# Slotted osseous points and pressure flaking technique for bladelet production in the Mesolithic in Eastern Slovakia (Medvedia Cave, Ružín)

Pierre Allard, Bibiana Hromadová, Adrian Nemergut, Laurent Klaric

► To cite this version:

Pierre Allard, Bibiana Hromadová, Adrian Nemergut, Laurent Klaric. Slotted osseous points and pressure flaking technique for bladelet production in the Mesolithic in Eastern Slovakia (Medvedia Cave, Ružín). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 2025, 122 (3), pp.389-404. hal-05399156

HAL Id: hal-05399156

https://hal.science/hal-05399156v1

Submitted on 4 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Slotted osseous points and pressure flaking technique for bladelet production in the
Mesolithic in Eastern Slovakia (Medvedia Cave, Ružín)

Pointes osseuses rainurées et technique de débitage à la pression pour la production de lamelles
au Mésolithique en Slovaquie orientale (grotte de Medvedia, Ružín)

Pierre Allard¹, Bibiana Hromadová², Adrian Nemergut³, Laurent Klaric¹

Abstract

This article presents a new study of archaeological material from the Medvedia Cave (Ružín)
in eastern Slovakia. This site is already known for its remains of Mesolithic brown bear hunting.
The new study provides two radiocarbon dates proving the dual presence of a slotted osseous
point associated with bladelets produced by pressure flaking during the Middle Mesolithic.
Both results are consistent: Poz-907082 (point): 8580 ± 50 uncal BP i.e. 7728-7532 cal BC
(95,4%); Poz-907099 (Bear skull): 8230 ± 50 uncal BP i.e. 7560-7400 cal BC (9.8%) + 7376-
7072 cal BC (85.6 %). These dates are unexpected for the Mesolithic in Slovakia. The
identification of pressure flaking, which was used to produce small bladelets that were inserted
into a long-grooved point of hard animal material, clearly evokes links with eastern and/or
northern European Mesolithic cultures. The discovery of this type of point in eastern Slovakia
gives rise to further questions when viewed in the context of the wider comparative evidence.
This is particularly the case given that the Kunda or Grebenyky/Kukrek cultures, which are
known to have produced similar slotted bone points with lithic inserts, are situated several
hundred kilometres away.

Keywords : Mesolithic, lithic technology, pressure flaking, slotted bone point, Central Europe, 14C

Résumé

Cet article présente une nouvelle étude du matériel du site de Medvedia en Slovaquie orientale. La grotte se situe dans le district de Košice, sur la commune de Ružín. Avec le gisement de Barca, c'est l'une des rares occurrences de présence mésolithique dans l'Est du pays. Découverte par des spéléologues dans les années 70, la cavité est composée d'un couloir d'entrée étroit orienté Nord-Ouest et long de 32 m qui est difficilement praticable. Ce passage débouche abruptement sur une salle (« la Chapelle ») qui se trouve 5 m en contrebas par rapport à l'entrée et correspond à un espace ovalaire d'au maximum 7 m de large. C'est dans cette partie que furent découvert les vestiges archéologiques datant du Mésolithique. Peu après la découverte de la cavité par des spéléologues, un crâne d'ours fut mis au jour au sein d'une couche de travertin de 40 cm d'épaisseur au sein de la Chapelle. En 1978, la société slovaque de spéléologie organisa une fouille pour récupérer le reste du squelette (appelé spécimen 1) Durant la fouille, les spéléologues récoltèrent également un fragment de lame en obsidienne ainsi qu'un « poinçon en os ». Juraj Bárta reconnut dans « le poinçon » un fragment de pointe en os à rainures longitudinales destinées à accueillir des lamelles en montage latéral. A partir de 1980, il mena une fouille plus approfondie dans la Chapelle. Les restes de deux autres ours furent mis au jour. Outre ces vestiges fauniques, une seconde pointe à rainures latérales présentant 7 lamelles enchassées fut découverte à la limite des sondages A et B. Dans cet article, les deux pointes de projectile identifiées ont été observées en détails afin d'analyser les techniques de fabrication et d'identifier d'éventuelles altérations de surface. Le nouvel examen
des lamelles a permis d'identifier que la pression a été utilisée comme technique de détachement Ces dernières sont particulièrement régulières, minces et étroites. Deux datations ont pu être réalisées, la première sur un fragment de la première pointe retrouvée (celle qui ne portait pas de lamelles) et la seconde sur le crâne d'ours auquel elle était associée. Les dates placent les artefacts dans le 8ème millénaire avant-notre-ère : Ruzin c.v.1 - Sagaie : 8580 ± 50 BP (Poz-97082) soit 7714-7533 cal. BC (95%) ; Ruzin c.v.2 – Crâne d'ours : 8230 ± 60 BP (Poz-97055) soit : 7454-7394 cal. BC (8.8%) et 7379-7077 cal. BC (86.6%) . Ces datations et la typologie des objets évoquent clairement des rapprochements avec les cultures mésolithiques orientales et/ou septentrionales. La position géographique de cette découverte pose question, puisque si l'on accorde crédit aux comparaisons technologique et stylistique, les entités Kunda ou Grebenyky/Kukrek sont distantes de plusieurs centaines de kilomètres du site. En l'état, la grande nouveauté de ce réexamen de la petite collection de la grotte de Medvedia tient surtout à l'identification et, pour la première fois en Europe centrale, à la datation de la pression pour la production de lamelles à cette période.

Mots clés : Mésolithique, technologie lithique, débitage à la pression, pointe rainurée en os, Europe centrale, 14C

# 1. Introduction

In the context of prehistoric knapping, the study of techniques, as defined by J. Tixier, namely as a means of acting on the material, has been a prominent area of research for nearly five decades (e.g., Inizan et al., 1999). In the late 1960s, pressure flaking was identified as a technique for detaching blades and bladelets (Crabtree, 1968). For a review of this topic, see Inizan (2012). Subsequently, the characterisation and identification of this specific technique has constituted a significant challenge within the field of lithic technology research, particularly in Europe. Over the past three decades, experimental research has yielded a detailed characterisation of pressure flaking, encompassing the various techniques and applications employed (e.g., Pelegrin, 2012). These include the use of a simple stick for pressure applied in the hand, with or without additional core-holding devices, as well as the utilisation of a shoulder or chest crutch or a lever (ibid.). Consequently, research has been conducted in numerous locations worldwide with the aim of identifying the centres where this technical innovation originated and how it spread, as it marked a significant turning point in prehistoric lithic production.

The geographical distribution of this technique is now relatively well documented for specific regions of the world, including the Mediterranean, Europe, Siberia and Alaska, and Japan (for detailed contributions see Desrosiers, 2012). However, in Central Europe, particularly in eastern Slovakia, there are still some areas of uncertainty due to the lack of precise dating of early contexts. In Western Europe, the first appearance of this technique is likely to have been during the Late Aurignacian period (Michel, 2010; Pelegrin, 2012), and then more clearly during the Badegoulian period (Chehmana et al., 2009-2010) and the Middle Magdalenian period (Alix et al., 1995). While pressure flaking techniques for blades and bladelets are known from the earliest phases of the Holocene in Eastern Europe, this technique only appears in the Late Mesolithic in other parts of Europe (Binder et al., 2012; Hartz et al., 2010; Perrin and Binder, 2014; Sørensen et al., 2013), before occupying a variable place in Neolithic productions (e.g. Binder, 1984; Allard, 2017).

The Medvedia Cave (Ružín) in eastern Slovakia (fig. 1) has previously been identified as a site of Mesolithic brown bear hunting (Bárta, 1989, 1990). The present study offers new
radiocarbon evidence that, for the first time in Slovakia, demonstrates the co-presence of a slotted osseous point associated with bladelets produced by pressure flaking during the Middle Mesolithic. In this paper, we propose to describe and date these points and lithic artefacts, which are of particular importance for the long history of prehistoric technology. Notwithstanding recent research (Valde-Nowak and Soják, 2010; Cheben et al., 2017; Nemergut, 2020; Nemergut and Soják, 2022), these new dates represent the first consistent chronology for the Mesolithic in Slovakia. Indeed, this period remains relatively poorly documented in the country (Kaminská, 2014, 2021).

