The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany

Eiszeitalter
u.
Gegenwart
46
120—131
1 flg., 2 plates
Hannover
1996
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/
Germany,with an Elder Acheulean: starting points
for research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts
in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
KLAUS SCHMUDE*)
L o w e r Pleistocene fluviatil terraces, separation artefacts/geofacts, study o f p e b b l e a c c u m u l a t i o n s ,
c o m p l e x i t y in nature versus simplifying criteria
Abstract: The continuing critic hy part of the prehistorians,
including the principal rejection of pieces found in and on
fluvial terraces without additional archaeological docu­
ments, which does include Kirchhellen and Weeze, caused
the author to continue research and he began to study si­
tuations, where geofacts are produced, which could be
mistaken for archaic artefacts. Results up to now seem to
indicate a better suited approach to this problem, as ex­
plained in the following part. To postulate criteria, in this
case enabling to distinguish between arte- and geofacts.an
extensive fundamental study of the origin of geofacts and
the context should have been undertaken, to form a basis
from which to draw conclusions and then to establish cri­
teria. This is missing in our case. The author's report de­
scribes observations, which seem to point in a direction en­
abling a better understanding of the problem. The state­
ments, that the existence of artefacts in fluvial terraces is
higly improbable and that it is not possible, if they exist, to
separate them from geofacts in pebble accumulations, is
contrasted by numerous archaeological sites with a wealth
of artefacts, the latter even excavated in thousands from
fluvial terraces in the mediterranean area. The production
of geofacts as a natural process is much to complex to po­
stulate simple criteria, as they are used now. The pattern of
natural damages differs from rock to rock, frequently very
strong. Experience gained with flint/silex, in Gennany or
elsewhere, cannot be generalized and used on other rocks:
on one site archaic looking geofacts, made perhaps on li­
mestone, may exist in hundreds together with isolated an­
thropogene similar artefacts on quartzite. The research in­
to a possible archaeological site in an elder tluvial terrace
demands to study the flow of material for a longer distance
of the river, as well as the tributaries and to take into ac­
count numerous complex aspects, which influence the
production of geofacts in the case involved. As many
collections as possible of artefacts from the Elder Paleolit­
hic have to be studied, besides extensive field work on ter­
races in different areas plus experimental knapping; these
are basic conditions to gain the necessary knowledge, and
this expressly over long periods, preferably many years.
The final aim is the possession of a wealth of detailed, per­
sonal knowledge of boths: the artefacts involved as well as
the geofact-forms in general: then as a next step the speci*) Anschrift des Verfassers: K. SCHMUDK, Habichtstr. 71,
45134 Essen
al geofact-forms o f the area involved in new research. The
pieces found in Kirchhellen and Weeze are reconsidered in
view of the above mentioned observations and groups are
created: a. one group of artefacts; b. one group which com­
prises pieces from a zone of passage. There are still que­
stions open: for instance is the geology of Kirchhellen ob­
ject of new studies, but also questions with respect to the
general problem artefacts/geofacts might be further clarified
and this may help with the classification of certain pieces.
[Die Fundstellen Kirchhellen u n d Weeze
mit einem älteren Acheulean: Ausgangspunkte
für weitere Untersuchungen des Problems,
Stein-Artefakte in Geröllansammlungen
v o n Flussterrassen zu e r k e n n e n . ]
Kurzfassung: Die anhaltende Kritik eines Teiles der Prähi­
storiker einschliesslich der prinzipiellen Ablehnung von
Fundstellen in und auf Flussterrassen ohne zusätzliche ar­
chäologische Dokumente, was ja auch Kirchhellen und
Weeze einschliesst, veranlasste den Author zu weiteren
Untersuchungen; er begann daher, sich mit Stellen zu be­
schäftigen, an denen Geofakte produziert werden, die für
archaische Artefakte gehalten werden können. Die bisher
vorliegenden Resultate scheinen eine besser geeignete
Annähening an dieses Problem zu zeigen und werden im
folgenden Teil erklärt. Zur Erstellung von Kriterien, in die­
sem Fall solcher zur Ermöglichung der Trennung zwischen
Artefakten und Geofakten, hätte eine umfangreiche
grundsätzliche Studie des generellen Ursprunges von Geo­
fakten und ihres Kontextes vorgelegt werden sollen, als
Basis für allfällige Schlüsse und der Erstellung von Kriteri­
en. Diese fehlt jedoch. Der hier vorgelegte Bericht be­
schreibt einige Beobachtungen, die in eine Richtung deu­
ten, die ein besseres Verständnis für das Problem gestattet.
Die Behauptung, verrollte Fundstücke seien keine Artefak­
te mehr, ebenso sei es nicht möglich, in Geröllansammlun­
gen Arte - von Geofakten zu trennen, kontrastiert mit zahl­
reichen Fundstellen mit verrollten Artefakten, sogar zu Lau­
senden aus Flussterrassen ergraben, im Mittelmeer-Raum.
Die Entstehung von Geofakten aus natürlichen Prozessen
ist viel zu komplex, um einfache Kriterien, wie sie im Ge­
brauch sind, dafür aufzustellen. Die Erforschung einer
möglichen archäologischen Fundstelle in einer älteren
Flussterrasse erfordert die Untersuchung des Material-
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
trusses über eine längere Distanz des Flusses sowie seiner
Zuläufe und dabei die Beachtung zahlreicher komplexer
Aspekte, die den jeweiligen Fall beeinflussen. Dazu sollte
die Kenntnis sovieler Sammlungen wie möglich aus dem
älteren Paläolithikum erworben werden, daneben sind
ausgedehnte Feldarbeit auf anderen Terrassen und experi­
mentelles Schlagen eine grundsätzliche Bedingung, um
das notwendige Wissen zu erlangen und dies ausdrücklich
über eine längere Periode, vorzugsweise eine Reihe von
Jahren. Das Endziel ist der Besitz umfangreichen detaillier­
ten Wissens sowohl über die involvierten Artefakte als
auch über die generellen Geofakt-Formen und dann als
nächster Schritt die der Region, in der sich die abzuklären­
de Fundstelle befindet. Die Fundstellen von Kirchhellen
und Weeze werden mit Blick auf die hier beschriebenen
Beobachten überprüft; sie enthalten eine Serie von Arte­
fakten neben einer Reihe von Stücken, die in eine Über­
gangszone gehören. Es sind noch Fragen offen: so ist, als
Beispiel, die Geologie von Kirchhellen Objekt einer neuen
Untersuchung, aber ebenso könnten Fragen des generel­
len Problems Artefakte/Geofakte weiter geklärt werden
und dies könnte bei der Ansprache bestimmter Stücke
helfen.
1 Introduction
In 1 9 9 2 t h e description o f t h e above m e n t i o n e d sites
and their artefacts w a s p u b l i s h e d (SCHMUDE 1 9 9 2 ) ;
the recognition and a c c e p t a n c e o f these w a s b a s e d
on the personal e x p e r i e n c e o f the author with arte­
facts in F r a n c e , G e r m a n y a n d Spain, and in addition
the confirmation o f a n u m b e r o f prehistorians e x p e ­
rienced with this c o m p l e x . In the following y e a r s the
artefacts o f Kirchhellen a n d W e e z e met with critic
and n o n - a c c e p t a n c e as w e l l as acceptance. A certain
picture d e v e l o p e d during the years following the
publication o f 1992. T h e p e r s o n s accepting theses
p i e c e s as artefacts b a s e d their opinion o n l o n g e x ­
p e r i e n c e a n d intimate k n o w l e d g e o f artefacts, found
on surfaces o f t e n a c e s as well as from gravelpits and
from inclined, eroded terrace-slopes in agricultural
zones. Most o f these p e r s o n s , further n a m e d group
"A", had, in addition, a l s o gathered e x p e r i e n c e with
geofacts as well as with experimental production o f
stone-tools. This e x p e r i e n c e w a s collected in c o u n ­
tries with longstanding r e s e a r c h into the n u m e r o u s
fluvial terraces and their palaeolithic sites with inventaries m a d e mainly o n quartzite, quartz and
others, but only to a l o w d e g r e e on silex. S o the re­
cognition o f artefacts is, b y this group, b a s e d on a
wealth o f empirical k n o w l e d g e , including e x c a v a ­
tions with 2 o o o to 6 o o o artefacts on quartzite/
quartz, s h o w i n g a wide spectrum o f types o f tools as
well as a wide range o f conservation c o v e r i n g all as­
pects: eolised, leached, patinated, rolled a n d mixtu­
res o f t h e s e . Experimental artefact-production is an
additional tool. ( T A V O S O 1 9 7 8 ;
QUEROL &
SANTONJA
1979). T h e oppositional group,"B", bases its critical
position o n several statements listed in the following.
