Journal of Archaeological Science (1999) 26, 125—141Article No. jasc.1998.031 1, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on IflE~L

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools from the Open-Air SiteSa1zgitter~Lebenstedt (Germany)

Sabine Gaudzinski

Römisch- Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit, Schloss Monrepos, 56567 Neuwied,Germany

(Received 20 October 1997, revised manuscript accepted 27 February 1998)

At the Middle Palaeolithic site of Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany) an assembiage of bone tools (N28) made ofMammuthus primigenius ribs and fibulae was reanalysed. The tools are described comprehensively. Taphonomicanalysis of the complete faunal assembiage, serving as a background for this study, showed that the raw material forbone tool production has most probably been intentionally selected by hominids. The bone tools are discussed withinthe archaeological context illustrating their uriique occurrence in the Middle Palaeolithic record.

© 1999 Academic Press

Keywords: BONE TOOLS, MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC, GERMANY, FAUNAL ANALYSIS, TAPHONOMY.

Introduction

(‘~ alzgitter-Lebenstedt is situated c. 50 km south~ east of Hannover in Germany (Figure 1). The

L3 site was excavated by A. Tode in 1952 (Tode,1982) and excavations were re-opened in 1977 (Grote& Preul, 1978). During the 1980s and 1990s the resuitsobtained by the analysis of the 1952 excavation werepublished by an interdisciplinary work-group, butapart from the mammoth molars (Guenther, 1991) thefaunal assembiage remained untreated.

Since the first discovery of the site, a smali numberof the modified bones have been repeatedly mentionedin the German literature (compare Busch, 1991). Asthese faunal remains have neither been described indetail nor been analysed they feil into oblivion andwere not referred to in discussion about MiddlePaiaeoiithic hominids‘ abilities to produce bone tools(cf. Vincent, 1993; Mithen, 1996; Noble & Davidson,1996). As Salzgitter-Lebenstedt presents the onlyEuropean assemblage with a series of bone tools in aMiddle Palaeolithic context, a study of modi&ationson bones from the site was undertaken by the author in1996, accompanied by a systematic and contextualtaphonomic analysis of the faunal assembiage(Gaudzinski, in press).

The Setting of the Site

Salzgitter-Lebenstedt is located on the northern siopeof a smali river, the Krähenriedebach, in the immediateembouchure area of the Fuhse valiey.

125

An erosional channei with glaciofluviatile silt ofSaalian age in which a further graveily layer wasdeepened represents the subjacent bed at the SalzgitterLebenstedt exposure. The channel was fihled withWeichselian fluvial sediments with interposed stillwater deposits such as fine sand, mud and peat whichcryoturbated during several episodes. The stratigraphicsuccession ends up with Plenigiacial and Postglaciaisediments (Preul, 1991).

The fluvial sediments with a thickness of c. 2 m, canbe separated into three subunits (Figure 2): Graveiwith intercaiated fine sands and cryoturbated humicsands separated by a discordance from a cryoturbatedsandy mud with peat lenses, representing deposits ofstagnant water, form the basis of the channel infihling(unit 1). Separated by a further discordance, sanddeposits and graveiiy sands with peat lenses resultingfrom a further stagnant water follow above (unit 2).Another discordance separates unit 2 and unit 3 whichis characterized by fluvial gravel with interjacent siltychannel casts.

Resuits of palynological analysis documented similarities in the vegetational history for units 1 and 2.They indicate that the sediments formed during anInterstadial either during the Early Weichselian(Brörup Interstadial [~ 100 000 BP], Seile, 1991;Pfaffenberg, 1991) or during the Weichselian Pleniglacial (Oerel Interstadial [‘4C age: 58 000—54 000 BP] orGlinde Interstadial [‘4C age: 51 000—48 000 BP], Behre,1989; Behre & van der Plicht, 1992; Pastoors, 1996:55 f).

At Salzgitter-Lebenstedt a number of physical datesare available for the different units. For unit 1, live

0305 4403/99/020125+ 17 $3000/0 © 1999 Academic Press

126 S. Gaudzinski

‘4C-dates arc available. From the number of physicalages the date GrN9254 of 48780 ± 260 BP has thelowest standard deviation (Pastoors, 1996). For unit 2,‘4C-dates of 48 500 ± 2000 BP (GrN1219) and55 600 ± 900 BP (GrN2083) have been obtained. The‘4C-dates for the deposits on top of unit 3 range from28 500 ± 3520 (Hv-8843) to 19 700 ± 140 BP (Hv-8397)(Pastoors, 1996).

The archaeological finds were mainly distributed inthe humic deposits of unit 2 but finds were also made inunit 1 (Figure 2). Although refittings of lithic artefactsand bones between units 1 and 2 were possible, it is notclear whether the finds were embedded during a singledepositional phase and heavily rebedded by postdepositional processes or were deposited during at leasttwo independent depositional phases (units 1 and 2)with minor post-depositional rebedding of finds(Kleinschmidt, 1953; Tode, 1982; Preul, 1991).