## 2. Material and method

### 2.1. The Medvedia Cave (Ružín, Slovakia), location and history of the excavations

The Medvedia Cave is situated within the Košice region, specifically in the vicinity of the now submerged village of Ružín in eastern Slovakia. Together with the site of Barca, it represents one of the few cases of a Mesolithic site in the eastern part of the country (Prošek, 1959; Kaminská, 2014, 2021). The cave was discovered by speleologists in the 1970s and is the highest cave in the karst network of the Little Ružínok Valley (fig. 1a). The entrance to the cave was obstructed by debris, which likely accounts for its delayed discovery and relatively good preservation. The cave features a 32-metre-long entrance corridor oriented northwest, which presents a challenging passageway to traverse (fig. 1b). The aforementioned corridor abruptly opens into a room, designated as the "Chapel," situated at a depth of five meters below the entrance. This room is oval in shape, with a maximum width of seven meters. This section of the cave is where the archaeological remains from the Mesolithic period were discovered (fig. 1c).

Following the discovery of the cave by speleologists, a bear skull was unearthed within a 40 cm thick horizontal layer of yellowish-white fine-grained sinter inside the Chapel (Bárta, 1989, p. 456-458). The skull was removed without any record or special precautions being made before being deposited in the Košice Museum. In 1978, the Slovak Speleological Society undertook an excavation with the objective of recovering the remaining skeletal elements. Subsequently, the latter (referred to as specimen 1) was attributed to the species *Ursus speleaus* and considered to be a juvenile individual. During the excavation, the speleologists also discovered a fragment of an obsidian blade (fig. 2a) and an object that was subsequently identified as a “bone awl” among the bear bones. Given the summary nature of the excavation, no form of stratigraphic information was recorded. In lieu of a bone awl, Juraj Bárta identified a “bone point fragment” with longitudinal slots for the insertion of laterally attached bladelets (fig. 3a; Barta, 1989). However, no microliths were found by the speleologists. In 1980, Bárta conducted a more extensive excavation in the Chapel. This exploration enabled the location of the position of the speleologists' excavation and provided information on the geological and archaeological context of their discovery (Table 1 and fig. 1d).

The extension of the exploratory trench yielded further evidence in the form of animal remains and artefacts (fig. 1d). Two additional bear remains were unearthed. It appears that only one of the two skeletons (specimen 2, which is almost complete) originated from the same layer as specimen 1. In contrast, the other skeleton (specimen 3, which is incomplete and corresponds to the front of the animal) originated from a different clay layer and exhibited a distinct colour and surface condition. In addition to the aforementioned animal remains, a second laterally slotted point with seven hafted micro-bladelets (fig. 3b-c) was discovered at the boundary of Trenches A and B (fig. 1d) in layer C. It is noteworthy that some bladelets still exhibited
evidence of glue (Bárta, 1989). Bárta states that the point was discovered at the level of the animal's ribs (specimen 2) and was remarkably well-preserved, exhibiting minimal fragmentation. An additional obsidian blade was discovered in close proximity to the bear's jaw (fig. 2b). As with the preceding artefact, Bárta attributed its origin to the obsidian outcrops of Kašov-Viničky (Bárta, 1989, p. 10-11). However, he posits that the position of the bear remains within the pedo-lithological horizon indicates that they likely represent a single event: two wounded bears, wounded during a hunt, sought refuge in the cave and subsequently perished from their injuries (ibid, p. 16). It is important to note, however, that the association of bear remains with slotted points is based on a very coarse excavation where the points were found mixed with bear remains. To date, no other observations have been made that clearly support Bárta's hypothesis. The two points, crafted from a hard animal material, exhibited notable similarities. A typological comparison suggested that they belonged to the Late Mesolithic period (Bárta, 1989). The excavation continued in 1984 and several more bear bones (*Ursus arctos L.*) were found, dispersed by the circulation of water through the cavity. This circumstance was attributed to the wet Atlantic period (Ložek, 1973). No other anthropogenic artefacts were found at this level.

It is therefore not possible to provide an accurate account of the findings from the initial excavation. The descriptions of the findings from the 1980 and 1984 excavations are limited in scope. The remains of the bear and the anthropogenic artefacts (a point with attached bladelets and an obsidian “flake”) were discovered in close proximity to one another near the base of the sinter layer in the western portion of the small trench that was excavated along the axis of the Chapel (fig. 1c-d). The archaeological material appears to originate from the base of the deepest Holocene sinter layer, which is characterised by a pale yellow hue and contains a sparse distribution of charcoal fragments (Bárta, 1990, p. 458). A layer of brown greasy clay, attributed to the Pleistocene, was observed beneath the sinter layer. This level yielded rare remains of chamois (*Rupicapra rupicapra L.*) and a few pieces of charcoal *Abies alba*, *Pinus sp.* and *Pinus picea* [sic], as originally reported by Bárta (1989) as well as an obsidian “blade” which Bárta attributed to the Palaeolithic (fig. 2c; Bárta 1990, p. 458).

The collection held at the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Nitra appears to be incomplete. A total of five artefacts were available for examination: two slotted points (possibly projectile points), but only two of the seven unfinished bladelets and two obsidian blades. The remaining five bladelet fragments and a significant portion of the bear bone remains could not be located. Only a single bear skull was identified. Additionally, no remains from the "Pleistocene" layer were found. The reason for the absence of these findings is unclear. It is possible that they may be conserved in another Slovak institution, where they could have been inadvertently misplaced during the collections' relocation following J. Bárta's passing in 2003.

## 2.2 Material and methods

### 2.2.1. The bear skull of specimen 1

Of the identified remains of the three bears, the only skull found in the Nitra Archaeological Institute is in a good state of taphonomic preservation. The surface of the bone is characterised by an uneven distribution of calcareous concretions, which are visible as a thin layer of white to light grey matter. The specimen was determined to be that of an adult bear (*Ursus arctos arctos*). The preliminary identification of this taxon was made by Dr. Z. Miklíková-Bielichová, who concluded from the taphonomic state that it was the bear skull of specimen 1 described by C. Ambros (Ambros et al., 1990; Bárta, 1990, p. 10). As no anthropogenic traces (cutmarks) or
impact or injury marks were found on the bones of the skeleton, the hypothesis was proposed that the bear had been wounded in the soft tissues of its abdomen (Ambros et al., 1990, p. 35) and had sought refuge in the depths of the cave, where it eventually died of its wounds (Bárta, 1989, p. 10). A single bone fragment from the skull of the bear designated as specimen 1 was removed and sent to the Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory (Poland) for radiocarbon dating.

### 2.2.2. The osseous slotted points

The two points exhibit comparable taphonomic and morphological traits (fig. 3a-b). Similarly, both exhibit a pale light greyish yellow colouration and display comparable taphonomic damage, as observed in the bear remains of specimen 1 and 2 (Ambros et al., 1990, p. 35). It can thus be inferred with a high degree of probability that the points and the bear skull were subjected to the same taphonomic processes.

The two points exhibit slight differences in their morphological characteristics. The larger point (121 x 6.8 x 6.17 mm) is likely to be almost complete (fig. 3b). The distal and mesial portions are well-preserved, but the proximal section displays evidence of a recent damage (fig. 3d). A substantial proportion of the damaged section exhibits a change in colour and reveals fresh aspects of the surface when viewed with naked eye and under the stereoscope. There are also traces of what appears to be residual glue, although the restoration process is undocumented. The general cross-section is oval in shape. The width of the slots is approximately 2.35 mm. The second point (fig. 3a) is fractured and displays a more slender morphology (55x5.7x4.9 mm). The general cross-section of the point is rounded, and the width of the slots varies between 1 and 1.90 mm. The size and dimensions of this artefact suggest that the fragment represents the upper-mesial part of a complete point. Post-depositional fracture and modern (non-anthropogenic) flaking resulted in the disintegration and breakage of part of the proximal end. A broken fragment from this smallest point was selected for dating, and sent to the Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory (Poland) for radiocarbon dating.