121
a) P i e c e s , w h i c h are rolled, are only a c c e p t a b l e as ar­
tefacts, if additional a r c h a e o l o g i c a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n
as rests o f fire, worked b o n e s etc. exist. (HAHN 1 9 9 1 :
52);
b ) only, if pieces, m a d e o n rocks not originating
from this location and w h i c h are not in a s e c o n d a r y
position, exist, are such p i e c e s a c c e p t a b l e as artefac­
ts from secondary sites (HAHN 1991: 5 1 ) ;
c. it is n o t possible to r e c o g n i z e elder, sparsely work­
e d artefacts in great accumulations o f p e b b l e s , as
there a r e to many p e b b l e s damaged by nature a n d
alike t o artefacts, especially if collected in lengthy
periods o f time. (ROEBROEKS 1993: 1 2 + 1 3 ) ;
d. if artefact-character is claimed, a n u m b e r o f simple
criteria s h o u l d b e fullfilled: unifacial regular a n d low
a n g l e d flaking indicates an artefact, bifacial flaking
therefore a geofact; an a n t h r o p o g e n e flake should
h a v e negatives on its dorsal face etc. a n d others o n
details (HAHN 1991: 5 3 & 5 4 ) .
T h e s e a r e also the criteria u s e d as arguments against
the finds from Kirchhellen a n d W e e z e . S o the author
found h i m s e l f faced with t w o opinions. At present
there s e e m s to b e a stalemate situation, w h e r e o n e
c a n o n l y join o n e o f these schools: an unsatisfactory
situation a n d the author s e a r c h e d for possibilities to
o p e n w a y s for new m o v e m e n t . T h e a p p r o a c h is as
follows: to b e able to distinguish b e t w e e n arte- and
geofacts, it is a basic condition to k n o w b o t h in d e ­
tail. T h e r e are numerous sites and artefacts from an
Elder Paleolithic, which c a n b e studied. T h i s is, h o ­
w e v e r , different, w h e n it c o m e s to geofacts. Isolated
o b s e r v a t i o n s and a few publications attempting to
establish criteria (PATTERSON 1983,also in HAHN 1 9 9 1 )
have b e e n published. As the separation o f arte- from
geofacts is o n e o f the very fundamental questions in
prehistory, the establishment o f criteria s h o u l d b e
the result o f an extensive, detailed study o f t h e ori­
gin o f geofacts and the context. Then, following an
analysis, as a next step c o n c l u s i o n s c o u l d h a v e b e e n
d r a w n and, finally, criteria established. F o r the
g r o u p „B"-arguments n o such analysis s e e m s to ha­
v e b e e n published. T h e criteria postulated a n d u s e d
s e e m t o b e the result o f isolated personal observati­
ons, g e n e r a l i s e d regardless o f the context. H e r e an
e x a m p l e for illustration: o n e o f the statements pu­
b l i s h e d b y HAHN ( 1 9 9 1 : 5 2 ) and widely u s e d , d e ­
m a n d s , that a flake found, especially in s e c o n d a r y si­
tuation, should have negatives or scars o n its dorsal
side, indicating h u m a n w o r k , as natural forces c a n
also p r o d u c e flakes, but then these w o u l d b e with­
out t r a c e s o f further w o r k , i.e. c o m p l e t e l y c o r t e x - c o ­
vered. H o w e v e r , nature produces also flakes with
scars o n the dorsal side (personal observation o f the
author: B a y o f B i s c a y - b e a c h , l i m e s t o n e ; P y r e n e e s ri­
ver: G a v e d'Oloron, l i m e s t o n e ) . More important: the
A c h e u l e a n in the Mediterranean Area c o n t a i n s a sig­
nificant p e r c e n t a g e o f cortex-flakes, s e p a r a t e d from
KLAUS SCHMUDE
122
the n u m e r o u s great c o b b l e s ; they c o m p r i s e 2 o - 5 o %
of the total o f flakes. Many times a small series just
contains a few s u c h p i e c e s . This criterium did in o n e
discussion lead to the doubtfull situation, that out o f
a series with h a n d - a x e s , c h o p p e r s and cores the on­
ly flake found, a typical great p i e c e for the produc­
tion o f tools, c o m p l e t e l y c o r t e x - c o v e r e d , was decla­
red a geofact ( T A V O S O 1 9 7 8 : 8 0 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 8 8 ,
291, 2 9 6 , 3 o l , 3 5 6 ) . It must, h o w e v e r , b e mentioned,
that HAHN ( 1 9 9 1 ) e x p l a i n s repeatedly, that the last
decision should a l w a y s b e b a s e d o n the geological
situation. T h e author felt, that o n e w a y to progress
could b e a m o r e detailed study o f the creation o f g e ­
ofacts a n d the c o n t e x t , o n the limited scale available
to him. H e b e g a n to o b s e r v e locations,where geofa­
cts are p r o d u c e d . T h e results u p to n o w are highly
interesting a n d s e e m to indicate certain tendencies.
T h e s e shall therefore b e e x p l a i n e d h e r e and may
perhaps s h o w a different approach to the problem.
2 Working Method
The basic principal is a c h a n g e o f the presently used
manner o f a p p r o a c h , that is to imagine hypothetically, what c o u l d ( a n d partly may!) h a p p e n in nature
and use this speculations to explain in which man­
ner a disputed p i e c e may have b e e n created; fre­
quently publications with observations o f isolated
cases are a d d e d to this hypothetical approach and
are generalized. T h e author returned instead to the
empirical a p p r o a c h : s e e for himself, what rivers real­
ly produce, n o t e the observations, collect typical
pieces a n d o n l y thereafter try to recognize trends
and, if possible, d r a w c o n c l u s i o n s . This also m e a n s
the e n d o f discussions with partners, which c a n n o t
denominate locations a n d c o n t e x t e s , o n which they
can base their a r g u m e n t o r which d o not dispose o f
the n e c e s s a r y g e n e r a l e x p e r i e n c e . In other s c i e n c e s
it is an a c c e p t e d m e t h o d to form a working-hypo­
thesis a n d then test, if facts fit into the theoretical
frame; this testing is, in o u r case, missing. Following
example m a y illustrate this: in the river Sieg, in a cer­
tain p e b b l e - a n d - c o b b l e - a c c u m u l a t i o n , flat slabs o f
quartzitic s a n d s t o n e do, u n d e r the peculiar condi­
tions o f this spot, form n u m e r o u s long, slender pic­
like geofacts o f rectangular diameter. Theoretically
they should not exist: it is a physical and technical
experience, that a n y material will first break at its
weakest point a n d a very long a n d slender point
should, in line with this, break off s o m e w h e r e in the
first third. H o w e v e r , nature h e r e s h o w s , that facts are
different from a theoretical approach. As a practical
method in the field to study accumulations o f p e b ­
bles, the s a m e m a n n e r o f search as for artefacts w a s
used, that is: s l o w , regular walking, adapting s p e e d
to circumstances a n d using geometrical patterns e n ­
suring o b s e r v a t i o n c o v e r i n g the c o m p l e t e area
c h o s e n , focusing n o w on natural d a m a g e s . For e a c h
site notices o f the observations are taken, typical
p i e c e s collected. A worker, amateur o r professional,
studying the geofacts o f a certain location a n d / o r
area will in most c a s e s detect a pattern o f damages
typical for the s a m e and the c o n d i t i o n s mling there.
H e may e n c o u n t e r repetitively t h e s a m e form o f
d a m a g e , but also a design c o m p o s e d o f many,
s o m e t i m e s difficult to describe, facettes or multi­
tudes o f such damages.lt is therefore necessary for
h i m to store in his m e m o r y the picture o f the design
o f the significantly d a m a g e d p i e c e s , to b e later able
to r e c o g n i z e s u c h a pattern.