Material and MethodsSince the modified bone tools were uncovered exclusively during the 1952 excavation, this study wasrestricted to an analysis of the associated faunal

material. As the faunal remains could not be assignedto unit 1 or 2 and there arc indications to suggest thatthe finds were embedded during both depositionalphases resulting in an archaeologica 1 find-yieldinghorizon of c. 1 ~50 m thickness, the bone material wastreated as a homogeneous fossil assembiage.

Several factors hampered a detailed study. The sizeof the analysed sample does not coincide with theexcavated sample since parts of the find accumulationswere horizontally prepared with bones and lithics leftin place for museological purposes. In cases where thebones on the preserved and exhibited surfaces could bedetermined taxonomically the finds were included inthe study.

Apart frorn this material loss it seems probable thatthe bones have been selectively recovered during theexcavation. A major part of the faunal material consists of taxonomically determinable material whereasindeterminable longbone splinters arc underrepresented compared to the number of articular ends. Thispoint is also illustrated by the reindeer assemblagefrom the site. For the reindeer, the ratio of longboneshaft fragments, more or less complete bones or fragments with at least one articular end, is 138:2003. In afractured bone assemblage the number of shaft fragments is usually much higher. lt is also possible thatthe indeterminable part of the faunal assemblage isrepresented by the finds made during the excavation in1977, indicating a spatial Separation of more or lesscomplete bones and bone splinters in the archaeological record. A survey of the 1977 material in theBraunschweigisches Landesmuseum in Wolfenbüttel,Germany showed that this fauna contains a largenumber of highly fragmented and indeterminable bonematerial.

Most of the artificially modified faunal remains havefallen victim to various episodes of conservatory procedures. As a result, the bone surfaces show generations of cut-marks which can only occasionally besecurely identified as representing either modern orprehistoric traces.

The Taphonomic Background

Palynological analysis indicates a tundra-vegetationduring the formation of units 1 and 2 (Sehe, 1991;Schüttrumpf, 1991). Analysis of botanical macroremains (Pfaffenberg, 1991), fungi (Johannes & Schuh-Johannes, 1991), molluscs (Preul, 1991) and finally ofthe micro- and macrofauna (Preul, 1991: 32) affirmthese results. At Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, the largemammal fauna comprise the species listed in Table 1.

During the 1952 excavation, observations have beenmade (Kleinschmidt, 1965) that docuinent the complexity of the embedding processes at SalzgitterLebenstedt. The deposits in parts of the site wereundisturbed whereas finds in other parts were

Figure 1. Map of Europe showing the location of SalzgitterLebenstedt.

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 127

1(r = 5.5 m)

2(r = 9.0 m)

5.0

5.5

6.0

0 5 10r

h

15

10

5

0

Unit 34.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Figure 2. Standardized sections through the lower deposits at Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, their position within the excavated area and thedistribution of the archaeological finds (after Preul, 1991). Ä, lithic artefacts; 0, bones.

highly reworked by cryoturbation which resulted innests of bones from different species. Different bonepreservation according to the enveloping medium wasobserved.

In order to estimate whether the impact of suchprocesses resulted in a considerable loss of material,bone mineral densities have been considered (according to Lyrnan, 1994) for Equus sp., .Rang~fer tarandus,

Table 1. List of species from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt

NISP MNI

Horno sp. 5 2Canis lupus 1 1Mammuthus primigenius 410 17Equus sp. 227 8Coelodonta antiquitalis 8 1Rang~fer tarandus 2130 86Bison priscus 79 3

NlSPnurnber of identified specimens per taxon. MN] =rninimumnumber of individuals per taxon, calculated according to the mostfrequent skeletal element.

and Bison priscus, as compararative data are onlyavailable for these species. Certain abiotic taphonomicprocesses such as diagenetic in situ destruction, differential bone fragmentation by sediment compressionand subaereal weathering depend on bone density.Bones showing a bw mineral density are more easilyallected by these processes than bones showing a highdensity.

No reliable correlation between bone survival andtheir structural density could be observed for Equus sp.and Bison priscus, which indicates that the mentionedabiotic processes had only a minor impact on thefaunal assembiage. Only the Rang~fer tarandus assemblage allusively shows a connection between bothvariables (Gaudzinski, in press) (Figure 3), probablyindicating that differences in the depositional historyoccurred for the different species.

In addition, bone boss by fluvial transpor.t wasconsidered. Fluvial transport can be recognized on thebasis of skeletal part representation, as the processesinvolved lead to a loss of more transportable parts(Voorhies, 1969). An assembiage unaffected by fluvialwinnowing is characterized by the presence of group 1

0 5 lOm

UnIt2 *

1 .~—:

Unit 3

J 5.5

128 S. Gaudzinski

0.60

0.40

0 20 40 60 80 100

%-MNI

Figure 3. Bone mineral density versus %-MNI for Equus sp.,Rang~fer tarandus and Bison priscus. MNlMinimum number ofindividuals.