The two points were subjected to a comprehensive examination in accordance with established analytical procedures, with a focus on describing only the macro traces. However, our examination was limited by access to the equipment and storage conditions. Traces that could not be documented adequately have not been included in the study. Further study is necessary for a detailed traceological analysis. Our goal was to ascertain the manufacturing techniques employed and to identify any surface alterations, where possible. Both artefacts were examined using stereomicroscopy with a Nikon SMZ18 microscope at magnifications ranging from 7.5x to 135x. The three-dimensional models of the points were created by A. Arpáš (Institute of Archaeology SAS, Nitra) using a three-dimensional scanner, the Steinbichler Comet L3D.

### 2.2.3. The glue and the bladelets

The seven microliths were positioned in series within the slots in point 2 (fig. 3e). The microliths were hafted in the slots with a grey-dark substance (Bárta, 1990, p. 11; Ambros et al., 1990, p. 40). This residue, previously examined by J. Čejka, was subjected to pyrolysis and analysed for trace elements by infrared spectrometry (Py-EA-IR; Ambros et al., 1990, p. 36). The resulting spectrum indicates that the substance is characteristic of conifers, including *Picea abies*, *Larix decidua*, and *Pinus silvestris* (ibid, p. 41). This suggests that it is likely a pine resin-based adhesive used to haft the microliths in the slots. These findings align with the palynological analysis conducted by M. Hajnalová, which suggests the presence of pine trees in the vicinity of the cave during the Atlantic chronozone (Bárta, 1990, p. 10). There are no
comparable examples of Mesolithic residues in the Carpathian Basin. Nevertheless, the analysis of the black substance used to glue inserts to slotted points in other European regions indicates the utilisation of birch bark pitch (Manninen et al., 2021). Pine resin-based glues have been identified as a material used to assemble composite objects at multiple Mesolithic sites in Eastern Europe (Zhilin, 2011, p. 138-139; Zhilin and Ruev, 2025). Indeed, the evidence suggests that Mesolithic resinous glues were employed for a range of purposes (Elliott et al., 2022).

The raw material of the bladelets has been initially identified as limnoquartzite or limnosilicite (Bárta, 1990, p. 458). However, microscopic examination of the bladelets revealed the presence of microfossils of radiolarians within the grey flint matrix (fig. 3h). The presence of radiolarians thus suggests that the raw material is likely to be radiolarite (determination and personal communication M. Cheben; examination was conducted with Nikon SMZ18 Stereomicroscope and picture made with Moticam 10.0 MP). The two closest known sources for this material are the Pieniny Klippen belt (approximately 35–40 km from Medvedia Cave) or the secondary deposits of the Torysa River (approximately 10 km away), indicating a probable geographical origin to the north-east of the cave.

Both examined bladelets correspond to mesial fragments with broken extremities, with the exception of bladelet no. 1, which exhibits a partial marginal inverse truncation in its proximal part (fig. 3f). In addition to their general gracile character and the great regularity of their edges and ridges, these bladelets are notably small and slender, measuring 23.3 x 3.9 x 1.5 mm for the first (fig. 3f) and 29.6 x 3.2 x 1 mm for the second (fig. 3g). In examining the archive photograph of all the originally published artefacts (fig. 3e), it is possible to estimate the width module for all seven bladelets to be between 3 and 3.9 mm at its maximum. A comparison of the photograph and the two pieces allowed us to ascertain that bladelet no. 1 is the widest of the seven pieces.

The bladelets were subjected to a technological analysis in order to determine their detachment technique, employing the methodology proposed by J. Pelegrin (Pelegrin, 1988, 2012). The technique of pressure flaking is identified on the basis of macromorphological criteria and features revealed by modern knappers through experimentation. These features are then identified in prehistoric lithic assemblages through a process of analogy (e.g. Inizan et al., 1999; Pelegrin, 2006; Sorensen et al., 2013). The following section presents a concise overview of the principal technical characteristics that enable the identification of pressure flaking techniques, as observed by contemporary flint knappers. The following criteria are typically considered the most indicative of the pressure technique (for a more comprehensive overview, see Pelegrin, 1988, 2006, 2012):

- The blades typically exhibit parallel edges and ridges, as well as a consistent thickness throughout the length of the product;

- It is frequently the case that overhangs and platforms are partially or completely abraded in order to prevent the tip of the pressure stick from slipping during the application of force;

- The butts are consistently narrower than the maximum width of the blades, and there are no discernible ripple marks on the ventral surface;

The pressure force is contingent upon the mode of detachment employed, which may be classified as follows (for further visual clarification see Pelegrin, 2012):

(mode 1a) in hand with a pressure stick;

(mode 1b) in hand with a pressure stick and a complementary tool to hold the core;
(mode 2) sitting with a shoulder crutch and a complementary tool to hold the core;
 mode 3) sitting with a short ventral crutch and a complementary tool to hold the core;
 (mode 4) standing with a long crutch and a complementary tool to hold the core;
 (mode 5) standing with a lever device with a system to hold the core.

Usually the flintknappers avoid tearing out excessive blade platform, so the butt is usually smaller than the width of the blade. Furthermore, the overhang is frequently removed intentionally. Another argument put forth by J. Pelegrin (ibid.) is based on the profile of the complete specimen. The thickness of the blades removed by pressure should be uniform or exhibit a slight decrease from the proximal to the distal end.

The results of J. Pelegrin (ibid.) indicate that the punch technique also produces light, regular blades, albeit with some curvature and slightly less consistency in morpho-dimensional regularity than pressure flaking. Nevertheless, it is not always straightforward to differentiate between indirect percussion (punch technique) and pressure flaking based on these observations alone. As J. Pelegrin notes: "Highly precise indirect percussion can result in blades with a nearly straight profile in the first two-thirds, with a distinct curvature in the distal third. A final diagnostic feature can assist in identifying the punch technique: discrete waves on the edges and ridges, as well as a discrete to prominent 'belly' on the ventral side" (Pelegrin 2006, p. 42).

Furthermore, the contact area of the round tip of the punch should be rather large. This implies that the butt is typically (though not invariably) relatively thick and wide (Pelegrin 2006, p. 45). It is uncommon for the butt to exhibit a crack; however, on occasion, a semi-circular (crescent) back line may be observed. Bulbs produced by indirect percussion are frequently more extensive in length or diffuse than those produced by pressure. The latter are characteristically "thick, high and short" (Pelegrin 2006, p. 47).

Moreover, the diagnosis is also based on the comparison with Jacques Pelegrin lithic experimental collections deposited in the *Technothèque Jacques Tixier* (https://teknotek.pretech.cnrs.fr/s/fr/page/accueil). See in particular experimental series “JP002” and “JP003” for bladelets made with indirect percussion versus the serie of small bladelets made on bullet-core (experiment J. Pelegrin in Gomez-Coutouly, 2011, p. 577). The image processing of Medvedia lithic bladelets was conducted utilising the Helicon Focus 6.0 software. Photographic documentation was conducted utilising a Canon 70D camera and a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens (fig. 3d-f-g).

**3. Results**

**3.1. New observations for the osseous points**

The morphology of the distal end of the larger point is of particular interest from a technical and functional perspective. In the distal part, a possible impact fracture can be discussed (fig. 3c). This fracture morphology is elongated and slightly oblique, forming the bevelled fracture with step termination, with a slight crushing of the tip. The damage could be the result of a contact or penetration of the point with hard material during the impact. This conclusion is aligned with the fact that the point was found in the region of the ribs of bear specimen 2, which suggests that it may have made an impact with a bone (or an other hard material). However we cannot exclude formally that the association of the point and the bone elements may be the result of different processes (natural or anthropic).
The smaller point fragment exhibits a functional damage in the distal extremity, which is attributable to a bending fracture (fig. 3a). The apex is also missing. The tip has sustained a significant fracture, resulting in damage to the grooves. The origin of this type of fracture remains uncertain. As previously stated, the skull, the only remaining bone examined, does not display any direct impact marks.

