Leaf Point finds from Zemplín Hills Area, Eastern Slovakia

Adriána Voľanská

1. Introduction

The bifacial leaf point is widely known as a diagnostic type used especially in the transitional period of the Szeletian in Central Europe (Prošek 1953, Svoboda 2014: 341, Oliva 1991: 319). Despite this fact, the oldest leaf points are dated to the Middle Palaeolithic Micoquian industry in this region (Kozłowski 2003: 149). The bifacial technology for artifact production appeared not only in the Szeletian, but also in other cultures such as Altmuhlian, Streletskian, Lincombian- Ranisian-Jerzmanowician and Gravettian (Kozłowski 2003: 149, Flas 2015: 49, Svoboda 1994: 133, fig. 60: 10, Bárta 1988: 181, fig. 8, Jarošová et al. 1996: 200, Simán 1990: 18, Lengyel et al. in press). The function of leaf points in archaeological assemblages has not been uncovered yet. Whereas M. Oliva (1991: 319) considers the leaf point an artifact with high social status (Oliva 1991: 319), J. Svoboda et al. (1994: 112) and Z. Nerudová et al. (2010: 149) believe that leaf points were rather multifunctional tools. Finds of leaf points on the Western edge of the Zemplín Hills in Southeast Slovakia near Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa (Trebišov district) may bring another viewpoint to this still contemporary and persisted issue.

2. Data and methods

The first finds of leaf points in rural areas of Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa nearby appeared in early 2013. The first leaf point findings in the rural areas of Čerhov, Veľkej Tŕne and their vicinity appeared in early 2013. Experienced regional explorer Dr. M. Iľko found another two leaf points until spring 2014 (artifacts are housed in the Institute of History of Faculty of Arts at Prešov University). The sites are located on the terrains of the Western edge of the Zemplín Hills in Southeast Slovakia. Two locations were found in the village of Čerhov, namely Pod vinicami and Pod hečkou (the site Pod vinicami is located in the cadastral map in the West from Hrachovisko and Pod hečkou is named Hečka) and onelocation is situated in the cadastre of Veľká Tŕňa at Hečka (name is identical with cadastral map). For better orientation we will use conventional local names. Hečka and Pod hečkou sites are located close to each other, the site called Pod vinicami by the locals lies on the Southern part of Čerhov rural area (Fig. 1).

Leaf points, together 5 pieces, are of a specific shape typical for Szeletian, but one of them reminds of Micoquian or Bábonyan (Fig. 3). Leaf points that have a flat surface retouch is typical for Szeletian, but this kind of retouch is also characteristic for sidescrapers and other tools. (Svoboda 2014: 341, Svoboda 1994: 111–112). Blade and flake debitage can be found there and from the typological point of view sidescrapers with Middle Palaeolithic character, as well as burins, retouched blades and notches are dominant (Svoboda 2014: 341). Carinated endscrapers occur sporadically (Oliva 1991: 318). Most of these characteristics can be found on our above mentioned locations. Triangular bifaces are typical for Bábonyian and beside them Bocksteinknives, leaf-shaped points and Bábony type knives are also characteristic (Ringer 1983, Ringer 2001: 216). Á. Ringer recognized Bábonyian-Szeletian complex, where Szeletian is the Upper Palaeolithic derivative of the Middle Palaeolithic Bábonyian (Ringer et al. 1995). Besides these five leaf points, another 380 artifacts of various types and products of simple technological production were collected.

Artifacts from field surveys are often understood as finds with less informative value than those from excavations. However, I agree with S. Vencl’s opinion that field survey is a permanent source of information for archaeology and we should stop disparagement or even denial of knowledge from field surveys for good (Vencl 1995: 12).

We analysed macroscopically the raw material, which the artifacts are made of. Classification of finds was performed based on typology and all artifacts underwent technological analysis (Table 1.1–4, Table 2.1–4, Table 3.1–4).

3. Results

The artifacts were mostly made from obsidian coming from local sources from the Zemplín Hills in Slovakia, and other raw materials originated in Zemplén, Hungary, e.g. jasper and limnosilicite. Some tools were made of Polish flint and Slovakian radiolarite. Raw material has often low quality; debris is characterized by frost or other damage (probably as a result of ploughing).