3 Observations and Tendencies recognizable
3.1 Locations o b s e r v e d
T h e following rivers, b e a c h e s a n d m o r a i n e s w h e r e
studied:
a ) G a v e d'Oloron a n d Nive/Nivelle, rivers in the
p i e m o n t o f the Pyrenees, mainly with quartzite,
quartzitic s a n d s t o n e , vulkanites ( F r a n c e ) ,
b ) Ain, Rhone-tributary,
dolomite (France),
mainly with
limestone/
c ) Aim, T o t e s G e b i r g e , with l i m e s t o n e / d o l o m i t e
(Austria),
d) Sieg, Rhine-tributary, mainly quartzitic sandstone,
basalt ( G e r m a n y ) ,
e ) B e a c h e s b e t w e e n Biarritz and St. J e a n de Luz,
B i s c a y a : limestone, quartzite, quartz, sandstone,
silex, shale, vulkanites etca. ( F r a n c e ) ,
0 B e a c h e s near Eckernförde, Baltic S e a : nordic m o ­
raine with quartzite, shales m u c h granite and
others, flint ( s i l e x ) , sandstone, l i m e s t o n e etc.
(Germany),
g)
Mindel-moraine
near
Konstanz/Bodensee:
quartz, limestone, shales etc. ( G e r m a n y ) ,
h ) Moraine north o f Lingen/Ems: quartzite, quartz,
flint/silex etc. ( G e r m a n y ) .
T h i s is certainly a short list, but e v e n these limited
o b s e r v a t i o n s s h o w surprising
tendencies. The
details o f these locations shall b e p u b l i s h e d in the
future.
3.2 T e n d e n c i e s r e c o g n i z a b l e a n d c o n c l u s i o n s
T h e study o f the material o f t h e s e locations did
s h o w certain typical, repetitive natural d a m a g e s in
c o n n e c t i o n with certain g e o m o r p h o l o g i c a l condi­
tions. This e n a b l e d the recognition o f tendencies
a n d therewith c o n c l u s i o n s .
a ) It is not possible to establish s i m p l e criteria to
distinguish artefacts from geofacts as: unifacial, re­
gular, flat flaking indicates a n t h r o p o g e n e origin, bi­
facial the contrary, a natural origin. Natural forces
p r o d u c e both a n d o t h e r geofacts, for instance, flakes
with dorsal negatives, indistinguishable from arte-
123
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
facts, in fact c o m p l e t e series o f geofacts l o o k i n g like
"archaic tools". Furthermore, discussions with q u a ­
ternary geologists confirm, that the p r o c e s s e s in na­
ture are m u c h to c o m p l e x to allow the establishment
of simple rules.
b) Rocks differ in their b e h a v e o u r against forces m o r e
or less, in m a n y c a s e s extremely. Silex, the greatest
deceiver, p r o d u c e s easily geofacts, which c a n b e
mistakenly c o l l e c t e d as artefacts; l i m e s t o n e / d o l o mite also d o e s , but to a lesser degree. Sandstone, if
brittle, s h o w s typical b r e a k a g e , while tough quartzi­
te is much less liable to break at all. It is o f utmost im­
portance to differentiate: at the s a m e site o n e m a y
find h u n d r e d s o f artefact-like looking g e o f a c t s ,
perhaps from limestone, w h i l e tough quartzite p r o ­
duces nearly n o geofacts at all and if so, separation
follows crevices and generally natural zones o f w e a k ­
ness. And s o there can b e quartzite-artefacts at t h e
s a m e site, for instance c h o p p e r s , which would, with­
out differentiation, b e m i s t a k e n for geofacts. A per­
son e x p e r i e n c e d only with silex cannot utilize the
k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d to critizise disputed a s s e m b l i e s
made o n other rocks. T o b e able to do so, o n e has to
pass an intensive period o f learning to understand
the respective rock a n d its peculiarities, w h i c h
should by n o m e a n s b e underrated: it should in­
clude practical field-work, the study o f c o l l e c t i o n s o f
artefacts m a d e o n this rock, experimental k n a p p i n g
and then the s a m e for geofacts.and all this in a
prolonged period: w e s p e a k about years.
T o b e able to recognize, in addition, altered ( e o l i s e d ,
rolled, patinated, l e a c h e d e t c . ) artefacts a n d to dis­
tinguish them from geofacts, which - contrary to the
position frequently taken - c a n b e learned, o n e has
to have a certain talent, n a m e l y to see the original
forms o f the surface through the veil o f alteration.
O n e s e e s o c c a s i o n a l l y in c o l l e c t i o n s o f amateurs b e ­
tween n u m e r o u s w e l l - c o n s e r v e d artefacts a few
altered p i e c e s : the c o l l e c t o r "has the eye". T h e r e are,
o n the other side, professionals and collectors with
great collections o f g o o d standard, but w h i c h d o not
recognize altered pieces. A student, w h o has learn­
ed, additionally, that altered p i e c e s are "unpersons"
and c a n n o t b e artefacts, will have the greatest diffi­
culty in ever learning it, e v e n if h e has the talent. It is
quite astonishing and a contrast, for a w o r k e r from
northern or middle Europe to c o o p e r a t e with prehistorians in the Mediterranean area, which h a v e d u e
to their lifelong contact with these type o f artefacts
and sites, the necessary e x e r i e n c e . From T A V O S O
( 1 9 7 8 : 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 ) the following is cited as an e x a m p l e :
"... les 2 9 outils et eclats qui c o m p o s e n t cette serie n e
representent ... qu'un echantillon - assez pauvre ... ä
cause de l'intensite de l'usure fluviatile qui, effacant
les aretes, polissant les facettes de taille et e m o u s sant leurs c o n t o u r s les rends si s e m b l a b l e s a u x galets
qui les entourent, q u e leur d e c o u v e r t e est b e a u c o u p
123
plus u n e affaire de c h a n c e , d e p a t i e n c e ou de „flair"
q u e de 1'observation. La r e c o n n a i s s a n c e d e c e s
quartzites tallies est rendue e n c o r e plus difficile par
le fait qu'il n'y a a u c u n e difference d e coloration entre le c o r t e x des galets et les facettes de taille ..." (...
the 2 9 tools a n d flakes, w h i c h c o m p o s e this series,
represent ... a rather poor s a m p l e ... caused b y the
intensity o f the rivers usage, w h i c h by erasing the
ridges,
polishing
the
scars
o f flaking
and
blunting/rounding their c o n t o u r s m a k e s t h e m simi­
lar to the p e b b l e s by which they are s u n o u n d e d , s o
that their discovery is much m o r e an affair o f c h a n ­
ce, p a t i e n c e o r "flair" then o f observation. R e c o g n i ­
tion o f t h e s e w o r k e d quartzites is m a d e even m o r e
difficult b y the fact that there is n o difference o f
colouring b e t w e e n the p e b b l e s a n d surfaces o f the
scars." ( E n d o f citation.) This is a n excellent descrip­
tion o f the problem. ( S e e also D E L'UMLEY, 1 9 7 1 : 1 8 4 ,
1 9 6 , 1 9 7 a n d MACRAE 1 9 8 8 : 9 2 ) . A n o t h e r aggravating
circumstance is the dominant silex-tradition o f North­
e r n / M i d d l e - E u r o p e ; the introduction o f quartziteand quartz-artefacts in G e r m a n y has b e e n a c o n ­
tinuous, t e n a c e o u s discussion through d e c a d e s ,
against rigid traditions, while in o t h e r countries the
w o r k with t h e m was already well established rou­
tine for long periods. T h e discussion o f A. Rust's e o ­
liths has also left traces, w h i c h still today aggravate
the p r o b l e m s .
c ) T h e creation o f geofacts d e p e n d s o n many factors,
w h i c h intermingle and influence e a c h mutually,
such as the original form o f rock, the length o f the
transport-distance, the g e o m o r p h o l o g y in g e n e r a l
and specifically. (Fig. 1)
According to the observations geofacts are in rivers
very fast rolled to such a d e g r e e that the d a m a g e
c a n n o t b e r e c o g n i z e d a n y m o r e . This differs from
rock to r o c k , but after 2 0 - 4 0 k m transport m o s t
d a m a g e s e e m s to b e u n r e c o g n i z a b l e .
This is partly different in m o r a i n e s , w h e r e d a m a g e
increases with the length o f transport, but scars are
thereafter still well c o n s e r v e d . P e b b l e s transported
in a river would, after 5 0 0 km, b e c o m p l e t e l y roun­
ded; this is not s o in the nordic moraines.