It is not possible to identify the species of animal or the type of osseous material used to make the points with absolute certainty. Here, ZooMS analysis may prove to be a useful tool in the future for distinguishing between different animal species for the points of Medvedia Cave. The aspect of the fracture and the tissue at the extremities of both points only allows for provisional hypothesis about the nature of the material. As can be seen in both cases, the tissue is both dense and compact. The longest point exhibits a thin layer of spongy structure, visible only on a small surface of the mesial and proximal part. On this point, it has been observed that the recent damaged surface exhibit a smooth appearance and texture, with edges that are also smooth. It is evident that only one fracture exhibits signs of crushing, and these signs are particularly pronounced along fibres that are more dense. These details seems consistent with the hypothesis that bone material may have been utilised for the longest point.

The mechanical abrasion of the surface makes a technological description of the points challenging. Microscopic analysis revealed that the traces of manufacture are present in the slots, while the rounded surface shows a high degree of polishing that could be linked e.g. to natural post-depositionnal processes affecting the artefact. The origin of these microscopic traces needs to be discussed in further study and supported by more detailed documentation. Consequently, it has not been possible to identify any technique related to the shaping of the points. The traces inside the slots are more well-preserved and exhibit notable similarities. The cross-section of each slot (narrow, deep and V-shaped with a slightly rounded bottom) suggests a morphology for the working tool, which was probably a straight lithic edge. The presence of longitudinal striations within the slots (on the edges and bottom) may indicate the use of a blade edge rather than a burin.

**3.2. Identification of pressure flaking for the bladelet production**

The identification of the pressure flaking technique is based on an examination of the two bladelet fragments present in the collection. The bladelets are characterised by a high degree of regularity, narrowness and thinness. Although the sample is very limited, some qualitative observations allow a diagnosis to be made. In the absence of butts, the following observations should be noted:

- the general gracile character of the blanks (especially fig. 3g);

- the remarkable regularity of the edges and ridges;

- the very parallel aspect of the edges;

- the almost constant thickness of the blanks from one end to the other (about 1-1.5 mm for fig. 3f and 1 mm for fig. 3g);

- the almost straightness or weak curvature of the blanks, even if the latter are not complete (it should be noted that the distal curvature of the longest bladelet, fig. 3g, is slightly accentuated, a detail that is common in pressure-knapped products; Gomez-Coutouly, 2011, p. 102).

Furthermore, both bladelets exhibit a rhythmic sequence of removals of type "123" (fig. 3f) and "212" (fig. 3g). This type of sequence is characteristic of the use of pressure (Binder et al., 2012, p. 201), but is also commonly observed in the indirect percussion technique.
The Medvedia Cave specimens present a challenge due to the limited number of mesial bladelet fragments available for analysis. However, indirect percussion can be excluded based on these combined observations: 1/ constant and very reduced thickness of the bladelets (1 and 1,5 mm), 2/ the extreme narrowness of one of the exemplary (3 mm ; Fig. 3g) and 3/ the absence of any "discrete belly" on the ventral surface. Furthermore, based on our knowledge of the literature and our research to date, we are not aware of any archaeological examples of such small, regular bladelets being produced by indirect percussion in European Mesolithic contexts. These findings suggest that the pressure technique was probably employed to detach the bladelets. While this provisional diagnosis may evolve in light of new data, we currently consider the pressure hypothesis to be the most likely.

When compared to knapping experiments, the narrowness of the blanks indicates two possible ways for applying pressure: either "in the hand" or with a "shoulder crutch" (Pelegrin, 1988; 2012). However, the narrow width of the pieces and the thickness of the bladelets, which is less than or equal to 1.5 mm, probably indicate the use of pressure "in the hand" with a slotted complementary tool to immobilise the core (mode 1b according to Pelegrin, 2012; Gomez-Coutouly, 2011, p. 99). Beyond this diagnosis of the pressure flaking technique, it is not possible to ascertain any further details regarding the characteristics of the knapping method used to produce these blades.

**3.3. Absolute chronology**

In order to establish a more precise chronology for these lithic artefacts, two radiocarbon dates were carried out. The first was carried out on a fragment of the smallest broken point found (the one without bladelets), while the second was carried out on the bear skull with which it was associated. The samples were dated at the Radiocarbon Laboratory in Poznań (Poland). The results (Table 2) were calibrated with OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2020). The two dates are consistent, and the bear skull (in an upper stratigraphic position according to speleologists; Bárta 1990) can be considered a *terminus ante quem* for the anthropogenic elements. The results (fig. 4 and table 2) indicate that the shortest slotted point date to the first half of the 8th millennium cal. BC, which corresponds to the later (middle) phase of the Mesolithic in Central Europe (Svoboda, 2008; Kaminská, 2014, 2021). As both Medvedia points show close typological analogies, we posit that they are of the same type and they both have been introduced in the cave during the same event. By extension we assume that the date of the smallest point can also indirectly date the longer point and the hafted microliths. Consequently, it seems that pressure flaking presence can be indirectly dated to the first half of the 8th millennium cal. BC in eastern Slovakia. A more precise chrono-regional comparison of these slotted ossesous points is discussed below.

**4. Discussion**

In spite of the unequivocal 14C results, the attribution of the Medvedia Cave to a more precise
chrono-cultural context remains a delicate matter. The Mesolithic period in the country remains
poorly documented (Kaminská, 2014, 2021). The majority of Mesolithic sites in Slovakia are
known from surface lithic collections, and there is a paucity of reliable data for the chrono-
cultural definition of the Slovak Mesolithic period (ibid.). For over half a century, only four
excavated sites were known: Sered'-Mačianske vŕšky (Bárta, 1957) and Dolná Streda-Vŕšky
(Bárta, 1959) in western Slovakia; and Košice-Barca I (Prošek, 1957) and Ružín-Medvedia
Cave (Bárta, 1989) in eastern Slovakia (fig. 1a). All of the aforementioned sites have been attributed to the late Mesolithic period on the basis of lithic typology.

In recent years, however, new research has been conducted on Mesolithic sites in the Orava region (Nemergut, 2020), Spišská Belá (Valde-Nowak and Soják, 2010), Sedmerovec (Cheben et al., 2017) and Zbehy-Dolné lúky. New 14C data have been obtained from Sered'-Mačianske vŕšky and Košice-Barca I, but have not yet been published. The age of the Košice-Barca I site has been confirmed as Late Mesolithic, while the age of the Sered'-Mačianske Vŕšky is likely somewhat older, belonging to the Middle Mesolithic. In the summer of 2022, an additional survey was conducted in the Ružín region. The most significant findings with a stratigraphic context were obtained from the rock shelter Miriama (Nemergut and Soják, 2022), situated in close proximity to the Medvedia Cave (fig. 1a). The preliminary, unpublished result of the 14C dating of the layer containing the lithic collection is believed to correspond to the same period as the Medvedia Cave (Nemergut et al. in press). Further detailed results will be published on this site following the conclusion of ongoing fieldwork.

While the regional context of the Medvedia Cave artefacts is not particularly informative, a broader examination reveals some interesting comparisons. Points made of hard animal material with lithic inserts have been documented from northern and eastern Europe for quite some time (Manninen et al., 2021). In his synthesis of the ancient finds from the Baltic region, Clark presents elements that are quite convincing from a typological point of view (Clark, 1936, p. 136). He designated this category as follows: "Slotted points with flint inserts – type 21-25". Medvedia's points are close to his type 22, but we don't know if indentations are missing because the base is not preserved. More recently, the syntheses by M. Zhilin (2011) and T. Galiński (2013) provide some promising avenues for further investigation.

According to Zhilin classification (2011, p. 121), this particular type of point (he named "type 10.3") is a common feature of archaeological sites in Russia and the Baltic region. Its significance, both chronologically and geographically, is considerable. This type of point is present in the Kunda, Veretie, Butovo and Onezhskaya cultures, occurring exclusively during the Pre-Boreal or Boreal periods. It appears that an exemplar of this type of point is present at Minino 2, unit 5 (Sorokin, 2013). Such points are absent or otherwise undocumented in later assemblages (ibid. p. 142-143, Koltsov and Zhilin, 1999). In regions situated further to the south, the geographical distribution of these points is confined to the contact zone with Central European Mesolithic cultures (fig. 5). On rare occasions, a few examples or small series of pieces have been identified in sites in north-eastern Poland and the Russian region of Kaliningrad (ibid., p. 145-149). M. Zhilin posits that this region, encompassing present-day Lithuania, served as a kind of buffer zone where the Kunda-Butovo techno-complex, with its technical traditions and innovations, could encounter the Maglemose-Duvensee traditions (ibid., p. 151). It is important to note that the territory of north-eastern Slovakia is located 600-800 km to this area (fig. 5).