bones (e.g., vertebrae, carpals, tarsals, phalanges,astragali, caicanei) which are those most easily affectedby fluvial mechanisms. Skull and mandible representelements of group 3, bones that resist ttansport longest(Behrensmeyer, 1975; Voorhies, 1969).At Salzgitter-Lebenstedt skeietal part frequency fornearly all species is characterized by a clear dominanceof bones from group 2 (for the composition of group 2compare Figure 4). Only the Rangifer tarandus remainsdominantly represent bones of group 1, that could

indicate autochthony of the reindeer assemblage(Figure 4).In general, the faunal assembiage at the site can becharacterized as a mixture of elements of differingorigin, as should be expected when dealing with abone assemblage in a fluvial milieu (Behrensrneyer,1982, 1988). The accumulation consists ofelements forwhich direct evidence for hominid interference cannotbe shown and elements for which a clear hominidinfluence is obvious. At least part of the hominid-,mammoth-, wolf-, horse-, rhino- and bison assemblages can be interpreted as part of a naturalbackground fauna. This is indicated by an anecdotalpresence of complete skeletal elements, showing apercentual proportion of carnivore gnaw-marks rang-ing from 20% to over 70% for the different species, asweil as a lack of direct traces of hominid interaction inthe form of clear cut- and fracture marks, although theexcellent bone preservation wouid have allowed theirrecognition.In contrast, the reindeer assemblage differs considerably from the other species represented. Resuits of theanalysis of bone densities, skeletal part frequency,population structure, carnivore and hominid modifications show that the assembiage probably reflectshominid hunting activities during late summer—earlyautumn when a larger herd was killed by driving theanimals into the water or by another disaster of whichhominids took advantage (Gaudzinski, in press).

Bone ToolsModified bones have been recognized within the faunalremains at Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Today, the bone toolassemblage consists of 23 intentionally modified bonesas weil as a bone point and a modified antler. Withinthe faunal material, four additional pieces have beendiscovered with modifications (such as cut-marks andabrasion) which could result from hominid activities.From these 29 faunal remains, six modified ribs, theantler and the bone point, were aiready illustrated in1953 and 1982 (Tode, 1953, 1982). In addition, otherpublications illustrate a further two modified ribs(Tode, 1953: figure 18 below; Tode 1982: Taf. 124b.2)as weil as a pointed fibula (Tode, 1982: Taf. 124b.l).The latter three finds are not stored together with theremaining faunal material and are not included inthis study.

Results of taphonomic analysis at the site served as abackground for the study of the modified bones sincecertain post-depositional processes, as weil as carnivore modification, can resuit in traces comparable tohominid modifications. The latter point is weil illustrated by recent studies on bone material uncoveredin European Pieistocene hyaena dens (e.g., Villa &Bartram, 1996). Especially for the ribs, an interassemblage study between unmodified and modifiedbones in the Salzgitter-Lebenstedt assembiage was

0 20 40 60 80 100

%-MNI

0

0

0 0 oo

00

0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0.20 0 ~0

0 20 40 ~0 8~~0

%-MNI

0.8C

•0

0.60- 0

0 0 00

0.40‘~ 0

0.20 ~ 1 0

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 129

ci)z

30

20

0

Figure 4. Dispersal groups for the bones of Mammuthus prirnigenius [Group 1: patella (N= 1), vertebrae (N40); Group 2: prox. ribs (N 40),scapula (N4), humerus (Nr 1), tibia (Nr3); Group 3: mandible/maxilla (Nr24), pelvis (N=4), radius (Nr6)], Equus sp. [Group 1: caicaneus(Nr4), phalanges (Nr3), vertebrae (Nr 8), astragalus (N 1); Group 2: scapula (N= 10), humerus (N= 5), radius (Nr6), ulna (Nr6),metapodials (N20), tibia (Nr 10), femur (N6), pelvis (N=5); Group 3: mandible maxilla (N=21)], Coelodonta anriquitaris [Group 2: atlas(Nr 1). scapula (Nr 1), humerus (Nr 1), radius (N=l), femur (Nr 2); Group 3: isolated teeth (Nr 3)], Rang~fer tarandus [Group 1: ulna (Nr 24).sacrurn (Nr 8), vertebrae (N208), phalanges (Nr 153), calcaneus (Nr 63), ribs (N=275); Group 2: scapula (Nr49), humerus (N60), radius(N=74), metapodials (Nr 184), femur (N=60), tibia (N= 142), astragalus (N=46); Group 3: mandible maxilla (Nr 117)] and Bison priscus[Group 1: vertebrae (N8), carpalaand tarsals (N=3), phalanges (Nr2), astragalus (Nr2), calcaneus (N=1); Group 2: humerus (N6), radius(N3), metapodials (N=6). femur (N4), tibia (Nr 7), pelvis (Nr 1); Group 3: mandible maxilla (Nr6)]. For the composition of the dispersalgroups for the different species compare Behrensmeyer (1975) and Frison & Todd (1986). D, reindeer; L~, marnrnoth; D, horse; F~, bison:~‚ rhino.

undertaken. Results of these studies indicate the intentional use of mamrnoth bones as raw-material for toolproduction in a Middle Palaeolithic context.

The ribs show considerable differences in the morphology of their proximal and distal ends. A total of 20specirnens has been selected with modifications thatdiffer significantly from the unmodified Figure 5(a),broken Figure 5(b), carnivore gnawed Figure 5(c) ordissoluted Figure 5(d) proximal and/or distal ribs thatotherwise occur within the Salzgitter-Lebenstedtassembiage. These specimens are interpreted asreflecting hominid activities since no natura] agentexcept hominids regularly produces comparablemodifications.