In the collection from Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa we could also identify finds of a knapped industry typical for Mesolithic or Neolithic-Eneolithic technology of knapping. The difference between Upper Palaeolithic and Late Palaeolithic- Mesolithic or later artifacts is in the technology. Primary technology used in Upper Palaeolithic artifacts is direct percussion with a hard hammerstone, whereas direct percussion with a soft hammer and indirect percussion are typical rather for Late Palaeolithic-Mesolithic periods (Inizan et al. 1992: 61). In the Upper Palaeolithic, we can find blades and flakes. In Mesolithic technology we can find irregular cores with opposed striking platform and microlithic artifacts (Ginter, Kozłowski 1990: 64). Neolithic artifacts seem to have been produced usually by pressure technique, whereby the artifacts are smaller or bigger (Ginter, Kozłowski 1990: 64). Eneolithic finds usually tend to be enlarged blades, and standardization in the production can be observed, whereby bifacial points and spears were also used (Ginter, Kozłowski 1990: 64, 65). The artifacts from Mesolithic or Neolithic/Eneolithic period represent 25% of the total amount of finds. Technologically, the assemblage comprises core tablets, crested blades, burin spalls, core rejuvenation flakes, massive blades, flakes, blade and bladelet cores, Levallois cores and a Levallois flake (Table 1–3, Fig. 4). Upper Palaeolithic artifacts can be related to blade technology resembling Aurignacian and Szeletian, with massive blades. Bladelets and bladelet cores are typical for Mesolithic or Neolithic/Eneolithic finds. We may assume that they were produced by the means of pressure technique (Fig. 4: 2).

Typologically, the most significant types are leaf points. We may assume based on an analogy, to what cultural sphere the material belongs (Fig. 2). Smaller leaf points with an average size of 48.61 x 27.03 x 9.70 mm (Fig. 3: 1-4) are usually found on the sites. One artifact is broken (Fig. 3: 5). From the dimensional point of view, this piece is much bigger (135.79 x 98.58 x 36.19 mm) than others and seems like Szeletien (Mester 2010: 114, Fig. 3: 3, Prošek 1953: 158, Fig. 6: 8), Micoquian (Richter 2009: 107, Fig. 8; Hülle 1977: Pl. 1; Kozłowski 2014: 353, Fig. 13: 3; Cyrek 2002, Pl. XXIV), or Bábonyan (Ringer 1983: fig. 70). Smaller leaf points may be found analogously in the Szeletien collection (Ringer 2011: 10, Fig. 6: 4, Kozłowski et al. 2009: 434, Pl. 12:2, 3). Leaf points are made of limnosilicite, radiolarite and flint; whereby all are bifacial. The assemblage contains tools such as carinated endscrapers with steep retouch, Aurignacian endscrapers made on blades, sidescrapers, burin busqué, splintered pieces, tools with denticulated retouch, double sidescraper on blade or retouched trapeze on bladelet (Fig. 4).

4. Discussion

Leaf points from Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa appear together with Upper Palaeolithic, but also Mesolithic or Neolithic/ Eneolithic industries. In the neighbouring locations Neolithic and Eneolithic finds are recorded, but not yet published, however, at these very locations, there is no ceramic material. Regarding the finding of a trapeze artifact and several miniature bladelets and bladelet cores we incline to place the settlement in the Mesolithic Period. The nearest settlement from the Mesolithic Period in Eastern Slovakia that can be determined is situated in sand dunes (Bánesz 1966: 47), in Streda nad Bodrogom (Kaminská 2014: 320) and in Košice-Barca I (Prošek 1959; Kaminská 2014: 320). More distant sites are known to be in Čičarovce (Kaminská 2014: 319) and Ružín-Medvedia jaskyňa (Bárta 1990; Kaminská 2014: 320-321). As the leaf points are registered only at Palaeolithic sites for now, their relation to later periods was excluded here.

The Palaeolithic knapped stone industry could be related to Aurignacian (Fig. 4: 4, 7, 9) and Szeletian (Fig. 3: 1–5, Fig. 4: 3, 6, 8). Moreover, Levallois point and Levallois cores among the artifacts are most probably remnants from the Middle Palaeolithic. Regarding the uniqueness of the larger leaf point in comparison to others, which could be analogously associated with Szeletian, Micoquian or Bábonyan and due to plentiful other material referring to Szeletian and Aurignacian technology we may assume that these locations in Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa were settled by Szeletian/Aurignacian culture.

Smaller size of other leaf points can be explained by low quality of raw material that was obvious when analysing chipped stone industry, mentioned by Z. Nerudová (Nerudová 2010: 51, Kaminská 2014: 138) as well. The bigger bifacial artifact is broken to two pieces. This leaf point could be broken during production or later. One or more pieces are still missing for the reconstruction of the whole artifact (Fig. 3: 5). This issue could be solved either by another field survey or by traseological research.