Galiński (2013) posits that slotted points with inserted bladelets can be divided into two categories: those with a single row (Zinten type, 21 A) and those with a double row (Meturren type, 21 B). In the southern Baltic zone, they are referenced in the literature within the Janislavician and Kunda techno-complexes. Additionally, the double-row slotted points are documented in the Maglemosian context (Galiński, 2013; Kozlowski, 2009). In the eastern Baltic region, these artifacts are predominantly recovered from sites situated between the Vistula and Niemen rivers. In terms of their general distribution, Galiński (2013, p. 121) notes that the points with fragments of unretouched bladelets are the most common. However, he
notes that the attribution of these points to cultural complexes based on the lithic industry remains purely hypothetical, particularly in north-eastern Poland, which represents a transition zone between European Mesolithic groups and those of the Great Russian Plain. Consequently, he assigns these points to the Kunda techno-complex (Lampédziai-type assemblage in the Niemen Basin) and also to the Janislavician complex (fig. 5).

Similarly, S.K. Kozlowski reaches a comparable conclusion in his regional synthesis of these groups, particularly with respect to the limited number of points with lithic inserts attributed to the Janislavician complex. Consequently, although he incorporates these artefacts into the material culture of this group, he emphasises the absence of a robust contextual framework for the Polish objects, which he characterises as "accidental discoveries" (Kozlowski, 1989, p. 110). Subsequent studies have brought the basis of the discussion into focus. Thus, the reliable dates for the Janislavician complex seem to point to the 7th millennium, especially its second part (Deby 29 site, Kozlowski, 2009, p. 403). Therefore, these more recent dates for the Janislavician context are hardly consistent with the date of the slotted point found in Medvedia Cave.

The more recent data from the Tłokowo site has enabled a reconsideration of the cultural attribution of the double grooved point with inserts found there. It was initially hypothesised that the artefact was very similar to those known from the Kunda culture (Burdukiewicz, 2005). A re-examination of the data from the site has suggested a potential origin for the point from level 4 of the site, which is dated to the Boreal period around 7300 BC. BC (Shild et al., 2003; see below). This possibility appears to be considerably earlier than the Janislavician complex. Recently, a synthesis of the early Scandinavian Mesolithic indicates that the Tłokowo point with inserts may also be associated with the Maglemosian techno-group 3 complex (Sørensen et al., 2013). However, in this perspective, none of these cultures has been identified in regions south of the Vistula.

In a recently published synthesis, the new direct dates for this type of point have provided a definitive chronological framework for these objects (Maninnen et al., 2021). In this study, a series of dates from pitch glue found in the grooves of 17 tools from sites in central Russia, Belarus, Estonia and Poland are presented. The earliest examples of grooved points from this region can be dated to the Upper Pleistocene, with evidence indicating that their use was continuous throughout the Early and Middle Holocene.

Furthermore, the Tłokowo point has been subjected to a new analysis and dating based on a sample of the pitch glue used to haft the flint inserts in the lateral slots (Osipowicz et al., 2020). The new date is demonstrably more recent and falls within the 6th millennium: AAR-27601: 6492 ± 38 BP, i.e. 5532-5367 (95.4%) cal BC/AD (calibration conducted with OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020). This evidence demonstrates that the artefact in question should be assigned to the Late Mesolithic period. The attribution of the point to this phase is corroborated by the discovery of a second bone point of analogous type in related layers at the site, as well as the identification of a "Borki blade" of the same type as those recovered from the point. It is also important to note that the Mesolithic populations of a significant area of Poland, including its eastern region, were influenced by ideas from the northern and eastern parts of Europe, primarily transmitted by the Kunda culture. It can thus be concluded that the cultural attribution of slotted points with flint inserts can be linked both to the Mesolithic Janislavician complex and to the so-called Post-Swiderian communities of northwestern Russia (Orłowska and Osipowicz, 2022).
Over the past two decades, a number of studies have been conducted to examine the temporal and spatial distribution of the utilisation of pressure blade/bladelet technology. The production of pressure blades is attested in Eurasia, and it is probable that pressure technology diffused from east to west during the last glacial maximum (Damlien, 2016). In northwestern Russia and the Baltic region, evidence of pressure for bladelet production is documented in pre-Boreal and Boreal blade assemblages associated with the Post-Swiderian. In northwestern Russia, evidence of pressure bladelet technology has been identified in the Veretye and Butovo cultures at sites dated to the Early and Middle Mesolithic periods. The recent study of Stanovoje 4 demonstrates that points with inserts emerge during the 10th millennium cal BC, and the lithic industry exhibits long, narrow bladelets produced by pressure flaking (Hartz et al., 2010). In the Baltic region, the production of blades by pressure has been associated with the Kunda culture (Sulgostowska, 1999).

This technique persisted until the 7th millennium BC. The Kunda culture, centred in the Baltic states, also exhibits assemblages in which pressure is used from the 9th millennium onwards, most notably at the site of Pulli in Estonia (Zhilin and Matiskainen, 2003: 688; Ostrauskas, 2000). The knapping of regular bladelets accompanied the production of broad blades, which were used as blanks for the renowned tanged Post-Swiderian points (Sulgostowska, 1999). Recent analyses indicate the utilisation of analogous modes of blade detachment by pressure at sites in south-eastern Norway and at sites such as Butovo and Zaborovje 2 in north-western Russia. Indirect percussion has been observed to be employed for the production of macro-blades, whereas pressure techniques have been utilised for the production of flakes and bladelets (Damlien, 2016).

The recognition of pressure debitage represents a recent development in the characterisation of Mesolithic Trapeze industries in southern Western Europe (Binder et al., 2012). The technological studies have enabled the identification of pressure debitage in the Mediterranean within the context of the Castelnovian complex, representing an early phase dating to the beginning of the 7th millennium BC (fig. 5). It is therefore evident that this technique forms part of the original package associated with the Trapeze phenomenon. It should be noted that, at the current stage of knowledge, this is not an exclusive technique. The duality of detachment techniques is also supported by the systematic documentation of indirect percussion in Castelnovian lithic industries (Perrin and Binder, 2014). The expansion of the Trapeze industries appears to have been rapid, with a westward and northward spread occurring during the latter half of the 7th millennium (Marchand and Perrin, 2015). However, when compared to the dating of Medvedia Cave, the Castelnovian is in fact a later period. Based on these various syntheses, the initial hypothesis is that the Medvedia Cave artefacts represent the southernmost examples of this type of lithic insert point, typical of northern Mesolithic techno-complexes, especially Kunda in north-eastern Europe. This raises the question of cultural contacts and exchanges between these different areas.

Nevertheless, in the eastern region spanning the lower basins of the Danube and Dnieper, numerous additional Mesolithic entities have been discerned through the analysis of their lithic industries. Although there are some variations, these entities are collectively referred to as the Kukrek and Grebenyky cultures in south-western Ukraine (Telegin, 1987; Stanko and Kiosak, 2010). The Grebenyky culture is attested by a number of archaeological sites situated primarily in the vicinity of the Prut River and Inhulets. The flint industry is relatively homogeneous, comprising regular blades associated with Trapeze. Some cores exhibit narrow bladelets flaking, particularly at Grebenyky and Gyrzheve (Stanko and Kiosak, 2010). The Kukrek culture developed in a northward direction beyond the Black Sea (fig. 5). Based on the synthesis
of Stanko and Kiosak, it can be identified with the Anetivka culture in the region of the lower Buh (ibid.). The Kukrek technocomplex is defined by the presence of bone and antler points, probably also armed with backed bladelets and backed and truncated flint points (Telegin, 1982).