The modifications observed on the ribs can be summarized as follows. The distal end was intentionallypointed and/or fiattened and the intended modifications were obtained by a reduction of the bones‘breadth by whittling the anterior and posterior edges(N5). These modifications can be accompanied by areduction of the bones‘ width by smoothing thelateral or medial face frorn the direction of either oneor both edges resulting in the abrasion of the bones‘cornpacta. These modifications produced short, fiatpoints (N= 5). lt is striking that some of the piecesmodified in this way lack the tip, which has beenbroken off leaving a plain fracture. lt is not clearwhether these fractures are intentional or were causedby functional stress.

Other ribs have been modified into a long andcompact stretched point. A thinning of the point waseither obtained by abrading the compacta of the boneand retaining the convex curvature of the bones‘surface or by splitting and removing one half of thebone (N2).

Apart from these pieces, other ribs have evidence ofintentional fiattening (N 8). They were split completely, leaving numerous conical impacts on the edges.These impacts distinguish the intentional rnodifiedbones from ribs that split through drying of the boneFigure 5(e). A representative selection of some of thepieces should be described briefiy.

Rib 1Rib 1 (Figure 6) (length: 603 cm; max. breadth:37 cm; max. width: 25 cm) represents a left rib fragment. The proximal end has been broken off, leaving aspiral fracture, 79 cm in length. lt remains questionable whether this modification is due to hominidactivities. In contrast the distal end has been workedintentionally by diagonal abrasion of the medial facefrom the cranial edge of the bone. The modificationcovers 86 cm of the medial surface and caused areduction of the bone‘s thickness (from P8 cm,measured at the basis of the modification, to 0~8 cm,measured at the tip) and breadth (from 3~0 cm toPl cm).

50

40

10

Dispersal-Group 1 Dispersal-Group 2 Dispersal-Group 3

130 S. Gaudzinski

Figure 5. (a) Unmodified distal rib, (b) broken distal rib. (c) carnivore-gnawed distal rib, (d) rib surface modified by dissolution, (e) rib splitby drying of the bone.

Rib 2Rib 2 (Figure 7) (length: 78~O cm; max. breadth:42 cm; max. width: 27 cm) shows modifications com

parable to rib 1. The distal end shows spiral fracturesalong the cranial and caudal edges extending 114 cmand 34 cm in length from removing the articular rib

(b)

20

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 131

(a)1

(b)

pil

(d)

Figure 6. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified rib 1 (a) (c) medial view, (d) caudal view, (e) lateral view.

joint. As for rib 1 it was impossible to decide whetherthese modifications reflect hominid activities. Distallythe lateral face is modified by convergent abrasion ofthe bone‘s compacta from the cranial and caudal edgeresulting in a pointed tip of 104 cm in length. At thetip, the bone was reduced in thickness (from 16 cm,measured at the basis of the modification to 0~3 cm,

measured at the tip) and breadth (from 3~5 cm to09 cm).

Rib 3Rib 3 (Figure 8) represents a fragment of 376 cm inlength (max. breadth: 33 cm; max. width: 2~2 cm). Oneend of the bone is characterized by a plain fracture.

r

1

132 S. Gaudzinski

(a)

Figure 7. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified rib 2. (a), (b), (d) lateral view. (c) cranial/caudal view, (e), (f) caudal/cranial view.

The opposite end was pointed by carving the lateral in length and its thickness was reduced frornface from the cranial and caudal edge retaining the 1 ~2 cm (measured at the basis of the modification) toconvex curvature of the bone surface. The tip is 8~9 cm 03 cm (measured at the tip).

(b)(c)

0c

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 133

(c)

Figure 8, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified rib 3. (a), (b), (d) lateral view, (c) cranial/caudal view. (e) medial view.

Rib 4Rib 4 (Figure 9) represents a left rib fragment of633 cm length (max. breadth: 3~9 cm; max. width:2~4 cm). The proximal end shows a spiral fracture. Thedistal end of the bone was pointed by an almostsymmetrical reduction of the bone from the cranial andcaudal edges (from l~3 cm, measured at the basisof the modification, to 0~4 cm, measured at the tip)accompanied by a reduction of the width (from 3~4 cmto 0~6 cm) by smoothing the lateral face.

Rib 7Rib 7 (Figure 10) (length: 8O~5 cm; max. breadth:46 cm; max. width: 3~2 cm) has been modified into along, compact stretched point 15~9 cm in length. Todaythe bone is broken into three pieces. To reduce thedistal width of the rib, part of the bone was split alongthe edges to remove the medial face. Bone splitting isindicated by a number of small conical impacts on thebones‘ edges. The lateral face was carved, retaining theconvex curvature of the bone, to form a tip which hasprobably been additionally polished. The bone breadthwas reduced frorn 4~4 cm to 06 cm, the width wasreduced from 33 cm to 0~5 cm.

Split rib 1 (Figure 11)This bone represents the medial face of a rib (length:72~5 cm; max. breadth: 5~1 cm, max. width: 2~4 cm).