As m e n t i o n e d before, all r o c k s react differently to
forces a n d p r o c e s s e s . Therefore geofacts o f o n e r o c k
m a y in several places s h o w similarities, in others
they m a y differ; pieces found may, o f o n e rock, b e
geofacts, but - in the s a m e p l a c e - o f another r o c k
be artefacts, while both l o o k similar, e. g. like „choppers". In a s t e e p valley, still in t h e mountains, w h e r e
m a s s e s o f very differently s i z e d rocks, s o m e t i m e s
very big o n e s , are transported, g e o f a c t - production
is high. In a w i d e valley, further down, w h e r e the
p e b b l e s / c o b b l e s have already b e e n sorted to a c e r ­
tain d e g r e e a n d are o n a v e r a g e smaller and m o r e
evenly sized, geofact-production diminishes a n d dif­
fers from t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d c a s e . T h e s a m e a p -
KLAUS SCHMUDE
124
Fig. 1: MLitually influencing factors in the p r o c e s s o f g e o f a c t - p r o d u c t i o n .
Abb. 1 : Sich gegenseitig beeinflussende Faktoren im Prozess der Geofakt-Fntstehung.
CLIMATIC PHASES
outcrops o f r o c k s
form o f original
different t y p e s
clast
form o f p e b b l e s /
cobbles
mountain c r e e k
t
morpho­
r
i
logical
b
middle c o u r s e
o f river
ti
t
a
r
situ­
ation
i
stream s
e
s
plies to t h e different situations o n b e a c h e s : a positi­
on in front o f a cliff or, o n the other hand, a flat, san­
dy b e a c h , p r o d u c e very different types o f geofacts.
All this is part o f very b a s i c circumstances; t h e y
should b e studied first. Thereafter o n e m a y a p ­
proach t h e m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d situations: the influen­
c e o f periglacial conditions a n d the mixture o f p r o ­
ducts o f m a n y conditions in a great stream, w h i c h
transports o v e r a long distance a n d accepts tributa­
ries entering with a diversity o f material, l o a d e n with
different transport-effects. B u t to b e able to under­
stand t h e s e , o n e has first to learn the simpler, the b a ­
sic forms. H e r e a negative e x a m p l e : in a discussion a
participant, a s k e d h o w h e k n e w , that certain p i e c e s
from a terrace w e r e geofacts, replied that h e h a d
studied the p e b b l e s o f this terrace. This is, in the aut­
hors opin-ion, a doubtful a p p r o a c h , b e c a u s e not ha­
ving stud-ied the basic forms in simple cases, h e is
not in a position to recognize t h e s e under the m u c h
more c o m p l i c a t e d conditions o n an elder terrace
from a great stream, with a mixture o f geofacts a n d
possible artefacts. This c a n b e c o m p a r e d with s o ­
m e o n e trying to translate a Latin author as C a e s a r
without having learned the grammar. And it brings
us b a c k to a n additional problem: not b e i n g a b l e to
call o n the n e c e s s a r y k n o w l e d g e , s u c c o u r is sought
from hypothetical, speculative construction.
3-3 T h e Site o f S o r d e l ' A b b a y e
As an illustration o f the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d points, t h e
a p p r o a c h to a site in S W - F r a n c e is described.
The Site.
In the valley o f the Gave d'Oloron, near the a b o v e
m e n t i o n e d village and c l o s e to the rivers end, a grav­
el-pit p r o d u c e s sands and small gravels from the re­
mains o f a terrace conserved in the form o f an island,
with altitudes b e t w e e n 37 and 4 4 m a.s.l. T h e river­
b e d is at 0 m a.s.l., under tide-influence, ca. 3 5 k m
from the s e a . T h e gravel contains an e n o r m o u s
amount o f p e b b l e s and c o b b l e s , the great majority
being o f t o u g h palaeozoic quarzite, u p to 5 0 - 6 0 c m
length a n d nearly equal width a n d thickness. This
terrace is d a t e d as „Mindel", the a g e is therefore
b e t w e e n 0,4 a n d 1,0 mio y., as defined in this area.
The Industry.
Since S e p t e m b e r 1991 o n 2 3 visits 6 4 artefacts w e r e
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
found. T h e y c o n t a i n an A c h e u l e a n with pics, De­
faces and cleavers, together with c h o p p e r s / c h o p ­
ping tools, 1 scraper, flakes a n d n u m e r o u s cores, all
o f quartzite. R e m a r k a b l e are the extraordinary size
a n d weight o f m a n y o f the tools a n d cores, e.g. pics
with up to 2,7 kg, cores up to 1 8 , 9 kg. T h e larger
tools and c o r e s are formed with very few, but wellplaced, bold, very strong blows. All p i e c e s are m o r e
or less rolled, s o m e to the limit, m a n y are eolised, s o ­
m e patinated. A f e w o f these p i e c e s could, on the
first look, b e geofacts; it is therefore necessary to stu­
dy this aspect.
The General Geology.
In the valley a n d the area surrounding this site a
n u m b e r o f terraces c a n b e distinguished, but their
remains are o n l y s e l d o m clearly recognizable; o v e r
w i d e stretches they have b e e n destroyed, and w e
find only their remains in the form o f pebble-fields,
the highest on hill-tops o f ca. 1 4 0 a n d 170 m a.s.l.
T h e r e are g o o d - c o n s e r v e d terrace-rests at ca. 7 0 - 8 0
m a.s.l. near Sorde. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the gravels is
similar to the o n e on the site: in the majority the
tough p a l a e o z o i c g r e e n and bluish quartzite, then
quartzitic sandstone, sandstone, d e c o m p o s e d grani­
te a n d shale, o p h y t e etc. T h e surface o f the quartzite-pebbles and c o b b l e s is altered, o n bigger p i e c e s
abt. 2-5 m m d e e p , but smaller p i e c e s may be c o m ­
pletely altered a n d s h o w inside a n olive-brown tin­
g e o f colour.
Industry on T e r r a c e s and Hills.
Collectors, the author included, h a v e found isolated
p i e c e s as well as concentrations o n the 7 0 / 8 0 m-terrace and higher up o n the slopes. Further south, c o n ­
centrations are found on top o f t h e hills, covered n o t
b y terrace-remains, but a sand-clay mixture. T h e in­
dustry on the terrace is a broad Middle Palaeolithic,
with pieces from a Middle A c h e u l e a n d o w n to Mousterian, plus Neolithic. O n top o f the hills o n e finds a
rather young, e v o l v e d Acheulean, with flat bifaces,
cleavers, rare polyedres, cores a n d m a n y flakes.
T h e private c o l l e c t i o n s c o m p r i s e from 500 to 8 0 0
quartzite-artefacts plus a few t h o u s a n d s o f pieces o f
w o r k e d , untypical silex, which c a n n o t b e classified.
F r o m the terrace-surface at 7 0 / 8 0 m originate a f e w
bigger cores with 5-6 kg and scars u p to 18 c m length.
Corresponding flakes have b e e n f o u n d there.
T h e s e artefacts are all m o r e or less altered: coloured,
encrusted, patinated. Everybody handling these ar­
tefacts has a very clear picture o f w h a t an quartziteartefact from this area looks like.
125
b l e s o f quartzite a n d quartzitic sandstone, w h i c h
erosion transports via creeks into t h e valleys. T h e s e
c r e e k s form small rivers, localy n a m e d "Gaves",
w h i c h flow in a northerly direction for ca. 50-60 km,
w h e r e they join larger rivers, here t h e Adour, w h i c h
enters the Atlantic at B a y o n n e .
T h e author has, in a n u m b e r o f c a s e s , studied p e b ­
ble-accumulations in such rivers, as well as a gravelpit producing s a n d s from the l o w e s t / y o u n g e s t ter­
race. T h e picture h e has gained s h o w s that todays
rivers transport mainly limestone, ophyte, sandstone,
s o m e silex a n d others: higher up in the river the p e b ­
b l e s / c o b b l e s are frequently and to a c o n s i d e r a b l e
d e g r e e damaged, b u t further down-river the d a m a g e
diminishes a n d in addition, natural d a m a g e b e c o ­
m e s less and less recognizable as t h e result o f rolling
a n d polishing. N e w e r damage in t h e s e lower r e a c h e s
is rare and e a s y t o undertand. T h e t e n a c e s h i g h e r
t h e n 3 0 m contain, in contrast, a great majority o f the
t o u g h quartzite/quartzitic sandstone, w h o s e p e b b l e s
are well r o u n d e d a n d do not offer points/areas for
attack. D a m a g e is therefore rare; if at all, p i e c e s s e ­
parate along z o n e s o f weakness a n d here, o n the
sharp edges, splintering causes o c c a s i o n a l l y a series
o f small scars. T h e r e is, especially if o n e is familiar
with the quartzite-industry from t h e terrace-surfaces,
a very clear distinction possible b e t w e e n arte- a n d
t h e s e geofacts. With the 6 4 artefacts only t w o o r
three questionable p i e c e s were found, clear geofacts,
b r o k e n along c r e v i c e s and with c o n s e q u e n t splinter­
ing along the n e w l y formed sharp crests. T h e greater
p r o b l e m is the d e g r e e o f rolling: o n e finds relatively
frequent p i e c e s , w h i c h have most p r o b a b l y b e e n ar­
tefacts destroyed b y the river; to d r a w the line, w h a t
to collect is frequently difficult. T h e criterium u s e d is
t h e condition, that there must still b e marks o f the
b l o w s r e c o g n i z a b l e , either the point o f impact, ra­
diating striae, b u l b u s or scar, o r an unmistakable
configuration o f polished scar - forms o f a typical
p i e c e , a biface o r a discoid core, for instance.