The lithic industry is characterised by the emergence of highly regular bladelets and conical bullet- or pencil-like cores. These are interpreted as the result of pressure flaking, with the products of this process not exceeding 8 mm in width (Kiosak, 2016, p. 134). The Grebenyky and Kukrek cultures are geographically overlapping and are considered to be partially contemporary. Indeed, certain sites, such as Myrne, present both types of assemblages (Stanko and Kiosak, 2010). The new AMS dating series conducted at the site have yielded dates contemporary with those obtained at Medvedia Cave, specifically the 8th millennium at Igren' 8 (also written Ihren 8 in the literature; Kiosak et al., 2023), Myrne, or even Lapsi 7 in the Crimea (Biagi and Kiosak, 2010). Additionally, slotted bone points with bladelet inserts are also known from these cultures (Telegin, 1987; Kiosak et al., 2022). However, based on the synthesis proposed by S.K. Kozlowski, the most common type corresponds to a single-slot point with inserted unretouched bladelets (Kozlowski, 1989, p. 438).

Although the "double slot" type has been documented, it appears to be less common. Nevertheless, there are examples of double-slotted bone points with a microblade still attached to one of the slots, such as the one from the Myrne site (Stanko, 1982, p. 51, Table XI, p. 3), and slotted bone points from the Ihren 8 (Igren' 8) site, which had one, two, or four slots according to the description (Telegin, 2002, p. 50; fig. 30). It must therefore be acknowledged that the evidence supports the conclusion that slotted points and pressure-knapped bladelets were present in the Grebenyky/Kukrek cultures of the 8th millennium. This finding allows then for the formulation of a second hypothesis regarding the origin of the Medvedia Cave artefacts.

## 5. Conclusion

The slotted osseous points from Medvedia Cave, with their typological features, the identification of the pressure technique used to produce the small bladelets, and direct dating to the 8th millennium BC, clearly indicate connections between eastern Slovakia and eastern and/or northern Mesolithic cultures. In view of the technological and stylistic comparisons, the geographical location of the finds gives rise to questions, given that the Kunda or Grebenyky/Kukrek cultures are several hundred kilometres from the site. Indeed, the site is practically equidistant from the respective areas known for these cultures. Any interpretation of this fact is, as yet, hypothetical, given that this part of Central Europe remains relatively poorly known for the Mesolithic. This point reflects, among other things, the considerable difficulty of locating sites of this period on the territory of Slovakia.

This raises the question of whether the anthropogenic remains found in Medvedia Cave represent a unique, very long-distance expedition undertaken by a few individuals (several hundred kilometres), or whether they indicate the presence of already settled populations that have not yet been fully detected by archaeological research in eastern Slovakia. It is only through the discovery of new elements and the undertaking of further archaeological excavations at sites that have not previously been the subject of study that we can begin to address these questions.

The principal novelty of this re-examination of the modest collection from Medvedia Cave is the identification and, for the first time in Slovakia and Central Europe, the dating of the
pressure flaking technique for the production of bladelets in this period. It is therefore
reasonable to posit that this technique was present at other sites in the region during the 8th
millennium BC. Indeed, the new identifications of the raw materials used for the bladelets
indicate a close regional source. This geographical area, situated at the crossroads between
Western and Eastern Europe, represents a pivotal zone for elucidating the evolution of the last
hunter-gatherer cultures. The Medvedia Cave may serve as a crucial reference point for
understanding the dissemination of the pressure flaking technique, particularly with regard to a
potential new diffusion route in the heart of continental Europe.

**Acknowledgement:** We would like to express our gratitude to Z. Miklíková-Bielichová (IA SAS) who re-discovered and provided zoological analysis of the bear skull, M. Cheben (IA SAS) for the determination of the raw material, A. Arpáš (IA SAS) and the director of the IA SAS, Dr. M. Ruttkay, who supported this research and allowed the access to the collection.

Affiliations

(1) CNRS, UMR 8068, TEMPS, MSH Mondes, 21 allée de l'université, 92023, Nanterre, Cedex, France, e-mail: pierre.allard@cnrs.fr (corresponding author); laurent.klaric@cnrs.fr

(2) University of Bordeaux, UMR 5199, PACEA, B2, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 33615, Pessac, France, e-mail: bibiana.hromadova@gmail.com

(3) Institute of Archaeology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2, 94921 Nitra, Slovakia, e-mail: adrian.nemergut@savba.sk

References

ALIX P., PELEGRIN J., DELOGE H. (1995) - Un débitage original de lamelles par pression au Magdalénien du Rocher-de-la-Caille (Loire, France), *Paléo*, 7, p. 187-199.

ALLARD P. (2017) - Variability of laminar debitage in the second Mesolithic and early Neolithic in the north of France (7th and 6th millennium BCE). *Journal of Lithic Studies, 4*, (2), p. 75-103. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v4i2.2538

AMBROS C., STRNAD M., ČEJKA J. (1990) - Prírodovedné expertízy nálezov z Medvedej jaskyne pri Ružíne. *Slovenská archeológia*, XXXVIII-1, p. 31-44.

BÁRTA J. (1957) - Pleistocénne piesočné duny pri Seredi a ich paleolitické a mezolitické osídlenie, *Slovenská Archeológia*, 5, p. 5-72.

BÁRTA J. (1959) - Mezolitické a neolitické kamenné nástroje z dún „Vŕšky“ pri Dolnej Strede, *Slovenská Archeológia*, 7, p. 241-259.

BÁRTA J. (1989) - Hunting of Brown Bears in the Mesolithic: Evidence from the Medvedia Cave near Ružín in Slovakia. In: Bonsall, C. (Ed.), *The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (Edinburgh 1989)*, John Donald Publishers, Edinburg. P. 456-460.

BÁRTA J. (1990) - Mezolitickí lovci v Medvedej jaskyni pri Ružíne, *Slovenská archeológia*
XXXVIII-1, p. 5-30.

BIAGI P., KIOSAK D. (2010) - The Mesolithic of the Northwestern Pontic Region. New AMS Dates for the Origin and Spread of the Blade and Trapeze Industries in Southeastern Europe, *Eurasia Antiqua*, 16, p. 21-41.

BINDER D. (1984) - Systèmes de débitage laminaire par pression: exemples chasséens provençaux. In: *Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 2, Economie du débitage laminaire*, CREP, Meudon, Paris, p. 71-94.

BINDER D., COLLINA C., GUILBERT R., PERRIN T., GARCIA PUCHOL O. (2012) - Pressure knapping blade production in the North-Western Mediterranean Region during the 7th millennium cal B.C. In P. Desrosiers, (Ed.), *The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: from Origin to Modern Experimentation*, Springer Verlag, New York, p. 199-218.

BURDUKIEWICZ J. (2005) - Microlithic Technology in the Stone Age. Mitekufat Haeven. *Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society*, p. 337-351. www.jstor.org/stable/23383568

CHEBEN I., CHEBEN M., NEMERGUT A. (2017) - Preliminary results of the recent excavation of a radiolarite mine area and its surrounding in Sedmerovec, *Litikum*, 5, p. 5-11.

CHEHMANA L., HOLZEM N., PELEGRIN J., BAZIN P. (2009-2010) - La fonction des pièces de La Bertonne : un problème en partie résolu, *Paléo*, 21, p. 5-102.

CLARK J.G.D. (1936) - *The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe; a Study of the Food-Gathering Peoples of Northern Europe during the Early Post-Glacial Period*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 318 p.

CRABTREE D. (1968) - Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades, *American Antiquity*, 33, 4, p. 446-478. doi:10.2307/278596

DAMLIEN H. (2016) - Eastern pioneers in westernmost territories? Current perspectives on Mesolithic hunter-gatherer large-scale interaction and migration within Northern Eurasia, *Quaternary International*, Volume 419, p. 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.02.023.

DESROSIERS P. M. (2012) - *The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making : From Origin to Modern Experimentation*. Springer, New York, 548 p.

