- University of Warsaw, Faculty "Artes Liberales", Post-Docadd
- Archaeology, Experimental Archaeology, Prehistory, Palaeolithic Archaeology, Landscapes in prehistory, Neanderthals (Palaeolithic Archaeology), and 52 moreMiddle Palaeolithic, Eurasian Prehistory, Upper Palaeolithic boundary, Bifacial Tools, Rock Art, Flint, Stone tools, Philosophy of Archaeology, Human Evolution, Evolution and Human Behavior, Upper Paleolithic, Lithic Technology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Middle Paleolithic, Quaternary Geology, Paleolithic Europe, Lithics, Mousterian, Lithic Technology (Archaeology), Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition, Lithic Analysis, Paleoenvironment, Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Aurignacian, Neandertals, Palaeolithic, Flint (Archaeology), Upper Palaeolithic, Paleoanthropology, Paleolithic Archaeology, Flint Technology, Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex (Archaeology), Settlement Patterns, Lower Palaeolithic, Lower Paleolithic, GeoArcheology, Archaeology of Caves and Caverns (Archaeospeleology), Lithic Refitting, Palaeoanthropology, Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene, Archaeological Science, Pleistocene, Hunter-Gatherers (Anthropology), Geochronology, Archaeological Site Formation Processes, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Central Asia, Stable Isotope Analysis, Quaternary Sedimentology and Geomorphology, Archaeozoology, Svante Pääbo, and Keilmesser and Keilmessergruppenedit
- fascinated by Neanderthals and their knapping technologiesedit
Research Interests:
Discussion of differences and possible links between bifacially and unifacially shaped tools has quite a long tradition. Certain techno-complexes are distinguished due to the presence or absence of bifacial technology (e.g. Keilmesser... more
Discussion of differences and possible links between bifacially and unifacially shaped tools has quite a long tradition. Certain techno-complexes are distinguished due to the presence or absence of bifacial technology (e.g. Keilmesser group, MP/UP transition leafpoint industries). The paper draws attention to a problem of defining bifacial and unifacial technology. The Ehringsdorf (Germany) tools show traces of multiple, subsequent resharpening. The knapper started from unifacial retouch on one or both edges of a flake's dorsal side. In the course of further resharpening, the ventral side of the flake required certain adjustments. After several rejuvenation phases tools show all the features of bifacially shaped tools in a type of leafpoints or knives. From a technological point of view, the question arises if such a reduction sequence can be called bifacial, unifacial, or should be defined in a different way.
Research Interests:
Leafpoint industries were widely spread in Central Europe. Bifacially shaped leafpoints became an “index fossil” for Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transitional industries. This paper presents a comparison of bifacial leafpoints from Szeleta... more
Leafpoint industries were widely spread in Central Europe. Bifacially shaped leafpoints became an “index fossil”
for Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transitional industries. This paper presents a comparison of bifacial leafpoints from Szeleta
Cave, Nietoperzowa Cave, Brno-Bohunice Kejbaly, Sajóbábony-Méhésztető, Jankovich Cave, Vedrovice V, Moravský Krumlov
IV and Muselievo. The leafpoints were analysed by the scar pattern (working step) method in order to reconstruct their chaîne
opératoire and the general knapping concept of the tools. The aim of the analyses was to check if the leafpoints ascribed to
different transitional cultures share similar concepts of tool making or schemes of manufacture.
for Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transitional industries. This paper presents a comparison of bifacial leafpoints from Szeleta
Cave, Nietoperzowa Cave, Brno-Bohunice Kejbaly, Sajóbábony-Méhésztető, Jankovich Cave, Vedrovice V, Moravský Krumlov
IV and Muselievo. The leafpoints were analysed by the scar pattern (working step) method in order to reconstruct their chaîne
opératoire and the general knapping concept of the tools. The aim of the analyses was to check if the leafpoints ascribed to
different transitional cultures share similar concepts of tool making or schemes of manufacture.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Kukayaz sites were found in 1999 by Dr. Mukhiddin Khudzhanazarov who spotted a number of surface concentrations of stone artefacts on the terraces along the edge of Kukayaz valley. The collected material consisted mostly of large,... more
The Kukayaz sites were found in 1999 by Dr. Mukhiddin Khudzhanazarov who spotted a number of surface concentrations of stone artefacts on the terraces along the edge of Kukayaz valley. The collected material consisted mostly of large, massive, more or less symmetric bifacial
tools, in a shape of points or handaxes, accompanied by fl akes. The chronology was preliminarily suggested by the analogical bifacial forms as Acheulean. In 2009, Polish-Uzbek expedition revisited Kukayaz sites, in order to verify the preliminary results. The majority of the newly
collected artefacts is connected to bifacial tools manufacturing process. The obtained results allow us to discuss the possible chronology of the sites once again. Most of the arguments indicate the Bronze Age chronology of the Kukayaz sites. In the light of the presented results the chronology of other regional surface collections with bifacial tools might be questioned.
tools, in a shape of points or handaxes, accompanied by fl akes. The chronology was preliminarily suggested by the analogical bifacial forms as Acheulean. In 2009, Polish-Uzbek expedition revisited Kukayaz sites, in order to verify the preliminary results. The majority of the newly
collected artefacts is connected to bifacial tools manufacturing process. The obtained results allow us to discuss the possible chronology of the sites once again. Most of the arguments indicate the Bronze Age chronology of the Kukayaz sites. In the light of the presented results the chronology of other regional surface collections with bifacial tools might be questioned.
Research Interests:
Bifacially worked leafpoints are often treated as a kind of “index fossil” for MP/UP transitional industries in Central Europe. In some cases, their presence determines if a given inventory is assigned to a leafpoint industry. For the... more
Bifacially worked leafpoints are often treated as a kind of “index fossil” for MP/UP transitional industries in Central Europe. In some cases, their presence determines if a given inventory is assigned to a leafpoint industry. For the last 50 years, research has established the oldest leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. As a result, a few dozen sites can be recently ascribed as leafpoint assemblages older than transitional Szeletian or Jerzmanowician assemblages. This article was designed as a point in the ongoing debate on the legitimacy of treating leafpoints as the main culture indicator of such assemblages. It challenges the notion that the tools called “leafpoints” in the whole of Central and Southern Europe illustrate a similar tool concept, in terms of their technology. In total, 17 collections of leafpoints from 8 countries were analysed by a scar pattern analysis in order to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire. The results show that the analysed artefacts are not coherent from the perspective of the technology, and one can distinguish at least few different techno-functional concepts of tools. On the basis of the analyses, the manuscript presents a technological definition of the leafpoint as a tool which has two symmetrical edges converging at the tip; both edges were treated in the same way in the course of knapping; the tool is symmetrical and was made to be such.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In 2009, two test trenches were opened in Brštanica cave in Kotor Bay, giving the opportunity to establish a chronology of the site. The cave was settled mainly in the Eneolithic period. Single pieces of ceramics can also be dated to the... more
In 2009, two test trenches were opened in Brštanica cave in Kotor Bay, giving the opportunity to establish a chronology of the site. The cave was settled mainly in the Eneolithic period. Single pieces of ceramics can also be dated to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery was also found on the surface in a newly discovered cave called Kriti Ponor.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In 2008 two testing trenches were opened in Tamnica cave in Kotor Bay which gave an opportunity to establish a chronology of the site. The cave was settled mainly in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. There are pieces of ceramics which... more
In 2008 two testing trenches were opened in Tamnica cave in Kotor Bay which gave an opportunity to establish a chronology of the site. The cave was settled mainly in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. There are pieces of ceramics which can be dated from Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. Additionally, a piece of Roman amphora, and a single microlithic backed piece found on a surface, give an evidence that the site was occupied also in other periods. Unfortunately, because of the mixed character of the sediment, there is no possibility to define more detailed chronology, nor analyze any aspects of the settlement.