The proximal articular joint has been broken off,leaving a spiral fracture. The opposite end was pointed,thus reducing the breadth (from 35 cm to 14 cm) andthickness (from 10 cm to 06 cm) by smoothing thebone‘s edges. Numerous small conical impacts (N= 18,N= 9) caused by the splitting of the bone cover thebone‘s edges. lt seems obvious that these modificationsresulted from the splitting of the rib.

Not only ribs, but also mammoth fibulae served asraw material for tool production (N3). Two otherfibulae show modifications that could result fromhominid modification. These bones show modificationscomparable to those observed on the ribs. All fibulaeshow intentional modifications proximally. Thedistal joint can be present (N2), absent (N 1) orcarnivore-gnawed (N 2).

Fibula 1 (Figure 12)The bone represents a diaphysis of a right mammothfibula (length: 50~2 cm; max. breadth: 5•0 cm; max.width: 4~0 cm). Proximally the bone has been modifiedto a point of 11~0 cm length by reducing the bonebreadth (from 31 cm to 04 cm) and width (from3~8 cm to 0~4 cm). The edges of the bone have beenabraded by whittling and have additionally beensmoothed. Distally, the bone shows traces characteristic of carnivore modification. Another unequivocalpiece of evidence for tool production is provided by a

(a)

(e)

134 S. Gaudzinski

(a)

(b)

(d)

Figure 9. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified rib 4. (a)—(c) lateral view, (d) caudal view, (e) medial view.

bone point with a length of 63 cm, made either of amammoth or a rhino long bone (Figure 13). The bonefragment was shaped into a triangular form as shownby the abraded distal edges of the artefact. Notching ofthe distal end occurred in order to produce a wingedbase. Proximally, modification by smoothing resultedin a blunt conically pointed tip.

lt has been repeatedly stated that the bone pointrepresents an intrusional element within the SalzgitterLebenstedt assembiage as this artefact should indicatean unexpectedly evolved technique for the MiddlePalaeolithic period (e.g., Müller-Beck, 1966). Judging

from the depositional setting of the site there are noindications to support this suggestion. The findyielding Middle Palaeolithic horizon is covered by asubstantial sediment sequence and Upper Palaeolithiclevels are not known from the upper part of thegeological sequence.

Mammuthus primigenius Remains: RawMaterial for Tool ProduetionIn order to consider the raw material for tool production more closely, the character of the Mammuthus

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 135

Figure 10. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified rib 7. (a), (b), (d) lateral view, (c) cranial/caudal view, (e) medial view.

priinigenius accumulation will be discussed in moredetail. For mammoth, the skeletal elements listed inTable 2 have been documented. For Mammuthus

(b) (c)

5

prirnigenius, a minimum of 17 individuals was calculated according to the occlusal abrasional pattern ofupper (N 11) and lower (N 10) molars (Guenther,

136 S. Gaudzinski

(c)

Figure II. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Split rib 1. (a)—(d) lateral view. (e) cranial/caudal view, (O~ (g) medial view.

1991). The same source serves for the caiculation ofthe mammoth population structure (Guenther, 1991;compare Haynes, 1991).

Following Haynes (1991) for the caiculation ofelephant mortality structures, the different individuals

should be referred to 12-year intervals representingjuvenile, prime, adult and senile phases in elephant life.Such a rough grid has the advantage that the problemswith exact age determination in elephants recede intothe background.

(9)

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 137

(f)

Figure 12. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Modified fibula 1. (a) (b), (e) (0 lateral view. (c) medial view. (d) cranial view.

The mortality structure for the Salzgitter~Lebenstedtmammoths (Figure 14) is characterized by a dominance ofjuveniles (age-ciass 1) and age-ciass 3 individuais, as weil as the lack of individuals for the 2ndage-ciass. In elephants, a dominance of subadult mdividuals, as weil as a decrease in the following agegroups, characterizes a stable hving population(Haynes, 1991).

The mammoth body profile (Figure 15), which isdominated by moiars and fibulae, is characterized inthe first instance by an anecdotic presence of bones;in addition 161 rib fragments of 10 cm to more than

1 m iength with the proviso that no confusion withC‘oelodonta anhiquitatis ribs (especially for the smailerfragments) occurred (compare Woisan, 1982). Only sixribs were complete, a number of 40 proximal endssurvived as weil as 14 distai ends. The sum of the iengthof all fragments is 75~55 m. lt is difficuit to incorporaterib fragments into the %-MNI based scheme for theconsideration of skeletai part representation (compareAudouze & Enloe, 1991). Nevertheless, it could bepointed out that ribs represent a further dominantelement within the postcraniai element representationfor this species.

138 S. Gaudzinski

Eu

0

Figure 13. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Bone point.

A skeletal element representation, which is determined by the presence of molars, fibulae and ribs, isstriking and obviously represents a pattern undocumented in the palaeontological and archaeologicalrecord (compare Haynes, 1991). As the artificiallymodified bone tools have been made using ribs andfibulae an intentional selection of faunal material byhominids can be postulated, with the important proviso that no selective collecting during excavationoccurred.