ELLIOTT, B., LITTLE, A., NEEDHAM, A., LANGLEY, A. (2022) - Material and Sensory Experiences of Mesolithic Resinous Substances, *Cambridge Archaeological Journal*, p. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774322000300

GALIŃSKI T. (2013) - Typological, chronological and cultural verification of Pleistocene and Early Holocene bone and antler harpoons and point from the southern Baltic zone, *Przegląd Archeologiczny*, 61, p. 93-144.

GOMEZ COUTOULY Y.-A. (2011) - Industries lithiques à composante lamellaire par pression du Nord Pacifique de la fin du Pléistocène au début de l'Holocène : de la diffusion d'une technique en Extrême-Orient au peuplement initial du Nouveau Monde, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Nanterre.
HARTZ S., TERBERGER T., ZHILIN M. (2010) - New AMS-dates for the Upper Volga Mesolithic and the origin of microblade technology in Europe, *Quartär*, 57, p. 155-169.

INIZAN M.-L. (2012) - Pressure Debitage in the Old World: Forerunners, Researchers, Geopolitics – Handing on the Baton, *In* P. Desrosiers, (ed.), *The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: from Origin to Modern Experimentation*, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 11-42.

INIZAN, M.-L., REDURON-BALLINGER, M., ROCHE, H., TIXIER, J. (1999) - Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone, CREP Nanterre, 193 p.

KAMINSKÁ L. (2014) - *Old Slovakia 2. Paleolithic and Mesolithic*, Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Archaeological Institut of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Nitra, 366 p.

KAMINSKÁ L. (2021) - Le Mésolithique de Slovaquie, *Litikum - Journal of the Lithic Research Roundtable* 9, p. 15-26, https://doi.org/10.23898/litikuma0028

KIOSAK D. (2016) - Mesolithic “Heritage” and Neolithic in Southwest Ukraine, *In* R. Krauss, H. Floss, (Eds.), *Southeast Europe before Neolithisation*, Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 1070 “RessourcenKulturen”, Schloß Hohentübingen, p. 131-147.

KIOSAK D., KOTOVA N., RADCHENKO S., DE CAPITANI A., GOBET, E., MAKHORTYKH S., NIELSEN E., SZIDAT, S., TINNER W., TUBOLTSEV O., DZHOS V. (2022) - Chipped Stone Assemblage of the Layer B of the Kamyana Mohyla 1 Site (South-Eastern Ukraine) and the Issue of Kukrek in the North Meotic Steppe Region, *Open Archaeology*, 8, 1, p. 85-113. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0226

KIOSAK, D., NIELSEN, E., SZIDAT S., TINNER W. (2023) - Chronology of the Mesolithic ihren 8 site (Central Ukraine), *Archäologisches Korrespondezblatt*, 53, p. 137-151.

KOLTSOV L. V., ZHILIN, M. G. (1999) - Tanged point cultures in the Upper Volga Basin, *In* S. Kozłowski, Gurba J., Zaliznyak, L.L. (Eds.), *Tanged points cultures in Europe*, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, Lublin, p. 346-360.

KOZŁOWSKI S. K. (1989) - A Survey of Early Holocene Cultures of the Western Part of the Russian Plain. *In* C. Bonsall, C. (Ed.), *The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (Edinburgh 1989)*, John Donald Publishers, Edinburg, p. 424-441.

KOZŁOWSKI S. K. (2009) - *Thinking Mesolithic*, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 380 p.

LOŽEK V. (1973) - *Příroda ve čtvrtohorách*. Praha, 372 p.

MANNINEN M.A., ASHEICHYK V., JONUKS T. (2021) - Using Radiocarbon Dates and Tool Design Principles to Assess the Role of Composite Slotted Bone Tool Technology at the Intersection of Adaptation and Culture-History, *Journal of Archaeol Method Theory*, 28, p. 845-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-021-09517-7
MARCHAND, G., PERRIN, T. (2015) - Why this revolution? Explaining the major technical shift in Southwestern Europe during the 7th millennium cal. BC. *Quaternary International*, p. 73-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.059

MICHEL A. (2010) - *L'Aurignacien récent (post-ancien) dans le Sud-Ouest de la France : variabilité des productions lithiques. Révision taphonomique et techno-économique des sites de Caminade-Est, abri Pataud, Roc de Combe, Le Flageolet I, La Ferrassie et Combemenue.* Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Bordeaux, 600 p.

NEMERGUT A. (2020) - Najnovšie doklady mezolitického osídlenia na Hornej Orave. *In* J. Gancarski, (Ed.), *Epoka kamienia w Karpatach*. Muzeum Podkarpackie w Krośnie, Krosno, p. 83-104.

NEMERGUT A., SOJÁK M. (2022) - Ružín, skalný previs Miriama. http://archeol.sav.sk/files/Ruzin_2022.pdf

NEMERGUT, A., SOJÁK, M., HAJNALOVÁ, M., LISÁ, L. (in press) - Archeologický výskum previsu Miriama v Malej Lodine. *AVANS 2022*.

ORŁOWSKA J., OSIPOWICZ G. (2022) - Accuracy of the typological classifications of the Late Glacial and Early Holocene osseous projectile points according to the new AMS dates of selected artifacts from Poland, *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, 14, 8, p. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01483-1

OSIPOWICZ G., ORŁOWSKA J., BOSIAK M, MANNINEN M. A., TARGOWSKI, P., SOBIERAJ J. (2020) - Slotted bone point from Tłokowo – rewritten story of a unique artefact from Mesolithic Poland, *Praehistorische Zeitschrift*, 95, 2, p. 334-349. https://doi.org.inshs.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1515/pz-2020-0023

OSTRAUSKAS T. (2000) - Mesolithic Kunda culture: a glimpse from Lithuania: de temporibus antiquis- simis ad honorem Lembit Jaanits, *Muinasaja teadus*, 8, p. 167–180.

PELEGRIN J. (1988) - Débitage expérimental par pression : du plus petit au plus grand, *In* J. Tixier (Ed.), *Technologie préhistorique, Notes et Monographies Techniques du CRA*, 25, Edition du CNRS, Paris, p. 37-53.

PELEGRIN J. (2006) - Long blade technology in the Old World: an experimental approach and some archaeological results, *In* J. Apel, K. Knutsson (eds), *Skilled production and social reproduction: aspects of traditional stone-tool technologies: proceedings of a symposium in Uppsala, August 20-24, 2003*, Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, p. 37-69.

PELEGRIN J. (2012) - New Experimental Observations for the Characterization of Pressure Blade Production Techniques. *In* P. Desrosiers, (ed.), *The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: from Origin to Modern Experimentation*, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 465-500.

PERRIN T., BINDER D. (2014) - Le Mésolithique à trapèzes et la néolithisation de l'Europe sud-occidentale, *In* C. Manen, T. Perrin, J. Guilaine (eds.), *La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs*, Éditions Errance et Archives d'Écologie Préhistorique, Arles et Toulouse, p. 271-281.
PROSEK F. (1959) - Mesolitická obsidiánová industrie ze stanice Barca I, *Archeologické rozhledy*, 11, p. 145-148.

REIMER P., AUSTIN W., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BLACKWELL P., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUTZIN M., CHENG H. LAWRENCE EDWARDS R., FRIEDRICH M., GROOTES P. M., GUIDERSON T. P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T. J., HOGG A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MANNING S. W., MUSCHELER R., PALMER J. G., PEARSON C., VAN DER PLICHT J., REIMER R. W., RICHARDS D. A., MARIAN SCOTT E., SOUTHON J. R., TURNEY C. S. M., WACKER L., ADOLPHI F., BÜNTGEN U., CAPANO M., FAHRNI S. M., FOGTMANN-SCHUZ A., FRIEDRICH R., KÖHLER P., KUDSK S., MIYAKE F., OLSEN J., REINIG F., SAKAMOTO M., SOOKDEO A., TALAMO S. (2020) - The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP), *Radiocarbon*, **62**, 4, p. 725-757. doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.41

SCHILD R., TOBOLSKI K., KUBIAK-MARTENS L., BRATLUND B., EICHER U., CALDERONI G., MAKOWIECKI D., PAZDUR A., PAZDUR M. M., SCHWEINGRUBER F. H., VAN NEER W., WINIARSKA-KABACIŃSKA M., ŽUREK S. (2003) - Harvesting pike at Tłokowo, In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A. Åkerlund (eds.), *Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000*, Oxbow Books, Oxford, p. 149-155.

