Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Biface Trimming Elements as Indicators of Tool Rejuvenation Intensity: The Case of Sibiryachikha, Altai
A. V. Kharevich,
K. A. Kolobova,
I. E. Tyugashev,
V. M. Kharevich,
P. V. Chistyakov,
S. V. Markin,
A. P. Derevianko https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2025.53.4.041-051
Abstract
Biface trimming elements represent an important diagnostic source of information for studying various stages of bifacial tool production. In Middle Paleolithic assemblages, they often constitute a significant portion of the sample, making them particularly useful for identifying specific technological operations such as primary reduction and shaping of bifacial preforms, edge formation and retouching, working edge rejuvenation, and modification of bifacial tools. Here, we present the findings of a systematic typological analysis of biface trimming elements. Through a comprehensive metric and morphological analysis of experimental collections and Middle Paleolithic assemblages representing the Sibiryachikha industries of the Altai, we have developed a refined typology of technical spalls with regard to local archaeological specificity. Our analysis revealed no statistically significant differences either between parameters of type 0 and type 1 spalls or between those of type 2 and type 3, suggesting that these groups correspond to specific technological operations. In contrast, type 4 and type 5 technical spalls, which indicate onsite tool modification, show significant metric differences. The results demonstrate functional and technological distinctions between the assemblages. Materials from Chagyrskaya Cave are especially indicative of primary edge retouching and tool shaping, while the Okladnikov Cave industry mostly evidences maintenance and modification of bifacial tools.
Supporting agencies: The analysis of the experimental and archaeo logical collections was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, Project No. 24-67-00033 “European Neanderthals in the Altai: Migrations, Cultural and Physical Adaptation”. Comparison of the archaeological materials from Chagyrskaya and Okladnikov caves was carried out under the Project “Interdisciplinary study of ancient and medieval societies of the Altai” (FZMW-2023-0009) of State Assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.
About the Authors
A. V. Kharevich
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kharevich A.V., Senior Researcher,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090.
K. A. Kolobova
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences; Altai State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kolobova K.A., Professor, Leading Researcher; Chief Researcher,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090;
61, Pr. Lenina, Barnaul, 656049.
I. E. Tyugashev
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tyugashev I.E., Junior Researcher,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090.
V. M. Kharevich
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kharevich V.M., Senior Researcher,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090
P. V. Chistyakov
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Chistyakov P.V., Junior Researcher,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090.
S. V. Markin
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Markin S.V., Leading Scientific Advisor, Department Head,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090.
A. P. Derevianko
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences; Altai State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Derevianko A.P., Professor, Scientific Director; Laboratory Head,
17, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva, Novosibirsk, 630090;
61, Pr. Lenina, Barnaul, 656049.
References
1. Bourguignon L. 1997 Le Moustérien de type Quina: Nouvelle defi nition d’une entité technique. Thesis PhD. Université Paris X. Nanterre.
2. Chabai V.P. 2004 Sredniy paleolit Kryma. Simferopol: Shlyakh
3. Chabai V.P., Demidenko Yu.E. 1998 The classification of flint artifacts. In The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea, vol. 1. A.E. Marks, V.P. Chabai (eds.). Liège: Univ. de Liège, pp. 31–51. (ERAUL; vol. 84).
4. Demidenko Y.E. 2003 Skoly obrabotki orudiy kak indikator osobennostey i intensivnosti protsessov kremneobrabotki i zhiznedeyatelnosti kollektivov neandertaltsev na stoyankakh srednego paleolita v kontekste variabelnosti industrii krymskoi mikokskoi traditsii. Arkheologicheskiy almanakh, No. 13: 128–157.
5. Demidenko Yu.E. 2015 Middle Palaeolithic industrial variability and tool treatment debitage diversity: Some intercorrelation studies for the Crimean Micoquian. Anthropologie, vol. 53 (1/2): 127–155.
6. Derevianko A.P., Markin S.V. 1992 Mustie Gornogo Altaya (po materialam peschery im. Okladnikova). Novosibirsk: Nauka.
7. Faivre J.-Ph. 2008 Organisation techno-économique des systèmes de production dans le Paléolithique moyen récent du Nord-est Aquitain: Combe-Grenal et les Fieux. Thesis PhD. Université Bordeaux I. Bordeaux.
8. Faivre J.-Ph. 2009–2010 Le «Moustérien à denticulés» de la couche 20 de Combe–Grenal: Implications techniques, économiques et fonctionnelles au sein du système de production Quina en Périgord. PALEO, No. 21: 135–162.
9. Frick J.A. 2020 New study and complementary analyses on the Keilmesser with tranchet blow from the site Abri du Musée at Les Eyzies (Dordogne, France). PALEO, vol. 30 (2): 138–162.
10. Frick J.A., Herkert K., Hoyer C.T., Floss H. 2017 Reflection on the research historical discourse of Keilmesser with tranchet blow from the European Late Middle Paleolithic. Quartär, vol. 64: 73–93.
11. Hiscock P., Turq A., Faivre J.–Ph., Bourguignon L. 2009 Quina procurement and tool production. In Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, B. Adams, B. Blades (eds.). Chichester, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 232–246.