Apart from the more or less complete skeletal elements, a number of 93 small long-bone fragments hasbeen recovered. Of these pieces, 45 bone splinters showirnpact marks (Figure 16). As for the mammoths, theratio of carnivore gnawing is very high (27~7% of themore or less complete long bones have been gnawed)

Table 2. Mammuthus primigenius. Skeletal elements

(vide Haynes, 1983: figure 4). Additionally, since mostof the fragments do not allow detailed anatomicalpositioning it could not be decided whether theseimpacts witness hominid and/or carnivore modifications. These fragments do not display definite hominidcut-marks. A number of definite cut-marks has beenobserved on the modified bones but it remains unclearwhether these traces occurred during tool productionor during butchering of mammoth carcasses.

In conclusion, hominid impact on the rnamrnothaccumulation is difficult to assess. Most mamrnothremains probably represent part of a natural background fauna, as indicated by the anecdotic bonerepresentation, by the high number of carnivore gnawmarks and by the population structure. In order toexplain the high proportion of ribs, fibulae and teeth,it could be postulated either that these elements inparticular, were chosen from the bulk of this materialfor tool production and/or that tools were producedfrom hominid nutritional resources and depositedtogether with the remains of a natura! backgroundfauna.

lt remains unclear how the selection of raw materialfor bone tool production worked. The spiral fracturesfound, especially on the modified ribs, indicate that thebones broke in rather fresh condition since alreadycompletely fossilized bones should produce differentfractures. Although spiral fractures can be caused byagents other than hominids it could be suggested thatthe damage was caused during the isolation of stillarticulated ribs frorn the carcass as nearly all modifiedribs lack their proximal joint. Whether the ribs werealready defleshed when chosen for tool manufactureremains unclear as conservation cut-marks cannotclearly be distinguished from defieshing cut-marks.

NISP MNI sin.MNI sin./dext. MNI dext. %-MNI

Molars 21 17 1000%Vertebj-aeCervical 2 — 1 — 58%Thoracal 17 3 176%Lumbar 3 — 1 — 58%Indet. 25 — 1Pelvis 4 2 117%Ribs (161)Scapula 4 2 — 2 235%Humerus dist. 1 1 — 58%Radius prox. 6 3 — 2 294%Ulna 6 2 — 3 294%Os carpale 1 1 58%Os naviculare 1 1 — 58%Patella 1 1 58%Tibia prox. 3 1 1 1 117%Fibula 13 7 — 6 764%Talus 1 — 1 — 58%Phalanges 2 1 — 1 117%

NlSPnumber of individual specirnens per taxon. MNI=minimum number of individualscalculated according to Binford (1978).

per taxon. %-MNI

z

24—36

Age (years)

Figure 14. .lv[ammuthus primigenius. Mortality structure.

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 139

Figure 15. Mammuthus prirnigenius, Body profile.

Concinding ResuitsFor the Middle Palaeolithic period it seems rather clearthat bones have been used as tools. Faunal remainsshowing use wear traces are reported from various sites

Figure 16. Mainmuthus primigenius. Bone fragment with impactfractures.

(Vincent, 1993). However, the majority of these specimens, have not been modified intentionally accordingto a specific shape. Therefore, these modified bonesdiffer considerably from the numerous intentionallyshaped bones from Sa1zgitter~Lebenstedt which are tobe classified as bone tools.

Regular production of bone and antler tools doesnot occur before the early Upper Palaeolithic. Aurignacian phase (Hahn, 1977). Standardized and complexorganic tools, produced with quite elaborate techniques including smoothing and polishing, occur quiteregularly from this period onwards (Knecht, 1993).Bone tool production as known from this period hasno equivalent in the Middle Palaeolithic period eventhough the techniques for the production of woodentools were known at least since c. 400 000 years ago

12

0—12 12—241•••

36—48 48—60

Max.

Epi.Cervical

ThoracalLumbar

SacralPelvis

RibsScapula

Hum. prox.Hurn. dist.Rad. prox.Rad. dist.

UlnaMcc. prox.Mcc. dist.

Fern.prox. -

Fern. dist.Tibia prox.Tibia dist.