Proofs for the existence of leaf points in Gravettian collections are also interesting. A familiar case was the discovery of leaf points in the Upper Gravettian in Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Bárta 1988: 181, fig. 8) or in Předmostí in Moravia (Svoboda 1994: 133, fig. 60:10). Nevertheless the leaf points are still considered as determining tools for the Szeletian (Kaminská 2014: 137).

The observed localities were inhabitated by the Szeletian/ Aurignacian culture and it seems that the theory of L. Bánesz on similar settlements is still topical. According to his opinion, the leaf points in Eastern Slovakia, where Aurignacian culture settlement is noticed the most, are connected by the Szeletian intervention (Bánesz 1965: 159, Bánesz 1980: 185). In contrast, Ľ. Kaminská claims that leaf points belong to the Aurignacian culture in Eastern Slovakia, regardless of whether they were under the influence Bükk Szeletian, or not (Kaminská 2014: 165). Localities that are similar to Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa in Eastern Slovakia, are located, for instance in Veľký Šariš (Bánesz 1960) and in Petrovany (Kaminská 1985), where the accompanying industry of leaf points, despite their low amount, is being classified into the Aurignacian (Kaminská 1990: 7).

A stratigraphic position of leaf points in Eastern Slovakia is supported, unfortunately, only by older research and is based on the oldest element of this production in Košice- Barca II regarding the Early Aurignacian (interstadial lower Würm) and on findings from interstadial setting of lower Würm in Veľký Šariš (Bánesz 1990: 11).

L. Bánesz’s theory becomes more current with the appearance of Aurignacian and Szeletian sites more closer together. It can be argued that Southeastern Slovakia is more or less the contact area between the Szeletian and the Aurignacian, which also appear in Northeastern Hungary. At this place, more than anywhere else, the Szeletian interventions to Aurignacian settlement could occur (or vice versa).

5. Conclusion

The newly discovered sites of five leaf points in Čerhov and Veľká Tŕňa in the district of Trebišov in Southeastern Slovakia provide further knowledge to the map of Palaeolithic settlement of Slovakia and Central Europe. Four smaller leaf point artifacts are probably associated with low quality raw material base and absence of suitable cleavable raw materials. One larger leaf point raises a clear conclusion regarding the classification (Szeletian), but at the same time also questions (similarity with Micoquian and Bábonyian). A dislocation on this artifact is also unclear and unexplained. More evidence would hopefully be provided by further surface exploration or traseological research. Along with Palaeolithic findings the inventory includes Mesolithic or Neolithic/Eneolithic cleavaged industry. As leaf points have not been found in these periods so far, their association with them remains excluded.

As the accompanying industry could be classified in the Szeletian/Aurignacian culture, where leaf points, sidescrapers, carinated endscrapers and massive blades were found, it can be assumed that it was a settlement of one of these cultures by an intervention of the other culture. Similar situations (Aurignacian sites intervened by the Szeletian) occur in the vicinity of Eastern Slovakia.

It is unclear whether leaf points have significant social implications or they were created solely on pragmatic grounds. Leaf points, however, are nowadays still the main determining features of Szeletian culture, what we have to take into account.

This study was done as a part of the scientific grant agency KEGA „Miesto Slovenska v pravekých a včasnohistorických dejinách Európy Projekt č. 026PU-4/2015. „The Place of Slovakia in the Prehistoric and Early Historic Period of Europe“ Project no. 026PU-4/2015.

Tables

References

Bánesz, L. 1960. Kotázke listovitých hrotov z Veľkého Šariša. Archeologické rozhledy 12/3: 313-318.

Bánesz, L. 1965. Údolie Torysy v staršej dobe kamennej. In: Sedlák I. (zost.), Nové obzory 7. Košice: Východoslovenské vydavateľstvo, 153-168.

Bánesz, L. 1966. Staršia doba kamenná – paleolit. In: Kolektív autorov, Pravek východného Slovenska. Malá monografia východného Slovenska VIII/1. Košice: Východoslovenské vydavateľstvo, 11–48.

Bánesz, L. 1980. Počiatky mladšieho paleolitu na východnom Slovensku. Historica carpatica 9: 185-217.

Bánesz, L. 1990. Súčasná problematika paleolitu východného Slovenska a severovýchodnej časti Karpatskej kotliny. Historica carpatica 21: 9–19.

Bárta, J. 1988. Trenčianske Bohuslavice. Un habitat gravettien en Slovaquie occidentale. L`Anthropologie 92(4): 173–182.

Bárta, J. 1990. Mezolitickí lovci v Medvedej jaskyni pri Ružíne. Slovenská archeológia 38(1): 5–30.