T h e nearest r e c e n t , steeper, cut-in valley-stretch,
w h i c h might favour geofact-production is ca. 3 0 k m
distant, too far, t o deliver freshlooking geofacts to
S o r d e l'Abbaye, but this stretch did, a n y h o w , n o t
exist in the p e r i o d o f formation o f t h e 37-44 m ter­
r a c e as it is n o w situated at a lower altitude.
It must b e e m p h a s i z e d , that this is a simple case. B u t
e v e n here, a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f k n o w l e d g e a n d
practical e x p e r i e n c e has to b e c o m b i n e d with re­
search on the l o c a l peculiarities to e n a b l e o n e t o
arrive at a well-founded, realistic position.
3.4 A d d i t i o n a l O b s e r v a t i o n s .
Flow of Material.
In the Pyrenees, b e t w e e n 1300 t o 1 8 0 0 m altitude, a
Cretaceous c o n g l o m e r a t e crops out, forming m o u n ­
tain-ranges; it c o n t a i n s already well-rounded p e b ­
T h e very s p e c i a l i z e d e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h the p e r s o n
working on a site o n o r in a terrace, gains, c a n n o t b e
highly e n o u g h rated: h e has s e e n thousands o f p e b -
126
KLAUS SCHMUDE
bles, g e o f a c t s a n d artefacts, learned their peculiari­
ties a n d h a s b e c o m e familiar with them to a d e g r e e
w h i c h an o c c a s i o n a l visitor c a n n o t acquire in a short
time. T o this visitor, a certain number o f p i e c e s m a y
look a c c e p t a b l e , but others doubtful or e v e n suspi­
cious: his reaction will b e to refuse these latter. I f h e
has e n o u g h practical e x p e r i e n c e and has g o n e
through the s a m e process, he will rather state that h e
has difficulties to follow the opinion o f the w o r k e r ,
but will realize his o w n disadvantage a n d l e a v e
these p i e c e s o p e n , until h e c a n spend m o r e time o n
an intensive study.
An imperfect m e t h o d frequently used is the refusal o f
pieces which the critic does not accept, with the state­
ment "this is nothing". In 9 0 % o f all cases this is, e v e n
c o m b i n e d with an explanation, unconvincing. It is a
basic necessity to s h o w the professional, student o r
amateur a w a y to learn and gain his own, personal e x ­
perience. E x a m p l e s are: s h o w i n g the respective pie­
ces o f o n e s personal collection o f artefacts/geofacts
or indicating places w h e r e o n e can s e e them, or
collections o f museums/individuals with this type o f
discussed artefacts. T h e authoritative statement "this
is not an artefact" without exact explanation a n d not
c o m b i n e d with an e x a m p l e in stone or the indication,
where to study it in nature, is unconvincing.
Another point o f discussion is the length o f time in­
volved to find isolated artefacts: a long period is sup­
p o s e d to underline the natural origin o f the putative
p i e c e s . R o e b r o e k s states "It took Würges a b o u t t w o
years (!) to a s s e m b l e this set, which is very clearly a
selection o f p i e c e s , w h o s e n u m b e r is infinitesimally
small c o m p a r e d to the w h o l e " (1993: 1 6 ) . F o r any­
o n e having w o r k e d on terrace-surfaces o r in gravelpits producing from t h e b e d s , this is the usual daily
routine. N u m e r o u s collections in the G a r o n n e - a r e a ,
the Nahe, the Mosel, the Wetterau or also S o r d e 1'Abbaye n e a r B a y o n n e w o u l d not exist, if this w o u l d b e
used as a criterium. Many a concentration w a s f o u n d
lateron as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f earlier isolated doubtful
finds. O n todays terrace-surface as well as on p a l a e o surfaces artefacts w e r e l o o s e l y spread, normally iso­
lated; t h e concentration is the exception. If isolated
p i e c e s o r small-concentrations are mingled with
the p e b b l e s o f accumulations, they b e c o m e nearly
„infinitesimal", but with t h e necessary p a t i e n c e ( a n d
luck!) t h e y c a n b e found. Even in English or G e r m a n
gravel-pits producing silex-artefacts p a t i e n c e is re­
quired: MACRAE states 8 hours o n average per artefact
found ( 1 9 8 8 : 1 2 9 ) in England, a country with a n e x ­
traordinary wealth o f artefacts.
Another g o o d e x a m p l e is the collector Plasse, w h o
found in t h e Leine-river-gravels near H a n n o v e r t h e
first silex-flakes relatively fast, but the first h a n d a x e
after 13 years! 0 A C O B - F R I E S E N 1949: 1 5 ) .
T h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d criticism (and o t h e r similar
points) s h o w s a lack o f communication b e t w e e n
s o m e o f the professional prehistorians a n d a m a ­
teurs, to t h e detriment o f prehistory.
O n e o f t h e rigid rules o f prehistory w h e n c o n s i d e r ­
ing the possible artefact-nature o f a p i e c e found, is:
„from a collection or series every p i e c e has, also
w h e n c o n s i d e r e d isolated, to b e clearly an artefact."
At least with respect to c o l l e c t i o n s o f altered p i e c e s
m a d e o n quartzite, quartz e t c . this rule is not s e n s i ­
ble. In an inventory consisting o f a n u m b e r o f p i e c ­
es, w h i c h are altered in varying degrees, from n e a r ­
ly fresh to nearly u n r e c o g n i z a b l e , o n e has, b a s e d on
the part o f better c o n s e r v e d a n d clear artefacts, to
c o n s i d e r accepting as well t h o s e pieces, w h i c h o n e
might not accept as an isolated find. T h e r e is n o log­
ic in rejecting a piece w h i c h is well k n o w n from e x ­
cavated o r otherwise s e c u r e d inventories o r w h i c h
constitues a regular part o f m a n y series together with
bifaces, c h o p p e r s , flakes, c o r e s etc. in the gravels o f
the terrace, only b e c a u s e it is little w o r k e d a n d diffi­
cult to r e c o g n i z e for the i n e x p e r i e n c e d person. O n e
should n e v e r tear a p i e c e out o f its system, its c o n ­
text, into which it b e l o n g s . O n e might ask for a de­
scription o f the pattern o f geofact-creation for c o m ­
parisons, but it must b e underlined, that artificial sep­
aration o f pieces from their c o n t e x t will lead to misJLtdgement.
Frequently o n e e n c o u n t e r s statements, that differing
alterations o f scars a n d / o r parts o f a p i e c e are a n in­
dication o f differing p e r i o d s o f creation a n d that
therefore these are geofacts. This argumentation is
not a p p l i c a b l e on quartzite a n d quartz, as o n e a c h
site with artefacts from gravel-pits these c o n t a i n
n u m e r o u s pieces with differing states o f alteration,
s o m e t i m e s more or less limited to certain scars,
s o m e t i m e s to parts o f the surface. T h e configuration
of s u c h pieces, bifaces, c l e a v e r s or c h o p p i n g tools,
s h o w s h o w e v e r that they h a v e b e e n p r o d u c e d in
o n e act. T h e differences in alteration are the results
of variations o f the position o n or in the g r o u n d a n d
the respectively varying conservation o f parts o f
such a p i e c e .