Fibula -

Mtt. prox.Mtt. dist. -

Caicaneus -

AstragalusPhal. 1

Phal. IIPhal. III

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 751 1 1 1

%-MNI80 85 90 95 100

0 2 4cm

140 S. Gaudzinski

(Thieme, 1997) and even during the Lower Palaeolithicperiod bone bifaces have been produced at a number ofsites surrounding Rome, such as Fontana Ranuccio(Segre, Biddittu & Guadagnoli, 1987). In addition,a number of differently shaped bone tools has been reported from the German site at Bilzingsleben (Mania,1995) where we are still awaiting a detailed descriptiveand taphonomic study of the faunal remains.The question why organic material was ignored fortool production during the Middle Palaeolithic was aquestion ofresearch interest (Mithen, 1996) and lack oforganic tools during this period was interpreted interms of a “lack of a concept of the final, intendedform“ (Noble & Davidson, 1996: 205) for MiddlePalaeolithic hominids. In this context, a bone harpoonassociated with a Middle Stone Age lithic assemblageat the site of Katanda (Zaire) was considered to refiectone of the first manifestations of modern humanbehaviour (Yellen et al., 1995).Taking into account this background, the bone toolassemblage from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt is even moredifficult to assess as the function of the tools remainrather obscure. From the number of differently shapedbones usable as raw-material, only long, thin and verycompact bones were chosen and intentionally collectedfor tool production. Some of these bones have beenworked in comparable ways in order to produce similarly shaped modifications probably meant for thesame purposes. By contrast, the fact that, for instance,the ribs have been modified in three different waysindicates that the assembiage served for different activities. Utilization of the ribs for instance as thrustingweapons seems very unlikely in view of the strongcurvature of most of the bones.Not only the functional aspect hut also the archaeological context remains obscure, as Middle Palaeolithic, as well as Upper Palaeolithic, assembiagescomparable to Salzgitter are still unknown. However,the Salzgitter tools are not entirely without parallels. Aworked bone point from a late Middle Palaeolithiccontext is known from the Große Grotte in SouthernGermany (Riek, 1934: plate XXXVI, 4; Albrecht,Hahn & Torke, 1972). This specimen resembles theSalzgitter point in that the proximal end was alsoconically pointed by smoothing.At the Upper Palaeolithic site of Predmosti (CzechRepublic),. söme 50 more or less complete ribs display-ing rnodified ends were uncovered (Valoch, 1982). Asthis bone assemblage is not published in detail, adetailed comparison of modifications is difficult.Representing a further parallel find, a split pointedrib was found in the gravel deposits at Duisburg(Germany), unfortunately without stratigraphicalcontext (Tromnau, 1982).The exceptional presence of a bone tool assemblage atSalzgitter could refiect research bias, just like theSchöningen spears (Thieme, 1997) and it may bepossible that comparable bone tools from other siteshave not been recognized due to bad bone preser

vation. Alternatively, Salzgitter might indeed be anexception in the archaeological record. For the MiddlePalaeolithic it could be suggested, for instance, thatmainly wood was used to produce elongated toolswhich were not preserved. As the site of Salzgitterreflects a cold phase, a shortage in the raw materialwood could have induced Middle Palaeolithic hominids to switch over to use bones for tool productioninstead.For the Salzgitter-Lebenstedt bone tools, the contextcannot be closely defined. They were uncovered together with lithic tools and a faunal assemblage characterized by a mixture of a natural background faunaand remains of focused and selective hunting activitiesby hominids. lt remains unclear whether the organictool production and the hunting activities wereconnected.

AcknowledgementsMy thanks go to Wolf-Dieter Steinmetz and thestaff of the Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum inWolfenbüttel for permission to study the materialand for their hospitality during the preparation ofthis work. 1 owe gratitude to Wil Roebroeks and theJournal of Archaeological Science referees for useful,critical comments. Finally, 1 thank Martin Street forcorrecting my English and Anne Hidien-Schlachter forher excellent drawings.

ReferencesAlbrecht, G., Hahn, J. & Torke, W. G. (1972). Merkmalsanalyse

von Geschoßspitzen des mittleren Jungpleisto:äns in Mittel- undOsteuropa. Tübingen: Archaeologica Venatoria.

Audouze, F. & Enloe, J. (1991). Subsistence strategies and economyin the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin, France. In (N. Barton.A, J. Roberts & D. A. Roe, Eds) The Late Glacial in north westEurope: human adaptation and environmental change at Hie end ofthe Pleistocene. London: CBA Research Report, pp. 63—7 1.

Behre, K. E. (1989). Biostratigraphy of the Last Glacial period inEurope. Quaternary Science Reviews 8, 25—44.

Behre, K. E. & van der Plicht, J. (1992). Towards an absolutechronology for the Last Glacial period in Europe: radiocarbondates frorn Oerel, northern Germany. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 1, 111—117.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1975). The taphonoiny and paleoecology ofPlio-Pleistocene vertebrate assemblages east of Lake Rudolf,Kenya. Bulletin Museum of comparative Zoology 146, 473—578.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1982). Tirne resolution in fluvial vertebrateassemblages. Paleobiology 8, 211—227.

Behrensrneyer, A. K. (1988). Vertebrate representations in fluvialchannels. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 63,183—1 99.

Binford, L. R. (1978). Nrmamiut Ethnoarchaeology, New York!London: Academic Press.

Busch, R. (1991). Bibliographie Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. In (R. Busch& H. Schwabedissen, Eds) Der altsteinzeitliche FundplatzSalzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 217—231.

Frison, G. C. & Todd, L. C. (1986). The Colby Mammoth Site.Alberquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools 141

Gaudzinski, S. (in press). Knochen und Knochengeräte der mittelpaläolithischen Fun dstelle Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Deutschland).Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz.

Grote, K. & Preul, F. (1978). Der mittelpaläolithische LagerplatzSalzgitter-Lebenstedt. Vorbericht über die Grabung und die geologische Untersuchung 1977. Nachrichten aus NiedersachsensUrgeschichte 47, 77—106.

Guenther, E. W. (1991) Die Backenzähne von Mainmuthusprimigenius und Mammuthus primigenius-trogontherii von SalzgitterLebenstedt und einigen anderen Fundorten. In (R. Busch & H.Schwabedissen, Eds) Der altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz SalzgitterLebenstedt. Teil II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln:Böhlau Verlag, 101 147.