12. Jöris O. 2006 Bifacially backed knives (Keilmesser) in the Central European Middle Palaeolithic. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard, N. GorenInbar, G. Sharon (eds.). London: Equinox Publ. Ltd, pp. 287–310.
13. Kharevich A.V. 2022 Bifasialnaya tekhnologiya v sibiryachikhinskom variante srednego paleolita Gornogo Altaya. Cand. Sci. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.
14. Kharevich A.V., Kharevich V.M., Kolobova K.A. 2022 Sravneniye eksperimentalnykh kollektsiy nukleusnogo i bifasialnogo debitazha v kontekste sibiryachikhinskogo varianta srednego paleolita Altaya. In Problemy arkheologii, etnografi i, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territoriy, vol. XXVIII. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SO RAN, pp. 351–358.
15. Kharevich V.M., Kharevich A.V., Markin S.V., Kolobova K.A. 2024 A New Approach to the Study of Flaking Sequence Integrity Based on the Chagyrskaya Cave Assemblage, Northwestern Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, vol. 52 (4): 39–49. (In Russian and English).
16. Kolobova K., Roberts R., Chabai V., Jacobs Z., Krajcarz M., Shalagina A., Krivoshapkin A., Li B., Uthmeier T., Markin S., Morley M., O’Gorman K., Rudaya N., Talamo S., Viola B., Derevianko A. 2020 Archaeological evidence for two separate dispersals of Neanderthals into Southern Siberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117 (6): 2879–2885.
17. Kolobova K., Shalagina A., Chabai V., Markin S., Krivoshapkin A. 2019 The significance of bifacial technologies in Altai Middle Paleolithic. Anthropologie, vol. 123 (2): 276–288.
18. Kolobova K.A., Tyugashev I.E., Kharevich A.V., Seletsky M.V., Chistyakov P.V., Markin S.V., Derevianko A.P. 2023 Variability in the Sibiryachikha assemblages of the Altai Mountains (based on materials from Okladnikov Cave layer 2). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, vol. 51 (3): 50–58. (In Russian and English).
19. Lenoir M. 1986 Un mode d’obtention de la retouche Quina dans le Moustérien de Combe Grenal (Domme–Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie du Sud-Ouest, vol. XXI (3): 153–160.
20. Li H., Kuman K., Li C.-R. 2014 Re-examination of the morphological variability of East African handaxes from a comparative perspective. World Archaeology, vol. 46 (5): 705–733.
21. Meignen L. 1988 Un exemple de comportement technologique différentiel selon les matièrespremières: Marillac c 9 et 10. In L’Homme de Néandertal: La Technique, M. Otte (ed.). Liège: Univ. de Liège, pp. 71–79. (ERAUL; vol. 35).
22. Mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya Chagyrskoi peschery – stoyanki srednego paleolita Altaya. 2018 A.P. Derevianko, S.V. Markin, K.A. Kolobova, V.P. Chabai, N.A. Rudaya, B. Viola, A.P. Buzhilova, M.B. Mednikova, S.K. Vasiliev, V.S. Zykin, V.S. Zykina, V.S. Zazhigin, A.O. Volvaлh, R.G. Roberts, Z. Jacobs, Bo Li. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SO RAN.
23. Neruda P., Nerudová Z. 2019 Technology of Early Szeletian leaf point shaping: A refi tting approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, vol. 11: 4515–4538.
24. Newcomer M.H. 1971 Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology, vol. 3 (1): 85–94.
25. Shalagina A.V., Kharevich V.M., Mori S., Bomann M., Krivoshapkin A.I., Kolobova K.A. 2020 Rekonstruktsiya tekhnologicheskikh tsepochek proizvodstva bifasialnykh orudiy v industrii Chagyrskoi peshchery. Sibirskiye istoricheskiye issledovaniya, No. 3: 130–151.
26. Turq A. 1989 Approche technologique et économique du faciès Moustérien de type Quina: étude préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, vol. 86: 244–256.
27. Vaughan C.D. 2001 A million years of style and function: Regional and temporal variation in Acheulean handaxes. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 141–163.
28. Verjux C. 1988 Les denticulés moustériens. In L’Homme de Néandertal: La Technique, M. Otte (ed.). Liège: Univ. de Liège, pp. 197–204. (ERAUL; vol. 35).
29. Veselsky A.P. 2009 Rekonstruktsiya protsessa izgotovleniya dvustoronnikh mikokskikh orudiy. Arkheologicheskiy almanakh, No. 20: 89–110.
30. Wiśniewski A., Chłoń M., Weiss M., Pyżewicz K., Migal W. 2020 On making of Micoquian bifacial backed tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, vol. 3: 856–888.
Review
For citations:
Kharevich A.V., Kolobova K.A., Tyugashev I.E., Kharevich V.M., Chistyakov P.V., Markin S.V., Derevianko A.P. Biface Trimming Elements as Indicators of Tool Rejuvenation Intensity: The Case of Sibiryachikha, Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 2025;53(4):41-51. https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2025.53.4.041-051
Views:
19
JATS XML
Email this article 