4 Kirchhellen and Weeze
If w e apply the a b o v e e x p l a i n e d observations and
c o n c l u s i o n s to the sites o f Kirchhellen a n d W e e z e
and their inventaries, a n u m b e r o f points call for at­
tention:
a) frequent experimental k n a p p i n g s h o w e d , that the
main r o c k s , o f which t h e p e b b l e s / c o b b l e s consist,
had certain limitations in their usefullness as t o o l s .
b) s i l e x / f l i n t : the n u m e r o u s globular p i e c e s
(in Kirchhellen one o f 11 k g ) , are full o f fractures; if
hit, they burst into m a n y small pieces, w h i c h c o u l d
after r e t o u c h b e used for scraping and cutting. S u c h
tools w e r e not found, but h a v e probably b e e n dest­
royed b y the river and the climate. Only in K i r c h h e l -
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
len o n e p i e c e with a scraper-like r e t o u c h w a s found,
but it is impossible to assure its a n t h r o p o g e n e origin.
c) q u a r t z : is freqLtently full o f c r e v i c e s and frac­
tures a n d very c o a r s e l y structured. If hit with strong
b l o w s , it s o m e t i m e s bursts into p i e c e s , w h i c h can b e
used for scraping a n d perhaps cutting; again it is not
possible to identify s u c h specimens. A c c o r d i n g to J U ­
STUS ( 1 9 8 8 : 4 9 ) o c c a s i o n a l l y c o m p a c t b l o c s from the
Alps have survived transport and provide better ma­
terial. Apart from a few artefacts o n m e d i o c r e quartz,
o n e great flake o f 3 , 2 5 kgs, made o f a better variety,
w a s found.
d) P a l a e o z o i c q u a r t z i t e s , c o m p r i s i n g such
varieties as the Taunus-quartzite, the Revin-quartzite
from the Ardennes/Eifel-region and o t h e r s , m a n y o f
D e v o n i a n origin (with Spirifer sp.) offer frequently
magnificent-looking oval, flat p e b b l e s o r slabs, invit­
ing experimental knapping. If hit, they mostly
s e p a r a t e along surfaces o f schistous i n n e r structures
a n d other z o n e s o f weakness, offering irregular,
smaller p i e c e s o f rock, useful only for small tools.
T h e y have sharp cutting edges, which blunt relatively
fast, as experiments o n hard w o o d a n d b o n e s h o w .
e ) T e r t i a r y - q u a r t z i t e is also difficult to work,
but has important advantages over t h e o t h e r materi­
als. T h e r e exist great p e b b l e s or b l o c k s , well round­
ed, occasionally ca. 6 0 x 4 0 x 30 cm, normally in the
range closer to 3 0 x 2 0 x 25 cm. Frequently o n e finds
remains o f the greater b l o c k s / p e b b l e s , in form o f
prismatic, jagged o r irregular b l o c k s as well as
flat pieces. If hit with strong blows, flukes will separa­
te from the p e b b l e s o r blocks, but they often follow
z o n e s o f w e a k n e s s in an irregular m a n n e r and only
a limited amount o f real flakes with b u l b u s and c o n c h o i d a l forms are produced. However, in experi­
mental knapping flakes in the range o f 10-12 c m
length w e r e p r o d u c e d , which might b e converted
into tools. T h e result o f this work is a very resistant
tool, w h i c h stands u p well against u s e a n d in fact, as
trials show, m u c h better than the o t h e r rocks. This
s e e m s the ideal material for heavy w o r k , but c a n
also cut very efficiently.
Considering the great refuse-heaps in t h e pits, o n e
should bear in mind that they offer a false impres­
sion: in relation to t h e volume o f gravel and sand
p r o d u c e d they are very small, as o b s e r v a t i o n s h o w s .
S o in the past these p e b b l e s / c o b b l e s w e r e sparsely
a n d widely distribttted, there was n o surplus as for
instance in Sorde o r the Garonne-area. M e n had to
search and m a k e u s e o f what was within reach. In
addition to b e i n g rare, larger c o b b l e s A b o u l d e r s in
Tertiary and other quartzites have frequently strong­
ly rounded forms a n d the angle o f the planes is un­
favorable for knapping. Having n e v e r t h e l e s s found
a c o b b l e with favorable surface-forms a n d having
p r o d u c e d at best o n e o r two medium-sized flakes
( 4 - 8 c m ) , the r o c k s burst into irregular p i e c e s along
127
crevizes. Such p i e c e s m a y s h o w t h e form o f a flake
or triedre and have certainly b e e n used, but to recog­
nize them as artefacts is quite difficult. T h e above
picture is based o n experimental knapping.
T h i s means, that the rocks from the Rhine-gravels do
offer material for tool-production, but o f irregular and
mediocre quality; the resulting tools o r artefacts will
h a v e their peculiar traits and a picture m u c h more dif­
ficult to recognize than inventories o f better material
as for instance in Middle Spain, w h e r e excellent and
SiO-reach quartzite is available. T h e quartzite from
Sorde l'Abbaye is in-between the t w o mentioned ma­
terials. Sites with rocks offering e v e n m o r e difficult
pictures are the c o a r s e quartz o f the Roussillon-terraces, very irregular limestones from North Africa
(Terra Amata-Museum, Nizza) o r the quartzites from
Olduvai Beds III a n d IV, o n w h i c h scar-boundaries
are hardly visible a n d not countable; this is the ma­
terial used for bifaces/cleavers! (LEAKEY 1994: 2 6 5 ) .
H e r e an example is used to e x p l a i n the problems
c r e a t e d by rash critizism o n a difficult material. In
W e e z e one c o n v e x c h o p p e r o n quartz has b e e n fo­
und, o n which 5 to 6 long parallel scars o n o n e side
c a n b e recognized, at a rather s t e e p a n g l e o f 70-80°.
Visiting prehistorians all a c c e p t e d this p i e c e as a
convincing chopper; however, o n e found o n the lo­
wer, flat surface o f this p l a n o - c o n v e x p i e c e , partly in
parallel with the working-edge, fine crevizes and
felt, that the postulated scars w e r e in fact planes o f
s o m e o f the crevizes, w h e r e the quartz b r o k e off un­
d e r pressure by o t h e r c o b b l e s o r boulders. As this
d o e s o f course h a p p e n , the argument s e e m e d at first
sight valid; a detailed study s h o w e d , however, h o w
d a n g e r o u s these rash judgements are. O n closer and
m o r e detained l o o k it b e c a m e clear, that the next
parallel crevize ( 7 m m distant) e n t e r e d the c o b b l e at
a n angle o f ca. 4 5 ° , as d o other visible rests o f such:
t h e s e crevizes c a n n o t have c a u s e d t h e scar-like sur­
faces with an angle o f 7 0 - 8 0 ° . It is still thinkable, that
t h e beginning o f the crevize in t h e l o w e r surface
c o u l d have served as a starting point. T h e author
c o l l e c t e d quartz-cobbles in the pit a n d partly work­
e d them, producing chopper-like p i e c e s . Satdying
t h e s e collection at h o m e h e found, that only rather
m a r k e d , deep crevizes serve as a starting z o n e or
„point" for a break-off, while the thinner fissures
h a v e apparently n o influence on the internal compact­
n e s s o f the quartz. If quartz b r e a k s o f f at a crevize, it
follows as a rule the flat, s m o o t h surface which
forms the crevize. All this s h o w s , that the recogni­
tion o f such a p i e c e d e m a n d s very detailled, intensi­
v e study and an intimate k n o w l e d g e o f the material,
g a i n e d over a l o n g e r period. With difficult material
s u c h as this, it is not possible for a visitor to form a
definite opinion just by letting the p i e c e s run a few
h o u r s through the hand.
T o b e able to r e c o g n i z e artefacts in t h e a.m. sites, it
12X
KLAUS SCHMUDE
is necessary to study at least the basic formation o f ge­
ofacts in the more important tributaries with represen­
tative character, close to the sites. As a start, accumula­
tions in the river Sieg have b e e n studied and the nu­
merous geofacts found s h o w a very clear pattern o f
geofact-production. In quartzite, these are e a s y to di­
stinguish from artefacts; the basalt-geofacts form more
frequently surprising pseudo-artefacts ("choppers"),
but the general context and their proportion in the
pebble-content o f the river confinn the geofact-origin.
In the near fuaire other rivers in the proximity will be
studied as well, but as their p e b b l e s originate mainly
from the Devonian, their contents should b e the same
or very similar to the Sieg. It will b e interesting to stu­
dy other rivers such as the Maas or Mosel, w h i c h have
a longer/greater area o f material inflow.