SOROKIN A.N. (2013) - Stoyanka i mogilnik Minino 2 v Podmoskovie: kostyanoi i rogovoi inventar. Moskva, IA RAN. http://www.archaeolog.ru/media/books_2013/Sorokin.pdf

SØRENSEN, M., RANKAMA, T., KANKAAPÄÄ, J., KNUTSSON, K., KNUTSSON, H., MELVOLD, S., ERIKSEN, B.V., GLØRSTAD, H. (2013) - The first eastern migrations of people and knowledge into Scandinavia: evidence from studies of Mesolithic technology, 9-8 millennium BC, *Norwegian Archaeological Review*, p. 19-56.

STANKO, V.N. (1982) - *Mirnoe. Problema mezolita stepej Severnogo Prichenomoria* [Mirne. The problem of the mesolithic steppe of Northern Prichernomoria], Naukova Dumka, Kyiv, 173 p.

STANKO V. N., KIOSAK D. (2010) - The Late Mesolithic Settlement of South-western Ukraine, *Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia*, 17, p. 27-100.

SULGOSTOWSKA Z. (1999) - Final palaeolithic Masovian Cycle and mesolithic kunda culture relations, In S. Kozłowski, Gurba J., Zaliznyak, L.L. (eds.), *Tanged points cultures in Europe*, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, Lublin, p. 85-92.

SVOBODA J. (2008) - The Mesolithic of the Middle Danube and Upper Elbe Rivers, In G. Bailey, P. Spikins, P. (eds.), *Mesolithic Europe*, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 221-237.

TELEGIN D. J. (1987) - Neolithic Cultures of the Ukraine and Adjacent Areas and Their Chronology, *Journal of World Prehistory* 1/3, p. 307-331.
TELEGIN, D. J. (2002) - *Igren'ske poselennia na Podniproviji ta problema zhytlobuduvannia v mezoliti Shidnoji Evropy*, Shliakh, Luhans'k.

VALDE-NOWAK P., SOJÁK M. (2010) - Contribution to the Mesolithic in the Slovak Carpathians, *Slovenská archeológia*, 58, p. 1-12.

ZHILIN, M. G. & MATISKAINEN, H. (2003) - Deep in Russia, deep in the bog. Excavations at the Mesolithic sites Stanovoje 4 and Sakhtysh 14, Upper Volga region. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A. Åkerlund (eds.), *Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000*, Oxbow Books, Oxford, p. 694-702.

ZHILIN M.G. (2011) - Kostyanye nakonechniki strel v mezolite lesnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy. In: Predmety vooruzhenia i iskusstva iz kosti v drevnykh kulturakh Severnoi Evrazii (tekhnologicheskyi i funktsionalnyi aspekty), *Zamyatninskyi sbornik*, 2, p. 113-152.

ZHILIN M., RUEV V. (2025) - Use-wear traces on Mesolithic slotted bone arrowheads from the Volga-Oka interfluve, European Russia, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, Volume 61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104921.

List of figures
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Fig. 1: Location of Medvedia Cave in Europe and Slovakia (a) and main Slovak Mesolithic sites (1: Sered'-Mačianske vŕšky, 2: Miriama rock shelter 3: Medvedia cave; 4: Košice-Barca I). Medvedia cave map (b) and excavation map of the Chapel (c). After Barta 1990, modified. (Infographie, A. Nemergut et L. Klaric). Please note that the information reproduced from Barta's publication is exhaustive. Discrepancies or missing captions are reproduced as they appear in the original publication.

Fig.1 : Localisation de la grotte Medvedia en Europe et en Slovaquie (a) et principaux sites mésolithiques de Slovaquie (1: Sered'-Mačianske vŕšky, 2: Miriama rock shelter 3: Medvedia cave; 4: Košice-Barca I). Plan de la grotte Medvedia (b) et de la zone de fouille de la “Chapelle” (c). D'après Barta 1990, modifié. (Infographie, A. Nemergut et L. Klaric). Noter que les informations issues de Barta 1990 sont reproduites à l'identique. Les divergences ou les légendes manquantes sont reproduites telles qu'elles apparaissent dans la publication originale.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Obsidian artefacts found in Medvedia Cave; a-b: Holocene period; c: alleged Pleistocene period (after Bárta, 1990 modified).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 2 : Objets en obsidienne trouvés dans la grotte de Medvedia ; a-b : période holocène ; c : période présumée pléistocène (d'après Bárta, 1990 modifié).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Fig. 3: Medvedia cave. The slotted points, lithic bladelets and raw material (scan of bone points A. Arpáš; macro-photography of bladelets, osseous point extremity and infography L. Klaric; photo Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, Slovak Academy of Sciences).

Fig. 3 : Grotte Medvedia. Les pointes en os rainurées, les lamelles et la matière première (scan des pointes en os A. Arpáš ; macrophotographie des lamelles, de l'extrémité de la point osseuse et infographie L. Klaric ; photo Archives de l'Institut d'archéologie, Académie slovaque des sciences).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Graphic results of the 14C dates of Medvedia Cave (using OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 4 : Résultats graphiques des datations C14 de la grotte Medvedia (en utilisant OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021) ; r:5 Données atmosphériques de Reimer et al., 2020).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5: Location of Medvedia Cave in Europe and the areas of main Mesolithic cultural techno-complexes mentioned in the text (infography L. Klaric).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 5 : Localisation de la grotte Medvedia en Europe et zones des principaux techno-complexes culturels mésolithiques mentionnés dans le texte (infographie L. Klaric).</caption>
Stratigraphic units

(A) an average 8 cm thick, hard, dried, white-yellow, platy, fine-grained sinter;

(B) an average 10 cm thick platy fine-grained yellow sinter;

(C) variable thickness of soft fine-grained greasy yellowish-white sinter with a concentration of palaeontological and archaeological material and isolated charcoal;

(D) interbeds of very soft white crumbly sinter;

(E) underlying dark brown greasy clay with clasts and fragments of rounded limestone clasts.

Table 1. Stratigraphic units of the test-pit in the “Chapel” (after Barta 1990: 11, 12 and Fig. 11). Our translation from Slovak.

Tableau 1. Unités stratigraphiques du sondage de la « Chapelle » (after Barta 1990 : 11, 12 et Fig. 11). Traduction du slovaque par les auteurs.

<table><thead><tr><th>Lab No.</th><th>Material</th><th>Layer</th><th>Age <sup>14</sup>C (BP)</th><th>Error</th><th>N</th><th>C</th><th>% coll.</th><th>Calibrated age unmoddeled (BC/AD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Poz-907055</td><td rowspan="2">Bear skull</td><td rowspan="2">C</td><td rowspan="2">8580</td><td rowspan="2">± 50</td><td rowspan="2">2.5 %</td><td rowspan="2">14.8 %</td><td rowspan="2">7.1 %</td><td><strong>68.3 % probability</strong><br>7340 - 7171 BC (57.1 %)<br>7164 - 7140 BC (6.1 %)<br>7101 - 7083 BC (5.0 %)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>95.4 % probability</strong><br>7640 - 7400 BC (9.8 %)<br>7376 - 7072 BC (85.6 %)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Poz-907082</td><td rowspan="2">Osseous point fragment</td><td rowspan="2">C</td><td rowspan="2">8230</td><td rowspan="2">± 60</td><td rowspan="2">0.6 %</td><td rowspan="2">5.7 %</td><td rowspan="2">3.4 %</td><td><strong>68.3 % probability</strong><br>7648 - 7627 BC (8.4 %)<br>7608 - 7571 BC (44.0 %)<br>7566 - 7538 BC (15.8 %)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>95.4 % probability</strong><br>7728 - 7532 BC (95.4 %)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table. 2: Results of 14C dates. * OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2020).

Tableau. 2 : Résultats des datations C14. * OxCal v.4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021) ; r:5 Données atmosphériques de Reimer et al. (2020).