Hahn, J. (1977). Aurignacien: Das ältere Jungpaläolithikuni in Mittel-und Osteuropa. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.

Haynes, G. (1983). A guide for differentiating mammalian carnivoretaxa responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones.Paleobiology 9, 164—172.

Haynes, G. (1991). Mammoth, inastodonts and elephants. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Johannes, H. & Schuh-Johannes, J. (1991). Die Pilzfunde. In (R.Busch & H. Schwabedissen, Eds) Der altsteinzeitliche FundplatzSalzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, pp. 21 1—216.

Kleinschmidt, A. (1953). Die Untersuchung der paläolithischenFreilandstation von Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. 6. Die zoologischenFunde der Grabung Salzgitter-Lebenstedt 1952. Eiszeitalter undGegenwart 7, 166—1 88.

Kleinschmidt, A. (1965). Die Mechanik der Sedimentbewegung inkleinen Flutrinnen. Ein Beitrag zur analytischen SedimentGefügekunde (Stratonomie). Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde Württemberg 120, 126—184.

Knecht, H. (1993). Splits and wedges: the techniques and technologyof early Aurignacian antler working. In (H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay& R. White, Eds) Before Lascaux: the coinplex record of the earlyUpper Palaeolithic. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 139—162.

Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mania, U. (1995). The utilisation of large mammal bones inBilzingsleben — a special variant of Middle Pleistocene man‘srelationship to bis environment. In (H. Ullrich, Ed.) Man andEnvironn?ent in the Palaeolithic. Liäge: Eraul, pp. 239 246.

Mithen, 5. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mmd. London: Thames andHudson.

Müller-Beck, H. J. (1966). Die frühe und mittlere Altsteinzeit inEuropa, Nordafrika und Vorderasien. In (K.J. Narr, Ed.) Handbuch der Urgeschichte. Bern: Francke Verlag, pp. 134-157.

Noble, W. & Davidson, 1. (1996). Human Evolution, Language andMmd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pastoors, A. (1996). Die Stemnartefakte von Salzgitter-Lebenstedt.Dissertation, Universität zu Köln.

Pfaffenberg, K. (1991). Die Vegetationsverhältnisse während undnach der Sedimentation der Fundschichten von Salzgitter-

Lebenstedt. In (R. Busch & H. Schwabedissen, Eds) Deraltsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil II.Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln: Böhlau Verlag,pp. 183 210.

Preul, F. (1991). Die Fundschichten im Klärwerksgelände vonSalzgitter-Lebenstedt und ihre Einordnung in die Schichtenfolgedes Quartär. In (R. Busch & H. Schwabedissen, Eds) Der alt-steinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. pp. 9—99.

Riek. G. (1934). Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd. Band 1. DieKulturen. Leipzig: Curt Kabitzsch Verlag.

Schüttrumpf, R. (1991). Kommentar zu dem vorstehenden Beitragvon W. Selle über Salzgitter-Lebenstedt nach dem Forschungsstand der achtziger Jahre. In (R. Busch & H. Schwabedissen, Eds)Der altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil II.Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln: Böhlau Verlag,pp. 162 182.

Segre, A. G., 1. Biddittu, F. & Guadagnoli, F. (1987). Nuovi dati sulgiacimento del Paleolitico Inferiore di Anagni-Fontana Ranuccio.Archeologia Laziale 8, 239—243.

Selle, W. (1991). Die palynologischen Untersuchungen am paläolithischen Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. In (R. Busch & H.Schwabedissen, Eds) Der altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz SalzgitterLebenstedt. Teil II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Köln:Böhlau Verlag, pp. 149—161.

Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears fromGermany. Nature 385, 807—810.

Tode, A. (1953). Die Untersuchung der paläolithischen Freiland-station von Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. 8. Einige archäologischeErkenntnisse aus der paläolithischen Freilandstation vonSalzgitter-Lebenstedt. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 3, 192—215.

Tode, A. (1982). Der altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt.Teil 1. Archäologischer Teil. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.

Tromnau, G. (1982). Eine bearbeitete Mammutrippe aus denRheinkiesen bei Duisburg. In (G. Krause, Ed.) Festschrift fürRudolf Stampfu~3. Bonn: Hebelt Verlag, pp. 197—201.

Valoch, K. (1982). Die Beingeräte von Predmosti in Mähren(Tschechoslowakei). Anthropologie 20, 57—69.

Villa, P. & Bartram, L. (1996). Flaked bone from a hyena den. Paleo8, 143—159.

Vincent, A. (1993). L‘ outillage osseux au Paläolithique mayen: unenouvelle approche. Thbse de doctorat, Universitb Paris.

Voorhies, M. R. (1969). Taphonomy and population dynamics ofan early pleistocene vertebrate fauna, Knox Country. Nebrasca(Wyoming): Contributions to Geology, Special Papers 1.

Wolsan, M. (1982). A comparative analysis of the ribs of ungulatesfor archaeozoological purposes. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 25,167—228.

Yellen, J., Brooks, A. 5., Cornelissen, E., Mehlman, M. J. &Steward, K. (1995). A Middle Stone age worked boneindustry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science 268,553—556.