T h e c o n c l u s i o n s based o n the a b o v e g e n e r a l and
also t h e specific part, c o n c e r n i n g Kirchhellen and
W e e z e (leaving aside local differences), are:
a) A certain part o f the p i e c e s are artefacts. T h e y dif­
fer strongly from the geofacts a n d conform with ar­
tefacts w e l l - k n o w n to the author.
b ) T h e o t h e r part contains artefacts, but o f w h i c h a
geofact-character o f s o m e c a n n o t b e e x c l u d e d .
c ) Flakes are, due to their inherent p r o b l e m s , treated
as a separate group.
T h e flakes from W e e z e d o contain in the authors
opinion a few, which are definitely artefacts. Having
seen large amounts o f flakes, including t h e typical
large A c h e u l e a n s p e c i m e n s , o n e can discern typical
traits, w h i c h mark the intentionality. As t h e s e traits
are c o m p o s e d o f a multitude o f facettes, they are dif­
ficult to describe, but a result o f e x p e r i e n c e . T h e r e is,
e. g. a large flake o f quartz with 3,25 kg, showing
w e l l - c o n s e r v e d and strongly e s p r e s s e d m a r k s of
blow, w h i c h differs c o m p l e t e y from everything seen
a n d / o r found in quartz in W e e z e , but c o m p a r e s well
with large Acheulean flakes, e. g. those from the
authors collections from S W - F r a n c e .
Observations o f indirect character can also b e im­
portant a n d underline t h e arguments c o n n e c t e d
with the lithology. O n e s u c h argument is t h e regu­
larity o f finds on certain sites only: if w e w o u l d deal
with geofacts, w e should find them e v e r y w h e r e . Out
o f 15 pits visited by the author, only four c o n t a i n in­
dustry. This includes four pits in the area o f the
W e e z e t e r r a c e (ca. 4 x 1 k m ) , in only t w o o f which
artefacts are constantly e n c o u n t e r e d , in t h e other
two not; this is a mirror o f t h e situation o n t h e sur­
faces o f m a n y terraces with industry. Again: if here
geofacts, presented as artefacts, are c o l l e c t e d , w e
should find them in all p l a c e s .
4.1 A r e c e n t l y found t y p i c a l artefact: a c l e a v e r
Here follows the description o f this cleaver, mention­
e d in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e Tertiary-quartzite-flakes,
on o n e o f which it is m a d e . T h e d i m e n s i o n s are:
L = 172, B = 122, T h = 6 8 (mm); W = 1,51 kg.
T h e tool is m a d e on a flake o f the a. m. Tertiary-quartzite, from which the bulbus has teen removed; the
striae o f radiation are, however, strongly e x p r e s s e d
and easy to recognize. T h e form o f the p i e c e is paral­
lel-sided with a pointed butt. T h e edge is slightly obli­
que. T h e ventral face s h o w s lateral retouch, partly in­
vasive. T h e dorsal face is w o r k e d around the butt. T h e
working e d g e is battered (use; river; refreshening?).
This cleaver fits well in the line o f cleavers k n o w n from
the Spanish Meseta, as in Pinedo and El Sartalejo ( Q U E ROL 1979; SANTONJA 1985). It d o e s not s h o w the elegan­
c e k n o w n from many north-african cleavers; h e r e the
difficult lithic material intervenes unfavourably, but
for an artefact o f over 7 8 3 0 0 0 years it is well w o r k e d .
4.2 K i r c h h e l l e n a n d W e e z e : c o n c l u s i o n s
T h e r e s e a r c h o f the p e r i o d after 1992 d o e s p r o d u c e
a certain shift in accent, b u t the first statement is still
fully valid, e v e n strengthened: Kirchhellen a n d W e e ­
ze are paleolithic sites with industry, in W e e z e older
then 7 8 3 0 0 0 y., in Kirchhellen either s o m e w h a t
y o u n g e r t h e n the Matuyama/Bntnhes-limit at 7 8 3 0 0 0
y., o r p e r h a p s elder, with further clarification h o p e ­
fully in t h e future. O n e has to accept, that in this
type o f site - fluvial terraces with r o l l e d / e o l i z e d /
patinated artefacts - the recognition and a c c e p t a n c e
o f the a n t h r o p o g e n e origin o f the specimens in ques­
tion, w h i c h are part o f a c o m p l e x o f p i e c e s difficult
to interprete, d e m a n d differentiation as well as an
unusual d e g r e e o f specialised experience.
5 Summary
T h e essential points in t h e afore m e n t i o n e d text are:
1. It is p o s s i b l e to find altered, sparsely r e t o u c h e d ar­
tefacts in fluvial terraces a n d other p e b b l e - a c c u m mulations: it can be learned, but needs intensive train­
ing a n d a certain talent.
2. It is n o t possible to establish rigid general "criteria"
to distinguish b e t w e e n arte- and geofacts.
3. E a c h w o r k e r , e n g a g e d with such sites, has:
- to g a t h e r a wide k n o w l e d g e o f such artefacts,
- to g a t h e r a broad k n o w l e d g e o f the g e n e r a l g e o fact-creation,
- to start at each site a n e w to study conditions and
context, w h i c h can successfully only b e d o n e b y
s o m e o n e intensively e x p e r i e n c e d in t h e s e matters.
4. T h e s e p r o b l e m s c a n o n l y be a p p r o a c h e d in an
empirical w a y and therefore the years o f e x p e r i e n c e
as well as the amount o f material seen c o u n t .
6 Possibilities f o r future r e s e a r c h
C o n c l u d i n g this paper, possible directions for furt­
her r e s e a r c h are suggested.
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Germany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of fluviatil terraces
T o obtain a closer a p p r o x i m a t i o n to the solution o f
this vital question for prehistory, in our c a s e : h o w to
distinguish artefacts from geofacts, several w a y s a p ­
pear o p e n . T h e r e are n u m e r o u s questions o f the
p r o c e s s e s a n d their p o s s i b l e influences o n geofactproduction still open, w h i c h c o u l d b e e x p l o r e d ; the
ideal a i m w o u l d b e to find objective, m e a s u r a b l e cri­
teria, w h i c h s e e m s at least at present very unlikely.
A first possibility would b e t h e extension a n d enlar­
g e m e n t o f the studies d e s c r i b e d in this paper. T o o b ­
serve m o r e p e b b l e - a c c u m u l a t i o n s should i n c r e a s e
k n o w l e d g e a n d assist in c l o s e r limiting t h e area o f
the gray z o n e b e t w e e n artefacts a n d geofacts, apart
from increasing and s p r e a d i n g personal e x p e r i e n c e .
In addition, o n e may, e v e n if to the author this d o e s
at least at present not s e e m a g o o d prospect, attempt
the study a n d description o f t h e c o m p l e t e surface o f
s e l e c t e d limited areas o n p e b b l e - a c c u m u l a t i o n s , in
sq.-metres o r c o m p l e t e b a n c s , and s e e , if this pro­
d u c e s n e w impressions.
Another a p p r o a c h w o u l d b e to form a c o n c e p t i o n o f
the forces n e c e s s a r y to m o v e coarser p e b b l e s in the
rivers a n d to damage e a c h other, p r o d u c i n g g e o ­
facts, w h i c h m a y o c c a s i o n a l l y mimic artefacts. This
w o u l d m e a n to enter t h e c o m p l e x o f s e d i m e n t o l o g y
c o n c e r n e d with the d y n a m i c s a n d forces in rivers,
their calculation and t h e analysis o f the m o r p h o m e ­
try o f p e b b l e s . ( S e e REINECK & SINGH 1 9 8 0 , n u m e r o u s
references).
T o the author it s e e m s a b a s i c necessity t o study as
m a n y a s p e c t s as possible o f the processes in rivers
and to r e c o g n i z e the framework o f conditions a n d
factors in t h e role o f geofact-production, w h i c h
plays only a secondary part in the total p r o c e s s a n d
o f this limited part pseudo-artefact-production in its
turn plays again only a less important role. B u t de­
tailed k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c o n t e x t m a y assist in a c h i e ­
ving better understanding o f t h e facts, important to
prehistory, still accepting that a „gray" z o n e o f inde­
terminable p i e c e s will always exist under t h e highly
c o m p l e x conditions.
A different line o f a p p r o a c h w o u l d b e t o systematisize t e c h n i c a l characteristics o n postulated artefacts.