Cyrek, K. 2002. Jaskinia Bisnik. Rekonstrukcja zasiedlenia jaskini na tle zmian srodowiska przyrodniczego. Torun: Uniwersytet M.Kopernika

Flas, D. 2015. The extension of Early Upper Palaeolithic with blade leaf-points (Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician): the issue of Kostenki 8 level. In: Ashton, N., Harris, C. R. E. (eds.), No Stone Unturned: Papers in Honour of Roger Jacobi. London: LSS, pp. 49–58.

Ginter, B., Kozłowski, J. K. 1990. Technika obróbki i typologia wyrobów kamiennych paleolitu, mezolitu i neolitu. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Hülle, W. 1977. Die Ilsenhöhle unter Burg Ranis/Thüringen. Eine paläolithische Jäger-station. Stuttgart/New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CREP.

Jarošová, L., Cílek, V., Oches, E., Snieszko, Z. 1996. Petřkovice, excavations 1994-1995. In: Svoboda, J. (ed.), Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region. Brno: AÚ AV ČR v Brně, pp. 191–206.

Kaminská, Ľ. 1985. Nový nález listovitého hrotu z východného Slovenska. Archeologické rozhledy 37(1): 195–197.

Kaminská, Ľ. 1990. Aurignacké stanice v Čečejovciach. Archeologické rozhledy 42(1): 3–12.

Kaminská, Ľ. (zost.) 2014. Staré Slovensko 2. Paleolit a mezolit. Nitra: AÚ SAV.

Kozłowski, J. K. 2003. From Bifaces to Leaf Points. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H. L. (eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. Philadelphia, pp. 149–164.

Kozłowski, J. K. 2014. Middle Palaeolithic variability in Central Europe: Mousterian vs Micoquian. Quarternary International 326- 327: 344–363.

Kozłowski, J. K., Mester, Zs., Zandler, K., Budek, A., Kalicki, T., Moskal, M., Ringer, Á. 2009. Le Paléolithique moyen et supérieur de la Hongrie du nord: nouvelles investigations dans la région d’Eger. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Hungary: New investigations in the Eger region. L’Anthropologie 113: 399–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2009.04.005

Nerudová, Z. 2010. Způsob výroby listovitých hrotů v szeletienu. In: Přichystalová et al. (eds.), Zaměřeno na středověk. Zdeňkovi Měřínskému k 60. narozeninám. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, pp. 41–54.

Nerudová, Z., Dušková-Šajnerová, A., Sadovský, P. 2010. Bifaciální artefakty. Odznaky moci, nebo funkční nástroje? In: Fridrichová- Sýkorová, I. (ed.), Ecce homo. In memoriam Jan Fridrich. Praha: Krigl, pp. 130–151.

Oliva, M. 1991. The Szeletian in Czechoslovakia. Antiquity 65: 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00079825

Prošek, F. 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenská archeológia 1: 133–164.

Prošek, F.1959. Mesolitická obsidiánová industrie ze stanice Barca I. Archeologické rozhledy 9(1): 145–148, 193.

Richter, J. 2009. The Role of Leaf Points in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Germany. Praehistoria 9-10: 99–113.

Ringer, Á. 1983. Bábonyien. Eine mittelpaläolitische Blattwerkzeug Industrie in Nordostungarn. Budapest. Thesis.

Ringer, Á. 2001. Le complexe techno-typologique du bábonyienszélétien en Hongrie du nord. The Bábonyian-Szélétian technotypological complex in northern Hungary. In: Cliquet, D. (dir.), Les industries à outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen d’Europe occidentale. Actes de la table-ronde internationale organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie – France) – 14 et 15 octobre 1999. Liège, ERAUL 98, pp. 213–220.

Ringer, Á. 2011. Paleolithic chert mines on the Avas Hill in Bükk Mountains, North-East Hungary. Annales d’Université Valahia Târgoviște. Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 13(2): 7–11.

Ringer, Á., Kordos, L., Krolopp, E. 1995. Le complexe Bábonyien- Szélétien en Hongrie du nordest dans son cadre chronologique et environnemental. In: Les industries à pointes foliacées d’Europe centrale. Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, 10-15 septembre 1991. Paléo – Supplément N° 1: 27–30.

Simán, K. 1990. Population Fluctuation in the Carpathian Basin from 50 to 15 Thousand Years BP. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42.

Svoboda, J. a kol. 1994. Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. Brno: AÚ AV ČR v Brně.

Svoboda, J. 2014. Předkové. Evoluce člověka. Praha: Academia.

Vencl, S.1995. K otázce věrohodnosti svědectví povrchových průzkumů. Archeologické rozhledy 47(1): 11–57.