manufactured from erratic flint. Techno-typologically speaking, the lithic finds from excavation blocks B and C, separated by no more than 5 m, are very similar (see Škrdla 2007) so they are analyzed together. Nine hundred and sixty-five lithics can be divided into the following artifact categories: Core-like pieces 9 / 0.9 % / 4.7 % Core maintenance products (CMP) 27 / 2.8 % / 14.2 % Debitage 100 / 10.4 % / 52.6 % Tools 51 / 5.3 % / 26.9 % Tool shaping and rejuvenation waste 3 / 0.3 % / 1.6 % Debris 775 / 80.3 % / - Core Reduction Data. Nine core-like pieces were identified (8 on erratic flint and a bladelet core on radiolarite). The technological variability of cores is high and no pre-cores are present. One core fragment is burnt. The 8 cores are subdivided into the following groups: blade / bladelet cores 2 bladelet core 1 microblade core 1 flake cores 4 Two blade / bladelet cores on nodules are complete and one is fragmented. The complete core (4.2 cm long, 2.8 cm wide, 1.7 cm thick) (Fig. 5: 30) is sub-pyramidal in shape and possesses a single, plain, straight-angle platform. The core fragment (4.1 cm long, 5.1 cm wide, 1.8 cm thick) also possesses a single platform that is plain and acute-angle. A bladelet core on a nodule (3.0 cm long, 2.9 cm wide, 1.7 cm thick) (Fig. 5: 32) possesses a single, carinated, sub-pyramidal, acute-angle, platform with elongated microblade, and less frequently bladelet, removal negatives. The platform was roughly-prepared with two removals. A microblade core on a nodule (2.8 cm long, 3.4 cm wide, 3.0 cm thick) is double-platform, bidirectional-alternate with 2 flaking surfaces, and 2 plain, semi-acute angle platforms. It also has short microblade removal negatives. In fact, it morphologically resembles a double nosed endscraper-core with two flaking attempts to realize a nosed endscraper-core short microblade reduction. The piece is still classified as a core sensu stricto due to its nodule blank. Flake-blanks are usually used for preparation of nosed endscraper-cores (e.g. Bergman 1987). Four flake cores differ from each other by their morphology. Only one demonstrates a stable morphology - a small flake sub-radial core (2.5 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, 1.3 cm thick) possibly on a flake-blank, roughly-prepared and semi-acute angle. Two flake cores are fragmented. One is single-platform, semi-acute angle platform on a nodule (3.4 cm long, 3.3 cm wide, 1.7 cm thick). The second core fragment on a nodule (3.0 m long, 4.3 cm wide, 1.5 cm) is missing the whole upper part with the platform. The last flake core is unidentifiable because it is heavily burnt (3.2 cm long, 3.2 cm wide, 4.0 cm thick). The flake cores are not particularly informative regarding morphological and technological aspects. Core Maintenance Products (CMP). These 27 items were subdivided into the following sub-categories: one core trimming element, three crested items, for core tablets and 19 lateral / fronto-lateral carinated endscrapercore maintenance flakes. Such diversity indicates intensive on-site core reduction processes. The core trimming element is a technologically undiagnostic complete flake with some cortex. Crested items (a bladelet, a microblade and a flake) are associated with bladelet / microblade reduction, probably from nosed endscraper-cores and bladelet / microblade cores. A true crested bladelet (distal segment) with a two-sided ridge and no cortex is 1.7 cm long, 0.7 cm wide, 0.4 cm thick. A non-cortical microblade (2.9 cm long, 0.6 cm wide, 0.3 cm thick) is a secondary crested distal segment with a one-sided ridge and demonstrating a continuous, multiple lamelle à crête technique application during an on-site bladelet / microblade core flaking. A non-cortical flake (3.2 cm long, 3.0 cm wide, 1.8 cm thick) is also re-crested with a onesided ridge showing rather radical core flaking surface re-preparation during lamelle reduction. It appears that all the examined crested pieces are associated with on-site bladelet / microblade core reduction processes. Core tablets are all on flakes which indicates an absence of systematically applied carinated burin-core technology (there is just one carinated burin-core in the assemblage, but more technologically similar to nosed endscraper-cores than to carinated burin-cores) usually associated with core tablets on blades and bladelets. Although the 3 pieces are rather thin ( cm thick), probably removed during fine core striking platform rejuvenation, one core tablet is quite thick (1.3 cm) and bladelet removals are clearly distinguishable. Again, it is likely that the core tablets and blade / microblade core reduction are technologically connected at this site. The absence of crested blades (there is a single crested blade-tool blank with a one-sided ridge for a nosed endscraper-core + angle burin from undated C area) Fig. 5: 10) and crested flakes from the initial reduction of blade cores clearly indicating that the preparation of blade cores took place elsewhere before they were brought to the site for more reduction. On the other hand, the presence of crested and re-crested bladelets and respective core tablets points to intensive on-site preparation and multiple bladelet and/or microblade core reductions, including nosed endscraper-cores. The on-site endscraper-core reduction is consistent with the presence of 19 lateral / fronto-lateral nosed / PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII,

22 cm Fig. 5. Napajedla - Zámoraví. Selected lithic artifacts. Drawing by L. Dvořáková. Obr. 5. Napajedla - Zámoraví. Vybrané artefakty. Kresba L. Dvořáková. carinated endscraper-core maintenance flakes. They are subdivided into two sub-categories and seven morpho-technological types. Given the great importance of nosed endscraper-core pieces in the assemblage, the lateral / fronto-lateral maintenance flakes are described below in detail. 22 PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ CVIII, 2017