T h e a b o v e described c l e a v e r ( 4 . 1 . ) could s e r v e as an
e x a m p l e . T r a c e s o f d a m a g e s , w h i c h are postulated
to b e a n t h r o p o g e n e , are visible; listing all t h e scars
plus t h e modifications o f t h e p e b b l e - b o d y r e a c h e s
a point w h e r e , in c o m p a r i s o n with c l e a v e r s from
collections from similar circumstances as well as the
geofacts typical for t h e site c o n c e r n e d , a d e c i s i o n
should b e facilitated. In o u r c a s e , the cleaver, it b e ­
c o m e s apparent, that t h e possibility o f a conformity
by hazard with a geofact c a n b e overwhelmingly
e x c l u d e d , especially if s u c h p i e c e is found o n a site
w h e r e o t h e r artefacts h a v e already b e e n found.
T h e following could b e a n o t h e r possibility: in a c o n ­
versation this remarke w a s made: the e x p e r i e n c e ,
129
the n u m e r o u s artefacts o f t h e type with w h i c h w e
are c o n c e r n e d and as well the geofacts, w h i c h y o u
have b o t h s e e n and m e m o r i z e d , c a n n e v e r b e stored
and p r o g r a m m e d in a c o m p u t e r . At least to t h e au­
thors k n o w l e d g e this h a s n o t b e e n tried.
O n a very different level inquiries might b e started:
h o w far are possibilities explored, that in other
disciplins o f s c i e n c e , for instance cristallography,
petrography, mineralogy, egineering, physics o r
others, in this period o f fast d e v e l o p m e n t s n e w
k n o w l e d g e , technics a n d e x p e r i e n c e s exist, w h i c h
could lead to advances in the solution o f o u r pro­
b l e m , p e r h a p s even a first step to objective criteria.
T h e great majority o f r e c e n t n e w scientific a n d tech­
nical d e v e l o p m e n t s c a m e from interdisciplinary
c o o p e r a t i o n : this p r o b l e m is a typical c a s e for such.
7 References
CHLACHULA, J . ( 1 9 9 2 ) : Une industrie calcaire du
paleoli-
thique en Moravie (Republique Tcheque). Anthropo­
logie X X X / 3 , p. 2 4 1 - 2 6 7 .
HAHN, J . ( 1 9 9 1 ) : Erkennen und Bestimmen von Steinarte­
fakten. Archaeologica Venatoria, 10: 3 1 4 p., 1 1 0 fig.
Tübingen.
JACOB-FRIESEN, K. H. ( 1 9 4 9 ) : Die Altsteinzeitfunde aus dem
Leinetal bei Hannover. Veröffentlichungen der Urge­
schichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu
Hannover, 10: 1 3 3 p., 3 graph., 1 tab., 5 6 fig.
JUSTUS, A. ( 1 9 8 8 ) : Steinartefakte vom Wannenvulkan
bei
Saftig, Eifel. Magisterarbeit Univ. Köln.
LEAKEY, M . D. ( 1 9 9 4 ) : Olduvai Gorge. Excavations in Bed:
III, IV and the Masek Beds 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 1 . 3 2 7 p., 1 0 fig..
1 0 tab., 2 6 pi., Cambridge.
LUMI.EY, de., H. ( 1 9 7 1 ) : Le Paleolithique inferieur et moyen
du Midi Mediterraneen dans son Cadre Geologique, II:
Bas Langue doc-Roussillon-Catalogne. V.supplement a
Gallia Prehistoire: 2 5 p., 2 9 9 fig. CNRS, Paris.
MACRAE, R. J . & MOLONEY, N. (Hrsg.) ( 1 9 8 8 ) :
None-Flint-
Stone Tools and the Paleolithic Occupation of Britain.
BAR British Series. 1 8 9 : 2 6 3 p., 7 7 pi., 4 1 tab. Oxford.
PATTERSON, L. W. ( 1 9 8 3 ) : Criteria for Determining the Attri­
butes of Man-Made Lithics. Journal of Field Arch. 10:
297-307.
ROEBROEKS, W. ( 1 9 9 3 ) : The Earliest Occupation of Europe:
a Reapraisal of Artefactual and Chronological Eviden­
ce. ESF-Conference Nov. 1 9 9 3 , Tautavel/France.
QUEROL, M. A. & SANTONJA, M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) : El Yacimiento Ache-
lense de Pinedo. Excavaciones Arqueologicas en
Espana. 106. 1 8 1 p.. 2 1 tab., 8 2 pi., Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
SANTONJA, M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) : El yacimiento achelense de El Sartalejo. (Valle del Aragon, Caceres). Series de Arqu. Extremena. I l l p., 3 5 fig., Caceres.
SCHMUDE, K. ( 1 9 9 2 ) : Zwei cromerzeitliche Artefakt-Fund­
plätze in der Jüngeren Hauptterrasse am Niederrhein.
Eiszeitalter & Gegenwart, 42: 1-24. Hannover.
TAVOSO, A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) : Le Paleolithique Inferieur et Moyen du
Haut-Languedoc. Etudes Quaternaires, Mem. No. 5,
Universite de Provence. IPH. 4 0 4 p., 1 4 8 fig., Paris.
Manuskript e i n g e g a n g e n a m 0 2 . 0 3 . 1 9 9 5
130
KLAUS SCHMUDE
Plate 1/Tafel 1:
1. Geöfact on limestone, simulating "chopping tool".
1. Kalkstein-Geofakt, „Chopping-tool"-ähnlich.
2. Geofact on limestone, simulating "nucleus".
2. Kalkstein-Geofakt, „Kern"-ähnlich.
1. and 2. show typical pieces created by wave action on flat pebbles on a beach. Origin: beach near Biarritz,
Bay of Biscay.
1. und 2. zeigen typische Stücke, die durch Wellen-Schlag an flachen Gerollen auf einem Strand entstanden.
Herkunft: Küste bei Biarritz, Golf von Biskaya.
3. Geofact-flake: same origin as 1. and 2.
3. Geofakt-Abschlag: selbe Herkunft wie 1. und 2.
4. Undamaged quartzite-pebble from the same beach as (1), (2) and (3). In contrast to the limestone-geofacts,
the quartzite-pebbles are only in extremely few cases flaked and then with very small scars of only ca. 0,5 - 1,0 cm.
If damaged, this is along crevizes.
4. Unbeschädigtes Quarzitgeröll vom selben Strand wie (1), (2) und (3). Im Gegensatz zu den Kalkstein-Geofakten
sind die Quarzitgerölle nur in äußerst seltenen Fällen bestossen und dann mit sehr kleinen Negativen von nur
ca. 0,5 - 1,0 cm. Sind sie beschädigt, so ist dies längs Klüften.
The Sites of Kirchhellen and Weeze, Lower Rhine Bay/Gennany, with an Elder Acheulean: starting points for
research into the problems of recognizing stone-artefacts in pebble-accumulations of llmiatil terraces
131
Plate 2/Tafel 2
1. and 2. The damage of this geofact on Hint (silex) follows the same pattern as seen on Plates 1 and 2 . Found isolated,
such a piece could by a less experienced person be taken for an artefact. Origin: Denish Isle o f M0n. Beach
below the famous cliffs.
1. und 2. Die Beschädigung dieses Flint-Artefacts folgt demselben Muster wie auf Taf. 1 und 2 . Als isolierter
Fund könnte solch ein Stück von einer wenig erfahrenen Person für ein Artefakt gehalten werden. Herkunft:
Dänische Insel Mon. Strand unterhalb der berühmten Kliffs.
3. Flint-geofact from the beach of the Baltic Sea near Eckernförde, simulating a "chopper". This damage is caused
by the transport of the moraine and/or wave-action. If one follows the criteria from group B, this piece might be
anthropogene.
3. Flint-Geofakt vom Ostsee-Strand bei Eckernförde, ähnlich einem ..chopper". Diese Bestossung wurde durch den
Transport in der Moräne und/oder den Wellenschlag verursacht. Folgt man den Kriterien der Gaippe B, könnte die­
ses Stück anthropogen sein.
4. Pie- or point-like geofacts on plates of devonian quartzitic sandstone in the bed of the river Sieg, near Eitorf.
Theoretically these long, slender points should be broken off, but they are typical for this stretch of the river.
4. Pick- oder Spitzen-artige Geotäkte an plattigem Geröll des devonischen quarzitischen Sandsteines im Bett des
Flusses Sieg, bei Eitorf. Theoretisch müssten diese langen, schlanken Spitzen abgebrochen sein, sie sind aber typisch
für diesen Teil des Flusses.